Assembly Standing Committee on Public Safety

One, if you sit in the back, I can't see you and call you, so you can come and testify if you're here to present a Bill. But two, there's always seating in the front for you to sit. And as our tradition, we try to go in file order. But if you are here and the author isn't here, we will go out of file order and take you because you had the courtesy to be here on time or ahead of time. So I believe we have a quorum. Madam Secretary, could you call the roll

[Roll Call]

Thank you. So this is our first meeting. Want to welcome the new Members that are here and our new Vice Chair, Assembly Member Juan Alanis. Alanis. We want to make sure we pronounce it right. So let's begin with our housekeeping items first. Good morning. I would like to welcome and also Ms. Ortega and Mr. Zbu.... I'm having a memory lapse this morning. Let's begin with our housekeeping items first. Good morning.

I would like to welcome everyone to the first Committee hearing of the Assembly Public Safety Committee for 202324 legislative session. I will also like to welcome the returning Members, Assembly Members Bonta Bryant and Lackey. And obviously, I just welcomed our new Members. Next we have the adoption of the rules. All the rules have been handed out to Members. Hopefully edit time to peruse them. And I'm looking for a motion to accept the rule. So moved. And a second. Thank you. Call the roll. Madam Secretary.

[Roll Call]

Okay, thank you. And I'm looking for. The following items were pulled by the author and are off calendar for today. That's item number 10, AB 97 Rodriguez, pulled by the author. In addition, we have a proposed consent calendar where we have two items. Item number two, AB 21, Gibson peace officers training. And item number six, AB 67, Muratsuchi Homeless Courts pilot program. These are consent calendars. Entertain a motion for approval. I need a second. Thank you.

[Roll Call]

Consent calendars adopted. We'll now go to item number one. AB 18. Joe Patterson. Drug conviction advisement requires the court to advise the defendant conviction of specified crimes. I'm sorry it's been so long. So what's sign in order? I apologize, Ms. Davies. And I apologize to the others. I forgot. We go in sign-in order. It's been that long. We're going back to the old ways, go back to the future. So, Ms. Davies, you may come first. Item number seven. AB 76 Davies. Money laundering.

I'm assuming these are on now. I don't need to touch anything.

Okay, great.

We can hear you.

Yes.

All right.

Thank you, Mr. Chair Members. Today I'm here to present AB 76. I first want to thank Committee staff for working with my staff and stakeholders on this measure. Under current law, the criminal offense of money laundering requires a transaction involving monetary instruments greater than $5,000 through a financial institution over a specified period of time. However, the current definition of a monetary instrument does not account for the emergence of financial transactions involving virtual assets, such as a nonfungible token, NFT and cryptocurrency via blockchain technology.

The transaction in the traditional financial system involves a regulated intermediary, such as a licensed bank or broker. But transactions involving NFTs and cryptocurrency can occur without third-party oversight or knowledge of any participant's identity using blockchain technology. AB 76 is a common sense measure to close the digital asset loophole in California's anti money laundering provisions by including blockchain enabled transactions involving virtual assets.

It should be noted that, as we have seen in a rise in drug and human trafficking, organizations are using this type of currency to escape detection and continue their illegal activity in the underground markets, as described by a 2021 Government Accountable Office GAO report, Polaris, a nonprofit organization knowledgeable about human trafficking, found that virtual currency was the second most commonly accepted payment method on 40 platforms in the online commercial sex market, which has been used to facilitate sex trafficking.

With me here to testify in support are Tony Moore, a detective in the fraud and Cyber Bureau of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, and Erin West, a deputy District Attorney in the high technology Crime unit of the Santa Clara County District Attorney's office. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. And the witnesses have a total of five minutes where the way you want to split it up. Whenever you're ready, you can begin.

Hello.

All right.

Good morning, Assembly Members chair Jones-Sawyer, fellow Members of the Public Safety Committee. My name is Anthony Moore. I'm a detective and a 25-year veteran of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, where I am currently assigned to the Fraud and Cybercrimes Bureau, where I investigate cyber-related crimes, including numerous cases involving cryptocurrency and money laundering.

I am also a federal task force officer with the Federal Bureau of Investigations, Los Angeles Cyber Task Force, and I've also been a Member of the Human Trafficking Task Force and Internet Crimes against Children Task Force. Now, I'm here today in support of Assembly Bill 76, introduced by Assemblymember Davies. Now, there are many reasons why I stand in support of this bill. Some are for professional reasons, but based on my training experience, which I'll share with you in a moment.

But the more important reason why I'm here and why I'm compelled to speak before you today is because of the victims. It are the victims that are impacted by cryptocurrency-related crime. Now, those that may oppose this bill might say that cyber and cryptocurrency is a victimless crime, or that this bill might impose further restrictions and stifle innovation. But I'm here to tell you that couldn't be further from the truth.

Now, since 2011, I've been investigating cyber and cryptocurrency related crimes and also educating law enforcement and civilian personnel on methods and practices in investigating these types of crimes. Having trained over 4500 law enforcement and civilian personnel from 150 different agencies in five countries, I've witnessed the cyber and cryptocurrency landscape change. Now, I'll tell you that I am an early adopter of bitcoin. Okay?

I believe in what it can provide in cryptocurrencies and what it can provide to communities. However, in my investigations, nothing's been more impactful than witnessing the financial victimization and, frankly, the financial warfare that's being waged on California residents and American people. Now, I just want to highlight just a few of my cases, if I could. In 2019, an individual named Pedro suffered multiple injuries after being involved in a traffic collision.

After receiving a significant settlement as a result of that traffic collision, he deposited those funds in his bank. A few weeks later, he got a call from a scammer online saying that they were with the US Marshals and they were a federal agent and they informed Pedro that all the funds in his bank needed to be transferred out and sent to the US Marshals because his bank account was under investigation.

Threatened by the scammer, and believing that the call was true, he was ordered by that scammer to go to his bank, withdraw all his funds, and send it to the scammer via cryptocurrency after visiting numerous ATM machines. Pedro lost over $80,000 in that fraud. And my investigation revealed that the ATM owner, who was operating out of India, was responsible for laundering my victim's funds through his crypto ATM machines.

My course of filing was only to use the state's currently inadequate money laundering laws with regards to cryptocurrency in 2021. Another victim, I'll call Lily.

You're at the half minute mark, so hopefully you leave some time, okay?

Absolutely. The other one I wanted to mention was an individual named Lily who was the victim of pig butchering. It's called pig butchering. I'll let you talk about that.

Bring the mic closer to you.

Good morning, Assembly Chairperson Jones-Sawyer and the rest of the Committee Members. My name is Erin West. I'm a deputy district attorney in Santa Clara County, California. I work on a high-tech task force, and for the past eight months, we have been deluged with a crime called pig butchering.

If you haven't heard of it, you certainly will have, because I'm sure that at least someone sitting on this block today has received what appears to be a strange text that's like, hey, can I bring my dog in for grooming? Or just a random text on your phone. That is part of a highly manipulative crime that is occurring out of Southeast Asia and is attacking our California citizens. What happens is that very often elderly people respond to that, and begin a friendship with the scammer.

That is a long con. It can last up to a month with the scammer showing them an enviable lifestyle, showing them flashy trips, and saying, hey, I was able to afford this because I invest in cryptocurrency. Let me show you how. And after developing that trusted relationship, the victims, our California victims that Tony Moore and I see on a daily basis, then invest their money, and they invest it into a fake platform that is an absolute fallacy.

And they see their money go up and up, and as they see their money increase in value, they then liquidate children's college funds. They liquidate 401ks, and when they try to take that money out, that's when the scammer says. Am I out of time? Okay.

Anyway, I hope you will vote in favor of this bill, which closes a significant loophole.

Thank you. Now we'll hear from other witnesses in support. Name and organization, please.

Kim Stone. Stone Advocacy on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association, in support.

Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair. Members Ryan Sherman with the Riverside Sheriff Association in support. Also the police officer associations of Arcadia, Burbank, Claremont, Corona, Culver City, Fullerton, Inglewood, Newport Beach, Pomona, Palace Verdes, Riverside, Santa Ana and Upland, all in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in support? Now we'll hear from witnesses in opposition. Good to you. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Whenever you're ready, you have five minutes.

Chair Jones-Sawyer and Committee Members, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. We are opposed unless amended position on AB 76. I'm Jon Potter. I'm here for Dapper Labs and So Rare. Dapper and so rare produce and sell NFTs in partnership with the National Football League, the NBA, Major League Baseball, Major League Soccer, the players associations, record labels, entertainment brands, artists, performing artists, ticketing companies and thousands of individual creators. NFTs are non fungible tokens, which is another way of saying unique digital assets.

NFTs are on the blockchain, but the simple truth is that dapper and Soraya sell digital baseball cards, digital tickets, unique videos and other modern day versions of collectible teacups and movie posters that otherwise you would buy at a flea market or on Ebay. NFTs'special value is their uniqueness and the verifiable authenticity of the underlying digital assets. Without these assets, NFTs and blockchain are just technologies like pipes and plumbing.

Just as government regulates pipes and plumbing based on their specific utility and the risk associated with the liquids they carry, such as gasoline, water or beer. That's how money laundering laws should work. They should regulate money, currency and financial products that are currency substitutes and have currencylike utility and risks. For decades, California's antimoney laundering statute has been about currency checks, securities, jewels and other traditional money substitutes. It's logical, and we heard testimony, good testimony, that AB 76 extends the monetary definition to digital or cryptocurrency.

But extending the monetary instrument definition to include digital baseball cards NFTs is illogical. Let me be perfectly clear. The two leading producers and issuers of NFTs, which partner with the world's greatest athletes, artists, teams, leagues and producers, are not aware of a single instance of NFTs substituting for money, currency, securities, payments or investments. It is righteous to include cryptocurrency in the anti money laundering statute, but there's no basis for including nfts. You might ask why this matters, and the answer is simple.

If NFTs are branded as money laundering technology, it creates reputational harm. It imposes disproportionate compliance burdens and inhibits both investors and consumers. That's why Dapper Labs, and So Rare, respectfully request that this Bill be amended so the definition of monetary instrument does not include nfts because it simply doesn't fit. We appreciate that money laundering laws should not have a digital loophole.

We don't think the current law has a digital loophole, but any loophole that exists can be addressed by extending virtual currency, securities and investment products into the digital alternative without including digital art and digital baseball cards. Thank you for your consideration, and I'm looking forward to any questions.

Okay, any other witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Bring it back to Committee. Ms. Bonta.

Thank you, Ms. Davies, for bringing forward this measure. And I think it's actually going to be very helpful to prevent the kind of fraud that we see. I did have a question just to follow up on the definition or inclusion of non monetary versus monetary nfts and whether you open to accepting the US treasury's definition of NFT. Certainly. If I may, I would like to defer to my witness, Tony, if you want to come up. Great. Thank you.

Something, if I understand the question correctly, is whether or not it was monetary or non monetary with regards to NFT.

And also whether you'd be willing to accept the definition in the US treasuries under the US treasury's analysis.

Well, what I would say is that NFTs in General could be used as a monetary situation. It could be used to put forth a loan. And even I can even say even currently, now one of the biggest trading markets within the NFT is decentralized, meaning that there's no central authority that can either be responsible for KYC or information, know your customer information or banking laws. They're kind of outside that whole realm because they're decentralized. So I would say that. I wouldn't agree with that.

I would say that it could be used as a monetary because it could be used as a down payment for a deposit or a loan or whatever the case may be. I can trade an NFT for another cryptocurrency.

And do you have instances of that actually happening with NFTS?

I have a victim that has lost over $2 million in an NFT scam. This was my fourth NFT investigation where a victim was scammed out of NFTs. As a result of those NFTs. They were taken and ultimately sold or traded in this particular sense in the NFT realm. And it's been traded over and over and over again in what is known as wash trading. And wash trading just basically means a person that buys or the person that's selling NFT is also the person that's buying.

And by doing that and doing that trade, they're making profit or they're fictitiously pumping up the price so that an unsuspected buyer will get an NFT at a higher value. In addition to that, I've seen the scammer take the NFT and also put it forth for a loan on another token, on another platform so it can be used as a monetary instrument. Absolutely.

Thank you. Any other questions? Vice Chair Lackey?

Yeah, I have to admit, I never even heard what an NFT was before the last. It makes me feel very old. But I think it's a very legitimate discussion point. And I think what Assembly Member Bonta brought up is a very legitimate question. And I would like to give the opposition a chance to address why non fungible tokens should be considered a monetary instrument at all.

Because I think it's a very pivotal question, and I think you have a unique situation that deserves discussion. So would you address that, please?

Thank you. Assemblyman, I'd like to start by suggesting that. Is it detective, Detective Moore, what Detective Moore was speaking of is garden variety fraud. Right. The pump and dump can be done with Air Jordans. It can be done with Taylor Swift tickets or other concert tickets.

It's nothing unique to the asset being digital, and it doesn't make the product that is the subject of the pump and dump or the other fraudulent thing. Money laundering. Money laundering is about currency and currency substitutes. If the question is it is something of value, houses are of value. Taylor Swift tickets are a value. Anything of value can be used in barter or in a pump and dump scandal or in garden variety fraud.

And so the fact that it's on the blockchain doesn't seem to make anything right. We have a digital wallet that is a payment mechanism that absolutely, if somebody is putting $100,000 in a digital wallet, we probably need to know who they are. But that's different than the NFT itself, which is art. And we don't have that painting up there behind the Chairman is art also. And that doesn't make it a monetary instrument. Right. The fact that the art is digital doesn't make it a monetary instrument.

Thank you. I think that this discussion is worthy to have further evaluation. I'm certainly going to support this measure, but I would hope that the author would work with these folks because it seems like a very legitimate discussion point.

Yes, go ahead. I just want to clarify that AB 76 does not regulate the NFTs except to prohibit their knowing use in illicit finance. To claim that digital baseball cards can't be a financial instrument because they have no investment purpose isn't consistent with the fact that they can be bought, sold, and traded same as a regular baseball card.

If I can add to that briefly, too, what I want to say is that what he's presenting with regards to NFTs and baseball cards and those things, we're looking to the future. NFTs can be more than just a painting. It can be a house. It can be a deed. You can sell a car with it. The idea of ERC 721, which is the protocol for that particular thing, can be anything. We make it.

So by having this Committee and passing this Bill, we're thinking forward towards the future on how possibly this NFT could be used. And ringing that in.

Okay, any other questions or comments? Thank you. Thank you. And you may close, Ms. Davies. You may close.

Thank you. That statement, I respectfully ask for an aye.

I need a motion and a second. Okay, so the chair is recommending an aye. I'm about to show my age, too, but this is a very interesting conversation. It opened our eyes to probably some things we never thought of. And I would like for the conversation to continue. And I think we need to flush out some of the things that was brought up by the opposition because quite frankly, I'm have to go back and talk to my 20 year old to ask him, does this make sense? So, chair is recommending aye. And as we move forward, we can have further conversation.

[Roll Call]

That measure passes. Thank you. And then file order. Assembly Member Ta signing order I'm sorry. Signing Assembly Member Ta. AB 27. Item number three, sentencing firearm enhancements.

Good morning, chair Sawyer and Members, I'm here to present AB 27 with the firearms sentence enhancement. First, I would like to thank the Committee staff for their well-written analysis and would like to add that California Association of Highway Patrolmen also in support of this measure.

Crime is non-partisan and my fellow Legislator on board, Salib IO, have agreed that it's imperative that we deal with firearms-related crime. This Bill does that by simply giving justice the discretion to allow firearm enhancement when it is in the interest of justice. Current law give way to entire list of mitigating circumstances used to dismiss criminal enhancement. This has resulted in the de facto and requirement to automatically dismiss firearm-related enhancement when a firearm is issued during the Commission of a felony.

AB 27 seek to return the discretion afforded to justice under Penal Code Section 138085 to include firearms-related enhancement for the use of firearm during the Commission of a felony by removing the near automatic exemption from Section 1385. Opponent of AB 27 have stated that this measure will eliminate just discretion when applying firearm-related enhancement. However, the truth is exact opposite. Judges will retain their full discretion without the added push to automatically dismiss such enhancement.

And a Committee analysis make clear that AB 27 does precisely that. My intent is in no way to eliminate just discretion, but to ensure that appropriate enhancement applied when the felony is committed while using a firearm. I welcome the Committee input in achieving this goal. I ask my colleague to please follow to their commitment to ending gun violence by voting, I. I'd like to introduce my two witnesses in support. Casey Newton with the Sacramento District Attorney's Office and Ryan Sherman with the Riverside Sheriff Association. Thank you so much.

Thank you, Assemblyman Ta, thank you for your testimony. You have five minutes, both of you. Mr. Sherman is aware of the time limit, so give him some time to talk, okay?

I will. I'm sure he'll keep me honest. Thank you, Chairman and Members of the Committee, for allowing me an opportunity to speak on behalf of this Bill. My name is Casey Newton. I'm a deputy District Attorney here in Sacramento. I supervise our gang and violent crime. Thank you.

I supervise our gang and violent crime. I do not sit, I'm not a first responder, so I don't deal with victims of gun crimes at the scene. But I'm right behind. That's reserved for our law enforcement. But I do sit with the victim's families. I sit with them in rooms after their loved ones have been hurt or lost and explain to them why we will do whatever we can to prosecute cases justly and involving just, not excessive, punishment that fits the crime.

And gun enhancements are a critical tool to help provide justice to victims in California. Our message should be clear, which is use a gun in a violent crime and suffer the maximum consequences. Those consequences are neither excessive or unjust. When told to a family, when sitting in a room with a family, describing to them why some person may or may not be let out of prison after using a gun crime.

Several years ago, I prosecuted a case with a gang member who shared nothing more than a nasty glance with another person, decided to take out a gun, follow that person down an alleyway, and shoot into a crowd of people. There were seven people, one of which lost an eye, one of which had to have a foot of his intestine removed. The idea that that individual shouldn't suffer the consequence of a gun use enhancement is frankly absurd. That's why we need these gun enhancements.

Defendants are increasingly using guns to commit violent crime. That is not a secret or a surprise here in our capital city. Sacramento has increased a rash of gun violence, including right here in downtown Sacramento. We're all aware of those incidents. Downtown Sacramento should not be littered with shell casings, but it is, and we have to act to stop that use. How often are we learning about individuals using firearms in crimes that, number one, shouldn't have had them at all? All the time.

Firearms that are illegal, all the time. The way to combat that rash of violence is by simple, simply imposing the punishments that the Legislature has deemed appropriate in these cases. In Sacramento County alone in 2022, there were 112 homicides. 84 of those involved the use of a firearm. I'm not super fantastic at math. That's why I'm an attorney, but that's straight up, 75%. So gun crimes are prolific. And it's not gun crimes, I don't like that term. It's people using guns in crime. The people we prosecute, we don't prosecute the guns. We prosecute the people. They have to be held accountable.

And what I'll say in closing is, every one of these resentencing hearings that we go through after a conviction, after a jury has found that a particular defendant has used a gun in a crime, after that determination has been made, every one of these hearings, these gun resentencing hearings, retraumatizes the families of the victims and the victims themselves. Where I have to tell them we're going to court again to try to argue to a judge why the enhancement should be imposed. Thank you very much for your time.

Okay, Mr. Wright.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members. Ryan Sherman with the Riverside Sheriff Association and a handful of other law enforcement associations around the state. Our Members are appreciative of the efforts this Legislature has made in the past to restrict the lawful ability of certain persons to own or possess firearms, including convicted violent felons. Our Members have supported most of these bills that have sought to expand GVROs and the armed prohibited persons list.

Unfortunately, criminals don't follow these laws, and they continue to illegally obtain firearms and use them against law abiding persons and even against California's sworn peace officers. In just the last two months, two Riverside County deputies and one Selma police officer were shot to death by repeat offenders who were illegally possessing firearms. These criminals broke the law by possessing firearms before they broke the law again and killed three cops. Something more impactful needs to be done to protect our Members and the public.

We support the goal of AB 27, to better empower the courts with the discretion to determine if additional incarceration for felons who commit violent firearm offenses is appropriate. Opponents have made specious claims about the deterrent effect and the public safety benefits of increased prison sentences for repeat violent offenders. However, when it comes to incarceration and the safety of the public, one inescapable fact cannot be controverted. Repeat violent and armed offenders are 100% deterred from reoffending while they are incarcerated.

Not one single new innocent victim will be created while these repeat offenders are locked up. This is a specific deterrence, and it is 100% effective. For these reasons, we support AB 27 and respectfully request an I vote.

Thank you. Any other in support?

Good morning Mr. Chair and Members. Matthew Siverling, on behalf of the California Peace Officers Association and the Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs, in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Kim Stone, Stone advocacy on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association, in support.

Thank you.

Mr. Chairman and Members. Carl London, on behalf of Crime Victims United, also in support.

Thank you, sir.

Audrey Ratajczak from Cruise Strategies on behalf of the Orange County District Attorney's office, in support.

Thank you. Now we'll hear from any witnesses in opposition. Could you? And you two have five minutes, whatever way you want to divide that time.

Thank you.

You've been here before. We have a newbie, but you've been here before, so.

I've been here before in spirit.

We have a veteran.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. My name is Carmen Nicole Cox, and I'm the Director of government affairs at ACLU Cal Action. I am here representing the organization today, and we are respectfully but regrettably opposed to AB 27. While we share the author's goal of reducing gun violence, we do not believe AB 27 will accomplish that goal. Although people will serve longer prison sentences, this will not increase deterrence nor meaningfully prevent crime by incapacitation.

Research has shown that to the extent criminal laws deter crime, it is the certainty of punishment, as opposed to the severity of punishment that serves a deterrent value. The National Institute of Justice has found increasing punishment is not only ineffective, it may actually exacerbate recidivism and reduce public safety. Relatedly, history has conclusively shown that enhancements increase racial disparities and drive over-incarceration, thus aggravating the root causes of crime.

This is why ACLU California Action sponsored Senate Bill 620 in 2017, to grant the court's discretion when it is in the interest of justice to strike a firearm-related enhancement. AB 27 amends Penal Code section 1385 to remove discretion, even though there is no indication that judges have abused this discretion. When we strip judges of discretion, we efficiently facilitate prison overcrowding, an injustice that will be disproportionately experienced by black, American Indian, and Latinx men, as well as LGBTQIA people.

And while prison overcrowding does not make our communities safer, it does result in inhumane prison conditions, cost taxpayers millions of dollars in litigation, and stymies rehabilitation, because it offers no public safety benefit. ACLU Cal action is in opposition to AB 27.

Thank you. Next.

Good morning, My name is Margo George, and I'm here on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association in opposition to AB 27. Just two years ago, SB 81 was signed into law, which attempted to give judges guided discretion and enacted a number of factors that judges should consider in exercising their discretion. But unlike what the proponents of AB 27 mistakenly contend, the statute did not require the sentencing court to endanger public safety. And in fact, just Friday, last Friday, the courts again said no.

The Legislature did not enact legislation endangering public safety. They had no trouble concluding that a trial court is not required to dismiss the enhancement if it would endanger public safety. And they said, you don't even get to the list of the factors to consider in terms of deciding whether or not to dismiss the enhancement if it would endanger public safety. And that means that the likelihood of the dismissal of the enhancement would result in physical injury or other serious danger to others.

In other words, only if the court does not find that dismissal of the enhancement would endanger public safety should it consider dismissing the enhancement. So I would also echo the comments of my colleague from the ACLU, and we respectfully ask for your no vote on AB 27.

Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in opposition? Name and organization.

Danica Rodarmel, on behalf of initiate justice in the San Francisco Public Defender's office, in opposition.

Thank you.

Good morning. Ignacio Hernandez, on behalf of the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice Statewide Association of Criminal Defense attorneys, in opposition.

Thank you.

Thanh Tran, on behalf of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, in Opposition.

Thank you. Any other witnesses? In opposition? Now we'll bring it back to Committee for any questions or statements. Mr. Lackey?

Yeah, I think what's a debate here, to some degree, is the standard of proof that this Bill is addressing, and the standard of proof is quite high. And this Bill still gives judicial discretion, unlike it indicates in the Committee's assessment, indicating that it requires dismissal. I think what we're trying to do is balance the scales of proof in these very very ugly circumstances, where a weapon has been used in a way that almost even shocks the conscience.

But I think what this is trying to do is bring a balance to this peace, because, as was indicated by the opposition, the statute that was added by Senator Skinner in the language says that there must be, as it stands right now, "proof of the presence of these circumstances weighs greatly in favor of dismissing the enhancement, unless the court finds that dismissal of the enhancement would endanger public safety."

And then it goes on to say "endanger public safety means there's a likelihood that the dismissal of the enhancement would result in physical injury or serious danger." That's a very, very high standard, and I think that's unfair, and I think it does not work in the balance of justice. And so I'll be supporting this measure.

Thank you. And any other comments? You may close. You gave me that quirk look.

Well, since it's our first hearing, no, I think what was attempted to be dealt with previously was the question of whether enhancements at all increase public safety. Right, and there's some evidence to suggest that longer sentences actually have an adverse effect on when people come home, back to the community and their likelihood of re-encountering the criminal legal system. Regardless of that, the Bill that Skinner introduced and passed several years back again, does not require that you dismiss a firearm enhancement.

It doesn't get rid of firearm enhancements. It only provides that in the furtherance of justice, if a court finds that to be the case, that it can be dismissed. Just the enhancement part, you will still be charged with a serious firearms felony. And so, for those reasons, I will be supporting the chair's recommendation today.

Thank you. Any other comments? And I thank you for bringing this, I understand why you brought it. And this is mainly for the freshmen. I started on this Committee in 2012, and in 2012, judges had no discretion. It was mandatory minimum, which filled our prisons to an unhealthy number. We then, me included, decide to balance everything by giving judges discretion. At the time, we were really uneasy about giving judges discretion, and we weren't sure that judges who had practiced for decades about metting out the harshest penalties that they could change. Over the last, you know this is my 10th year going to my 11th, over the last few years.

I now realize what we started back then to even things and give judges more discretion was correct. And the bills that Senator Skinner put forth and others let me know that judges will look at an individual and make the determination. Look, law enforcement has a job to capture people. The DAs have a job to prosecute people. It's the judge that has the job of actually determining what that sentence is. And they have that discretion now. They need to continue to have that discretion.

We should not automatically try to push it one way or the other. We may be at a good point. I feel more comfortable about judges now than I ever did before. There are probably still some judges that still over prosecute, but it's not as bad as before where it seemed like 100% of them did it. Unfortunately, from my years of experience, it tells me that this is not the way to go.

I understand where you're trying to go, but respectfully, you're going to have to ask for a no vote. Based on my years of experience of being on this Committee and how the criminal justice system has changed, and how we're doing better with rehabilitation, how we're doing better with not just locking up and throwing away the key and treating people as if we should never help them. There's a motion and a second on.

On AB 27 by Senator Ta. A motion is do passed to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

That Bill doesn't pass. Thank you. Now we have item number three, Joe Patterson. He is item number one. I finally get to item number one, AB 18.

Well, thank you very much for calling me Joe Patterson and not Jim Patterson. Appreciate that. Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Happy Valentine's Day and failure. To all of us who didn't wear red, let me be clear on my measure.

AB 18, it creates no new crime, nor does it require any additional penalties, charges associated with selling or trafficking fentanyl. AB 18 will require persons convicted of or pleading guilty or no contest to trafficking fentanyl and various other opiates and narcotics to receive a written advisement that if a person dies a result of overdose, the manufacturer distributor can be charged with, can be charged with murder or involuntary manslaughter. We all know how lethal fentanyl is, but let's visualize it. This right here is a penny.

Obviously, it's blown up to the size of my head, so you can see it. But this little amount of fentanyl is a lethal dose of fentanyl. The whole world has come full circle. When I was a legislative staffer myself, my former Boss, Todd Spitzer, lost his former Chief of Staff to a drunk driver.

The following year, he would team up with assemblymember and Democrat Nicole Para to enact the Ambriz Act, named after Steve Ambriz, his former Chief of Staff and an Orange County City Councilman who had his life taken by a driver who was under the influence. But that law is starkly different than this proposed law today. Every single person renewing their driver's license has to check a box indicating they are informed they can be charged with murder for killing someone while driving under the influence.

In the case of AB 18, we're only talking about people who are actually selling and trafficking in drug that has no bona fide recreational use. Just like the existing DUI advisement provided to drivers renewing their license, AB 18 will give law enforcement with an additional tool to prosecute drug traffickers in our communities. It does not require a murder charge. The Bill is titled Alexandra's Law and inspired by a young lady who is poisoned by this drug. Her father, Matt Capelouto, has been championing this legislation.

Unable to get justice in California, the Biden Administration took the case and prosecuted Alexandra's murderer. The Federal Government under President Biden has been stepping up and even issued a rare public health warnings. I appreciate that the only reason why I have an idea what fentanyl even is, is because of one of my neighbors. Teen Zach Didier died from taking a fake prescription pill laced with fentanyl that he bought off social media.

It's scary to say, but I have already warned my 10 and 8 year old children about taking pills or candy from others, and my two younger children will get the same advisement from me. After publicly supporting the efforts of Zach's parents, I learned that my cousin's death was also due to fentanyl poisoning.

As the author of AB 18, I want to make it clear the goal of this policy is not to add punishment to the opioid dependent person, but rather to ensure that the drug dealers and traffickers are held accountable. In fact, this legislation is only one of four pieces of legislation that I'll introduce. We have life saving measures like Narcan in schools, and we'll be introducing legislation to educate parents of the dangers of opioids, as well as another piece on rehabilitation for people in prison.

I want California to join the rest of the United States, including the Biden Administration and hold dealers and traffickers accountable for their actions. Today, I have Zach's father, Chris Didier, and Cindy De Silva, San Joaquin's Deputy District Attorney, to testify in support of AB 18. Thank you. Thank you.

Good morning, and thank you, chair and Members. My name is Cindy De Silva. I'm a Deputy District Attorney with San Joaquin County, and I am proud and honored to speak to you this morning in support of AB 18, which is a common sense educational measure. In 1979, an intoxicated driver left a bar in reading and got into his vehicle and killed a mother and her small child. As a result of that, his name was Watson.

A case went to court, and he ended up being the reason that this very Legislature passed vehicle code Section 23593, which requires judges to tell people convicted of driving under the influence that DUI behavior is inherently dangerous to human life and that if they ever do it again and their activities result in somebody dying, they can be charged and prosecuted for that. AB 18 essentially does the same thing.

Two nights before Christmas in 2019, Matt Capelouto's daughter Alexandra, who was only 20 years old, thought she was going to be taking an oxycodone pill. It turned out it was an illicitly manufactured fentanyl pill, and she died as a result. And we're going to hear from somebody that's going to explain that. That, unfortunately, is not uncommon anymore. This Bill is titled Alexandra's law. After her. What this law would do, like the Legislator said, would not introduce any new penalties or anything.

It simply educates the person convicted of selling or trafficking or manufacturing fentanyl to let them know that that activity is very, very dangerous. And it also would let them know that if they do it again and kill somebody, what they could be charged with, if anything, that might prevent some people from dying and prevent some people from further incarceration. So I heartily request that this august body vote yes, and I'd be happy to answer questions.

Thank you. Yes, sir. Thank you, everyone, for your respectful attention. My name is Chris, and I am Zach's dad. Two days after Christmas in 2020, I found my 17 year old son appearing to be asleep in his bedroom but not breathing. Losing a child from a danger we had not heard of before is an unspeakable loss and has brought debilitating torment to our family. Zach was sold a fake prescription pill on Snapchat that contained illicit fentanyl.

Despite having no history of drug use, Zach died from fentanyl poisoning. Zach was a self taught musician, straight A student, accomplished athlete, lead role in his high school musical and active in scouting. And since his passing, Zach was accepted into five UCs, including UCLA. Like so many, Zack showed promise to bring innovation and progress to our world in a beautiful way. Instead, he was robbed of that chance.

The DEA estimates over 98% of pills sold on social media are fake, and six out of every 10 pills have the potential to be lethal. CDC reports over 73,000 lives were lost from illicit fentanyl in a recent 12 month period. This is about 200 deaths every single day or a fatality every seven minutes. Imagine an airline crash in our country every single day for over a year. California is a hotspot state, and evidence shows there is a clear public safety danger here, and only worsening.

Even more powerful illicit synthetics are emerging, and social media is the number one platform for dealers to deceptively market and pedal poisonous products. This non punitive measure does not place those struggling with addiction at greater risk of incarceration. Rather, this bill's focus is to give reasonable warning to drug traffickers who are knowingly and willingly selling products made of illicit fentanyl for a simple profit.

The nature of this crisis should allow the entire Assembly the opportunity to study and implement reasonable accountability measures to better protect our community. Fentanyl changes everything. So please vote in support of AB 18. Remember, a fentanyl fatality every seven minutes. Think about it. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. And I know it's difficult. Thank you for coming before us. Thank you. Any other witnesses in support?

Mr. Chair Members Brandon Epp, on behalf of the Los Angeles County Sheriff, in support. Thank you. Thank you.

Kim Stone Stone advocacy on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association, in support.

Thank you.

Audrey Ratajczak from cruise strategies on behalf of the Orange County District Attorney's Office.

Mr. Chairman Carl London, on behalf of Crime Victims United, also in strong support.

Good morning. Julio De Leona for the Riverside County Sheriff's Department and Sheriff Chad Bianco in support. Thank you.

Pastor Brandon Campbell from Northern California, Director of the California Capitol Connection, connecting baptist churches to their legislators in support.

Morning, Mr. Chair Members. Matthew Siverling, on behalf of the California Peace Officers Association and the Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs in support.

Thank you, Mr. Chair Members Ryan Sherman with the Riverside Sheriff's Association and police officer associations of Arcadia, Burbank, Claremont, Corona, Culver City, Fullerton, Inglewood, LA Schools, Newport Beach, Pomona, Palos Verdes, Riverside, Santa Anna, Upland, Placer County Deputy Sheriff Association, California Coalition of School Safety Professionals. All in support.

Thank you. Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in support? Now we'll hear from witnesses in opposition.

You have a total of five minutes. Five minutes total. Not each. Split it up any way you want.

Thank you. Good morning, Chair and Members. Alicia Benavidez Lewis here on behalf of Drug Policy Alliance in respectful opposition to AB 18. Drug Policy Alliance is a national organization advocating for drug policies that are grounded in science, compassion, health, and human rights. Our organization understands the impact that drug use can have on the lives of users, their families, and those who've lost one to overdose.

Since 2017, we recognize the number of fatal drug overdoses has risen 110% in California, and in 2020, at least 9,000 Californians have died from drug related overdose. We know this loss is real and every community in our state has been impacted, and some of us personally have also been impacted. However, this bill does not reflect the path that is needed to address this crisis. It only proposes using an unsupported practice that runs counter to the way our justice system operates for criminal proceedings.

As noted in the Committee analysis, substantial evidence demonstrates that criminal penalties, such as those in this bill, will not reduce the availability or use of drugs, nor prevent overdose. The vast majority of people involved in drug supplying are low level. While the criminal legal system purports to focus on high level sellers, supply side criminalization disproportionately impacts the lowest level people on the supply side.

Increased penalties, such as those in AB 18 echoed the failed war on drug policies enacted during the eighties and nineties around crack cocaine that disproportionately impacted people of color, overcrowded prisons, and cost lives. That is why DPA stands firm in urging the state to prioritize investment in public health approaches with life-saving harm reduction services that are proven to save lives by directly reaching people at highest risk of overdose and evidence based, low barrier treatment access for people who use drugs.

California voters have signaled again and again their preference for using a health approach to drug offenses and their desire to unwind the failed war on drugs. Committees in both houses to this Legislature have repeatedly rejected nearly identical versions of this proposal. Reversing course at this time and going back to over-criminalization will not only increase stigma and marginalization, but will do little to address this health crisis. So for these reasons, we urge your no vote.

Good morning. Glenn Backes for the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, in respectful opposition. I would posit that we're in the wrong Committee, that the solutions for the overdose crisis are in Health Committee and in a health budget. Further criminalization will not reduce lives, will not save lives. It won't reduce the amount of drugs that are being sold. It won't prevent overdose. And this is not a fentanyl bill. It applies to all controlled substances. Crack cocaine, powder cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, pills, everything.

A person who has a prior conviction for sharing, furnishing, selling, possessing for sale a small amount of any of these drugs would be subject to the possibility of further punishment if they are convicted again. It's not hard for a very poor person or a person struggling with addiction to get a possession for sale charge and conviction.

This bill would provide, if they are convicted again of possession for sale of any of these substances in which a person dies accidentally that they could be subject to a murder charge and it would be easier to get that sentence, that very long sentence applied. Let's talk about fiscal cost, what our role is as policymakers about where we invest the people's money.

It costs $112,000 per year to add an additional one year for prison but only costs 6,000 in some for buprenorphine treatment for one year or methadone for one year is less than 7,000 compared to 112,000. So you can put 17 people in buprenorphine treatment reducing the use of opioids, including fentanyl, or you can put 19 people in methadone. Or you can put one person in prison for another year. And that has no positive effect.

So we would ask that you invest in health, invest in prevention, treatment, and harm reduction. I'm sorry, but this bill will not help. It will waste time, it'll waste money and it will waste lives. For these reasons, we are opposed.

Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in opposition? Name and organization.

Ignacio Hernandez, on behalf of the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, also in opposition.

Leslie Caldwell Houston on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association in opposition.

Danica Rodarmel on behalf of Initiate Justice in the San Francisco Public Defender's Office, in opposition.

Good morning, Mr. Chair, Members. Micah Doctoroff, on behalf of ACLU California Action, also in opposition.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in opposition? And I'll bring it back to the Committee Members for any questions, comments. Mr. Lackey?

Yeah. Unfortunately, this is not the first time I've heard your story. I'm very sorry for what happened. I think we all are. No matter where we are on this issue. I'm having a hard time understand the opposition because it's clearly not as advertised in the statement by the defense here. This focuses on sellers, not users.

So why you say it doesn't belong in this Committee is beyond my understanding. This is a sales statute clearly. It's an educational piece and it only applies if there's a repeat offense. How in the world do you oppose that? You're telling somebody that if you do this again, there are serious consequences to the point that you're responsible for the death of this individual.

I don't understand the opposition because it's an educational measure and it's all focused on prevention, which I think everybody up here supports both of those pieces. So I'm having a hard time connecting to the opposition. And I know it's not likely to succeed. But I want you to at least think about what you're doing here, folks, by rejecting this. You're excusing this kind of conduct and saying selling doesn't deserve the consequences, that I believe that they're mitigating and they're doling out to these people unknowingly.

This particular substance is unique because a lot of the people don't know what they're getting. That is so nefarious that I can't believe it doesn't shock your conscience, because it certainly does mine. And I'm very, very sorry for this victim circumstance. And I think everybody in here is at least sorry for that. I do believe that. And our hearts go out to you and I hope that we can do something about it. This is an opportunity, I think, in a very balanced way. So I'm very proud that you brought this forward and I will clearly be supporting it.

Thank you. Yes, Ms. Ortega.

First, thank you for coming today. I do want to acknowledge your son, and as a mother myself, this is heartfelt and deeply troubling. So I did want to thank you for coming today. I know it's not easy. I do have a couple of facts. I do know that about 200 people a day are dying in the US because of overdoses on fentanyl. In my home district recently, there was a home where they found 2,500 pills that could have killed up to 5 million people.

So the fentanyl crisis is definitely something that we are all trying to figure out and figure out a way to stop it, keep our youth alive, educate our communities, and hold people accountable. And this is why I'm supporting Assembly Member Patterson's other bills around fentanyl and making sure that we have ways to keep our youth alive and our schools educated on the issue that's happening.

However, today I'm opposing this bill because of what was mentioned earlier and starting going back to our authors, our Chairman's statements where we cannot go backwards in terms of harsher sentencing for things like drug trafficking that are not likely to reduce what's happening in our streets. But I did want to thank you and give you my sincere condolences and totally understand what's happening on our streets. Thank you.

Mr. Zbur?

Yes. I also wanted to tell you how bad I feel about your son. And it's clear that we need to do more to understand how to respond to the fentanyl crisis, which is having a really horrific impact on our community and kids in our community in particular. Unfortunately, I won't be able to support this measure because it's just very, very broad. It isn't just about sale. It relates to when someone not only sells, but furnishes, gives away, administers.

You can see how this would be used in many cases, and it doesn't also apply to fentanyl. It applies to various controlled substances and a broad array of substance use. And so I can see how this bill could be used against LGBTQ kids who may have had nothing to do with Sentinel being given this warning or low income kids who've just given a pill to another friend. And at some point, there's something that happens later.

And so I just think this bill is really broad, and I don't believe that this is the kind of approach that we need to address the fentanyl crisis. So I'm sorry about this. I think we should be looking for, as Assembly Member Ortega said, we should be looking for other ways to address the fentanyl crisis. But I just think this is too broad. So thank you very much.

Yes, Mr. Bryan.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for being here and sharing your testimony again. And thank you to our new colleague, Mr. Patterson. Three, four years ago, I got a call around Thanksgiving, my little brother was found unresponsive on the pavement in San Diego because he had overdosed on something that was laced with fentanyl. He was unhoused at the time. I'm not sure what he was intending to take, but it wasn't fentanyl. Or maybe it even was. He was revived and is still alive today.

But it's something that I think about pretty regularly as we think about the crisis that's taking over our communities. As was mentioned by our other colleagues, this is a public health crisis and even an advisory that reminds you that you still might be hit with features from the war on drugs that we know has failed, I think creates the conditions that allow us to divert from the real conversation we should be having.

And I think that's a conversation that you've clearly demonstrated that you want to have in your time here in the Legislature. And so to the extent that you and I can have those conversations. I want to be helpful. I can't support this today, but I can see the thoughtfulness in it, and I appreciate that.

Thank you. Any other comments? You may close, Mr. Patterson.

Well, thank you very much. Just a couple things real fast. What we know is that programs that are going on right now are not currently working. In fact, I'd say it's probably doing the opposite. It's complete failure, and we have to think a little bit differently about what we're doing. And Assembly Member Bryan, I'm pleased that your brother recovered, and that's a sad story, but happy that he made it.

But I also am happy, more than happy, to narrow it to opioids. And only those make it clear that it's only applying to those selling and trafficking opioids. But let me be clear, this bill does not increase penalties at all. In fact, current law allows people to be charged with murder. This is just giving an advisement. In fact, DAs are charging for murder. This just gives more discretion, actually. And lastly, I just want to publicly acknowledge both Chris Didier and Laura Didier.

They've been educating kids and families such as myself on this tragedy that we have. They were just at the State of the Union and they've been invited by the Administration to be up at the DEA and just thankful to have them. So, thank you. And with that, I ask for your aye vote. I'm sure I changed all your minds, right?

And I, too, want to thank you, Mr. Patterson, and your witnesses, especially. The fact that just about everybody commented tells you how serious we're taking this, how we thought through everything that we're going to vote on. And your story only made it more real to us. So again, it's brave to come and speak before this body. I've been on that side before, so I know what it's like. And so I commend you for being here. So it is something we need to look at.

Yes, as to be a public health. I think we have not done enough on public health, and that's why it's not moved as well as it should. And we need to put more resources. I think if we work together to come up with public health alternatives, we might be able to put a dent in this and hopefully end the scourge of fentanyl poisoning.

It is so important right now that we declared State of Emergency on this as a public health crisis and move accordingly and provide all the resources we can to make this happen and to provide all of the tools that are needed so that people aren't using drugs. Look, when you're on drugs, there is no one and done solution to somebody on drugs. And that's what bothers me the most, that being telling someone, stop it, especially someone that's been on drugs or has a drug problem.

Sometimes it takes 7, 8 times to get off of it. And so telling someone, it could be really harsh if you do this again. And then later on, judges and DAs use that admonishment to enhance or to further prosecution and to fill our prisons. I think that's what you're hearing and that people want to, I believe when we take the vote that most of the Members want to move toward how do we get to public health safety solutions.

And I think what you're hearing from the Members here, there's a willingness to work on that to make that happen. And so, unfortunately, I'm going to ask for a no vote. Is there a motion?

On AB 18 by Assembly Member Joe Patterson, the motion is do pass to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

Mr. Chairman, could I have a reconsideration? I won't bring it back in the same form, I promise you.

You can ask for reconsideration. Reconsideration.

Thank you very much.

If there's no objection, we will grant it by unanimous activation.

Thank you.

And I have Mr. Gabriel, but I don't see Mr. Gabriel, AB 29, item number four. Oh, there's Mr. Gabriel. Welcome to the Public Safety Committee, Mr. Gabriel.

Thank you. It's nice to be recognized.

Whenever you're ready.

Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Appreciate the opportunity to be here to present AB 29. I want to start by accepting the Committee amendments. I want to thank the Chair and his staff for their thoughtful feedback and assistance on the bill. And pleased today to present this bill would create the California voluntary do not sell list. And I will say, since we introduced this bill on the first day of our session, we have had mass shootings in Monterey Park, in Half Moon Bay, in Goshen.

We had one last night at Michigan State that killed three students and injured five, and that was actually the 67th mass shooting in 2023. So obviously an area where we need to do a lot of work. We have introduced a number of bills to continue to build on California's record on trying to prevent gun violence and gun death. Looking at this from a number of different lenses.

One of the things that's important that I hope folks understand is that more than 50% of the deaths in the State of California from guns are suicides. So this is a bill that gets us that and also gets at mass shootings, because we know that many of the folks who are the perpetrators of those mass shootings are struggling with mental health issues.

So this is a bill that provides those type of folks with an option to protect themselves by limiting their ability to purchase firearms in a time of crisis. If somebody is worried that they are struggling with a mental health issue, fearful that they may harm themselves or others, they can voluntarily put themselves on this list, and hopefully that's going to protect them. And we know that suicide is often an impulsive thing, that a lot of suicide survivors express regret.

And unfortunately, guns don't allow for second chances. So we think this is a common sense, thoughtful way to help to save some lives, to prevent gun deaths. This is an idea that has been successfully passed and is now being implemented in Virginia, Washington state, and Utah. And we think it's one piece of the puzzle in comprehensively addressing our gun violence public health emergency that we are facing in this state.

So we're very proud that this is supported by a coalition of gun violence and public health organizations, including Moms Demand Action, Everytown for Gun Safety, and the Brady Campaign. And with me today to testify in support is Paul Yoder, on behalf of our sponsor, the California State Association of Psychiatrists. Thank you.

Five minutes.

Mr. Chairman and Members. I won't take that long. Thank you. Happy Valentine's Day. California State Association of Psychiatrists is the sponsor of this. We now have multiple clinical studies from reputable bodies that have just proven that this law can save lives. I can give the Members those citations here or offline if you'd like. The Wall Street Journal recently did an op ed on this bill, and they called this a libertarian approach to suicide prevention and to gun safety. I urge your aye vote. Happy to take any questions. Thank you for authoring this bill, Assembly Member.

Thank you. Any witnesses in support?

Rebecca Marcus, representing the Brady Campaign, in support. And also a courtesy for my colleagues at Giffords, also in support.

Thank you.

Natasha Minsker, Prosecutors Alliance of California, in support.

Thank you. We'll now hear from witnesses in opposition. Are there any witnesses in opposition? Going once, going twice. Seeing no witnesses in opposition, we'll bring it back to the Committee Members for any comments, questions. Move the bill? I entertain a second. Bill's been moved and seconded. I'll give Mr. Lackey a chance. Did you have any questions or comments?

No, I'm supporting this one.

Okay, you may close.

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Chair's recommending aye. Ms. Secretary, call the roll.

On AB 29 by Assembly Member Gabriel, the motion is do pass as amended to the Health Committee.

And thank you for working with our Committee. I do appreciate that. Thank you. Recommend an aye. Thank you.

[Roll Call]

That measure passes.

Thank you very much. Appreciate it.

Wow. That may be a new record. So I'm looking for Mr. Sanchez. Ms. Sanchez, I'm sorry. So we'll go with Mr. Lackey now, if Mr. Lackey is ready. Anybody know where Mr. Lackey is?

I'm here.

Whenever you're ready, Mr. Lackey.

All right, well, thank you for allowing me to present AB 56, and I want to thank especially Leah for her help on this particular Bill and working with my office to make the appropriate amendments. This legislation would provide, or at least hopefully will provide, victims of violent crime with compensation to make therapies and other forms of care more accessible while they navigate through their trauma recovery process. A prevalent psychological injury for victim survivors is the well-known PTSD.

It's a very, very big problem, and each case of PTSD is unique, given a survivor's history and circumstance, and the severity of these factors could prolong the length of a recovery period. There is an immediate need to address trauma, as prolonged exposure to it can lead to serious health issues. A lack of access to care could be influential in the development of substance use disorders and mental health issues.

By providing victim survivor with compensation, we would validate their pain and suffering while covering expenses they incur through no fault of their own. This particular Bill prioritizes addressing trauma within our justice system, which would improve outcomes for everyone involved. It would expedite services for healing toxic stress, which would have a long-term benefit to our shared health care system by limiting the possibility of issues manifesting later. As we reorient our criminal justice system, we should look to implement trauma informed policy wherever possible.

I believe this is an impactful step in that particular direction. And I have here with me Danica, and she's representing Debt Free Justice Coalition, and she's now going to provide testimony. This isn't the most natural partnership.

I know. I was like, everybody probably thinks I'm confused coming up here right now. Good morning, everybody.

Appreciate it.

I'm pleased to be here supporting this Bill alongside Assemblymember Lackey. AB 56 brings California a step closer to true justice and public safety. The terms "restorative justice" are thrown around in the Capitol a lot, but they're often divorced from what that really means. Restorative justice requires identifying the harm that's happened, what needs have arisen as a result, and what it will take to meet those needs. Accountability by the person who's caused the harm is often an important component of restorative justice.

But it also recognizes that sometimes the person who has caused the harm isn't able to repair it on their own. And in those cases, the broader community must provide support to the survivor in order to help make them, help them heal and move forward. That's what AB 56 does. It provides community support in the form of state victim compensation when somebody is in need of financial support for emotional harm they've suffered as a result of experiencing violence.

And this is what survivor-centered policy looks like: making changes to state law that will meaningfully address the needs that arise when someone's been harmed, not false promises that claim to help survivors in name only, but never actually deliver on that promise. We all have more to do to continue our collective work on survivor support, accountability and public safety, but this is a step in the right direction, and we appreciate the Assemblymember's work on this issue. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support?

Morning, Mr. Chair. Ryan Sherman with the Riverside Sheriff Association in support. Thank you.

Kim Stone, Stone Advocacy, on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association, in support.

Thank you.

Mr. Chairman. Carl London, on behalf of Crime Victims United in support. Thank you.

Thank you. And seeing no other witnesses in support, are there any witnesses in opposition?

Ignacio Hernandez, on behalf of CACJ. Oh, wait. We are withdrawing our opposition to the Bill. Thank you for the amend, Mr. Lackey. And it's nice to be able to withdraw opposition to your Bill. Habit of always wanting to oppose your Bill. I don't know. We've had a few, but I appreciate the effort and look forward to the Bill going forward.

Thank you.

Margo George, on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association, we thank the Committee and the author for the amendments. We still have a few concerns, and we're working with the author. Thank you.

Any other witnesses in tweener, whatever? This is a strange thing. Okay, now bring it back to the Committee for any comments or questions. Yes, Ms. Bonta.

Thank you. Mr. Lackey, I appreciate you bringing this forward in particular, because the way that you've structured the compensation to have that come from the Restitution Fund as opposed to direct compensation from individuals, is very helpful in kind of considering the overall burden of needing to be able to support direct compensation. So I appreciate that and I commend you for this legislation.

Really appreciate you working with our team and know that your heart is ensuring, as is mine, ensuring that we are connected to victims and ensuring that they are cared for in this moment with the resources that they need.

Thank you.

Thank you. Ms. Ortega?

Yeah, I just want to thank you for bringing this forward. And actually the comments that you made earlier about a lot of talk about restorative practices and justices and not actually putting stuff behind those words. This does that. And so thank you very much for bringing it forward, and I look forward to working with you in your office.

Thank you.

Yes, Mr. Bryan.

This is very good. Thank you for your hard work on this and for working with all of the different people at the table. To further the surprises of the day, if you are looking for co-authors, please reach out to my office.

Sounds great. Thank you.

I'll be your joint author.

This is good stuff.

I'll co-author as well, if you'll have me.

Thank you.

Any other comments of co-authorships? Can I get a motion? All right, you may close.

I just like to freeze this moment because this is very unique. And I just want to thank everybody for understanding where this is coming from. And I think that this is very powerful, has the potential to be very, very powerful to those who are suffering. They literally are suffering through no fault of their own, and this will provide some remedy for that suffering. So I look forward to your aye vote.

I also want to thank you. And I know your heart's in the right place. We worked on some very controversial bills together.

It's now past tense.

That's true. That's true. And so I definitely know where your heart is. And you can sign me up as a co-author also.

Thank you.

Chair is recommending an aye vote.

On AB 56 by Assemblymember Lackey, the motion is do pass to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call].

Ms. Sanchez is here. Perfect timing. You may, whenever you're ready. Whichever one you want to do first, AB 88 or AB 89.

We can start with AB 88, please.

Okay. Whenever you're ready.

Great. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. I want to thank the Committee staff and stakeholders for working with us on this measure. AB 88 is a reasonable bill that will help crime victims, their next of kin, and family members meaningfully exercise their rights during parole and resentencing hearings. Specifically, AB 88 requires the board of parole hearings to provide a crime victim's next of kin, member of victim's family, victim's representative, counsel representing any of these persons, or victim support persons more flexibility to attend parole suitability hearing.

The bill also ensures that there is a clear process for crime victims to have their perspective heard on a petition of resentencing, even if the defense and prosecution both agree to waive a hearing. This is a common sense bill that safeguards the constitutional right of crime victims and their loved ones. For that reason, I urge you to support this measure. Testifying with me today is Julio De Leon with the Riverside County Sheriff's Department, and Cindy De Silva, who is a criminal prosecutor. Thank you.

Thank you. Whenever you're ready to begin. Five minutes.

Good morning, Chair and Committee. My name is Julio De Leon. I'm a lieutenant with the Riverside County Sheriff's Department, and on behalf of Sheriff Bianco and the organization, we proudly support this bill because it ensures the victims of crime and their family members are able to exercise their constitutional rights during parole and resentencing hearings.

Existing law permits the court on its own motion or on the motion of specified entities, for example, the DA's office, G's office, to recall a sentence within 120 days of commitment without a hearing if the parties so stipulate.

During these hearings or upon stipulation, the court may reduce or even vacate convictions based on post conviction factors in the interests of justice, all the while not taking the victim's post conviction concerns into consideration if the court's decision was reached by stipulation. This law directly conflicts with Marshall's Law by not including provisions to allow a crime victim to have their voices heard in regard to this procedure.

Although they have the existing right to be heard under Section 28, Article one of our Constitution, without notice, what good is that right? It's like obtaining a confession and then telling the defendant, oh, by the way, these are your Miranda rights. In other words, you reach a conclusion without notifying the person of their rights.

This bill empowers victims and the families to exercise their rights and have their voices heard in parole and resentencing hearings by allowing them to file a request to be heard within 15 days of being notified of such hearing. Likewise, CDCR recently enacted regulations that require different notice requirements for victim and their family members to participate in parole hearings. This bill ensures that crime victims and their family members have the same 15 day notice requirement to attend parole hearings.

This bill fills a gap left in the wake of recent resentencing laws and restores the constitutional rights of victims. To address the opposition, I agree not many victims choose to attend hearings, but some do, and the law has afforded them that constitutional right to do so. We need to protect those rights of those who choose to attend or provide a statement, not attempt to exclude them from the process.

For some victims, this is part of their healing process, and we should ensure that their rights are protected in addition to providing them with other wraparound services to make them whole again. Just as it is important to provide defendants the notice and opportunity to exercise the constitutional rights, it is equally important for the state to protect those constitutional rights of victims as well. This bill aims to accomplish that on behalf of Sheriff Bianco and the Riverside County Sheriff's Office, we humbly request your aye votes today. Thank you.

Thank you.

And good morning once again. Thank you, Chair and Members. Cindy De Silva with the San Joaquin County District Attorney's Office. And I want to point out that Assembly Member Sanchez's measure here is one of personal empowerment and an opportunity to be heard. And the bill that we just heard before this talked about restorative justice. And one of the big driving forces behind restorative justice is giving everybody an opportunity to be heard. That promotes healing.

And in a situation such as this, parole hearings, sometimes the victim's family gets to see face to face the perpetrator. And sometimes that actually does result in healing, giving them this opportunity to speak their mind, talk about the effect it had on their life, heals everybody involved.

And this morning, while I certainly don't mean to draw a parallel between perpetrators and victims and say it's like a couple, I did note that it is Valentine's Day, and I noticed on TV this morning somebody talking about validation and couples who communicate with each other, giving each other validation and hearing what the other side is saying. And I think that AB 88 does that. It gives the victim the opportunity to have the effect that the crime had on their life heard by the perpetrator.

So with this, I will go ahead and submit, and I'm happy to answer any questions. There is one second thing that the bill does, and that is clarifying an aspect of the law that the victim can request to be heard, even if both parties agree that the perpetrator should be let out early. And that also gives the victim's family a right to be heard, should they wish to.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Are there any other witnesses in support?

Thank you, Chair. Max Perry with the California Police Chief Association in support.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair. Carl London, on behalf of Crime Victims United in support.

Thank you. Now, are there any witnesses in opposition? Any witnesses in opposition? Any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none, we will bring it back to Committee Members for any comments or questions. Mr. Lackey?

I have a very predictable position on this bill, but I want to remind everybody on the Committee that not in every instance are these encounters completely adversarial, and they actually have a chance to be healing as indicated. And I would hope that you would take that into consideration when considering this particular proposal, that anything that actually helps heal is beneficial and works towards the spirit of justice. And so I'm clearly in support of this.

Thank you. Any other comments? Mr. Alanis?

I'd also like to make a comment. As you all know, in my prior career, I got to spend a lot of time at the courthouse and listening to victims and victim impact statements. And this was a great time for them to heal. And it was also a time for them to also give forgiveness as well in some of the speaks or the speeches that they gave.

And so I know that a lot of the times we remember the rights of the defendants, but we always forget the rights of the victims as well. So thank you for bringing this today and giving them that voice. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other comments? You may close.

Thank you. AB 88 is a reasonable measure that ensures that crime victims and their family members are able to meaningfully exercise their constitutional rights. I respectfully ask for your aye vote on this measure. Thank you.

Thank you. We need a motion and a second. Chair is recommending an aye vote. Call the roll.

The bill has been moved and seconded on AB 88 by Assembly Member Sanchez. The motion is do pass to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

That measure passes. Thank you. Thank you, witnesses, item 89.

89 yes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, members and Committee staff for your time and for working with me on this bill. I'll start by saying that I will be accepting the Committee's Proposed Amendments.

AB 89 is an important measure that will require a District Attorney's office to notify crime victims and their family members if they will not be sending a representative to attend a parole hearing.

It is typical practice for a District Attorney's office to send a representative to appear at a parole hearing and demonstrate to the board whether an inmate is unsuitable for release.

The representative can highlight the seriousness of the inmate's crimes and rebut any misleading arguments made by the inmate or inmate's attorney about the circumstances of the crime. Some district attorneys have decided to stop sending deputies to parole hearings.

This has unfortunately left many crime victims and their next of kin to fend for themselves in a complex legal system. AB 89 offers these crime victims a needed source of support by requiring a District Attorney's office to notify victims and their family members if they will not be sending a representative to a parole hearing.

This notice requirement is crucial for ensuring crime victims and their families have adequate time to prepare for these parole hearings should a representative from a District Attorney's office not attend.

I respectfully urge your support for this measure so that crime victims can adequately prepare for future parole hearings. Testifying with me today is Julio De Leon from Riverside County Sheriff's Department and Cindy De Silva, who is a criminal prosecutor.

Good morning once again, and thank you, Chair and members, Cindy De Silva with the San Joaquin County District Attorney's office. Once again, I'm honored to speak to you at this point in support of AB 89 from Assemblymember Sanchez.

Far too often our victims of crime come from underrepresented communities, and I think that people naturally presume that the District Attorney's office is going to be there for them.

And in situations that Assemblymember Sanchez has highlighted here, sometimes the offices fail them. And because of AB 89, it would give them the opportunity to at least come in and, as she says, fend for themselves. At least somebody would be fending for them then.

This Bill just gives them the notice to let them know when the District Attorney's office is not going to do what those members of the community naturally would presume that the District Attorney's office is going to do, so that they can at least go in there and be heard.

Like I mentioned on the prior Assembly Bill that Member Sanchez brought to this body, it's an opportunity to be heard and an opportunity for more restorative justice. With that, I'll submit.

Good morning, Chair and Committee. My name is Julio De Leon. Again, thank you for having me. I'm a lieutenant with the Riverside County Sheriff's office and on behalf of the office and Sheriff Chad Bianca, we probably support this bill ensured victims and their families have adequate notice of whether a prosecuting agency will attend an incarcerated person's parole hearing.

The role of the prosecutor, in our opinion, is vital to the Administration of justice during these hearings.

Not only are they intimately related to the case and the underlying facts since they prosecuted the original case, but by default they represent the people of the State of California, thereby vicariously representing the victim as well.

The defense and other parties, by contrast, only represent the interests of the defendant and the client, not the victim or the person or the people of California collectively.

Furthermore, section 3043.2 C of the Penal Code does not require the prosecutor to represent the views of the victim, but it also does not prohibit them from doing so. So to the opposition's point, there's no point in having them there anyways because they don't represent the victim well. They are misguided and misinterpret the law.

I have it on good authority that our DA's office in Riverside County does, in fact, represent victims during these hearings, and they probably do so because they believe it is their duty and obligation to do so.

The largest District Attorney's office in California, led by DA George Gascone, has issued a policy of not appearing on behalf of crime victims during parole hearings. This policy leaves victims with less institutional support than in counties such as ours.

The bill ensures that at the very least, crime victims will be notified if a District Attorney decides not to have a representative attend a parole hearing. Having a prosecutor there helps the victim navigate through the legal process, helps them feel more comfortable.

And for the underrepresented and financially burdened populations, this reduces the financial drain of having to hire private counsel. In addition, this point is lost in the discussion.

The prosecutor's office has a dedicated team of victim advocates and support services to help the victim during this process. So if the DA chooses not to send the representative, then those services are also taken away from the victim.

Now, it is good that Sheriff Bianca prefers the DA's mandatory appearance, but we understand that this is not the intent of the bill.

But at the very least, we should provide adequate notice to victims in order to prepare them legally, emotionally, financially, and psychologically for the hearing if they choose to attend without the prosecutor present.

We've read the proposed amendments, and we believe that they strengthen the bill and provide adequate protections to both the victim and the incarcerated person. For these reasons, we support this bill and humbly ask for your eyeballs today. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support?

Mr. Chair, Members. Brandon app on behalf of the Los Angeles County Sheriff in support. Thank you.

Kim Stone. Stone Advocacy on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association. In support.

Mr. Chair. Carl London, on behalf of Crime Victims United in support of this bill. Thank you.

Max Perry with the California Police Chief Association in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Now, witnesses in opposition? Any witnesses in opposition? Any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none, we'll bring it back to Committee Members. Comments or.

I appreciate that. I been studying this for a long time. Worked with a lot of different prosecutors prior to being in office. Helped with an organization of prosecutors from around the country.

I don't believe there's a role for the District Attorney at parole hearings, personally. I think it provides a political weight on a process that already has appointed members to make a thoughtful decision weighing the interests of justice, rehabilitation, and the victim.

We saw a bill similar to this by a member who's no longer in this body not that long ago. And so as a result of that, I will not be supporting it today.

Mr. Alanis.

Well, I know in my district that we do take care of that and we do provide those services, and it's great to have a DA there to be that voice. As you guys know, when the families show up, they are distraught, they are still healing, and the DA provides them that guidance that they need. I've seen many times where they just can't get the words out or they don't know they're still lost.

And they do need that person there to help them through the process. And also to echo, as I said earlier, I've actually seen them also where the family, the DAs, everybody was like, the time has come where they did recommend that the person get released. So that healing and that forgiveness part also is part of this as well. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Bonta.

Thank you. I also want to just highlight that this moment is about people having committed a crime, having served their time, having gone through the restitution, and hopefully the rehabilitation. Well, definitely the rehabilitation if they've earned the ability to have a parole hearing.

And at that point, we are seeking to be able to understand what a person is doing and what they've done after they've served their sentence and whether or not they're suitable for parole. It's that moment that I'm looking at.

For those reasons, I'll be abstaining from this Bill.

Thank you. Any other, Mr. Ortega.

Assemblymember Sanchez, I see what you're doing in terms of really highlighting our victims in this process. I would encourage you to reach out to our office and really work with me in trying to enhance some of what you're trying to do. I will be supporting today's bill with the recommendation of the chair. However, I have a lot of questions.

Any other, you may close.

Okay. AB 809's reasonable notification requirement will improve the ability of crime victims and their family members to prepare for and participate in the parole hearing process. I respectfully ask for your aye vote on this measure.

Thank you. I'm going to go ahead and support today. So what you're hearing is, and I'll say it this way, I get a lot of calls from people trying to get going before the parole board.

Sure.

And a lot of times they bring evidence to me about the case that they had. Either they thought they were innocent or the judge was wrong or the DA was wrong or the police mishandled it.

And what I found out is as far as the parole board is concerned, it's about the time that they were in prison, period, and whether or not they rehabilitated. And they will tell you at a parole hearing, they don't want to hear about what happened with the crime.

They don't want to relitigate it. That person was already prosecuted, was fined and sent to jail. That's done. Now, what has happened to that person now that they're in. And that's what I think you're hearing now.

Now that they're in prison, what transformative thing has happened? Because that's the only way they can get out of prison. They have to prove to the parole board that they've transformed.

The residence that you may hear from prosecutors who don't want to send their individuals there is they don't want to relitigate the case if they have some additional information that would shed the light that that person is now, again, I'm going to use the word, transform themselves to a better place so they can be rehabilitated and back into society, and they're not a threat to public safety. That's what should be talked about in the public hearing.

So that's what you're getting with the chasm right now, that you have to close with members here right now. So I think you may get out today, but you have a lot of work to do.

Okay.

The chair is recommending aye. I do have a motion.

On AB 89 by Senator Sanchez. The motion is do passed as amended, to the Appropriations Committee.

[Roll Call]

That measure passes.

Thank you.

I believe that was our last one. Next, we will do any add ons, lifting of calls, lifting of calls and vote changes. Madam Secretary, please go through all the. Measures

{Roll Call]