Senate Standing Committee on Public Safety

I ask all Members of the Committee to be present in the room so we can establish our quorum and begin our hearing. We have 19 bills on today's agenda and one is on consent. Before we hear presentations on the bills, let's establish a quorum. Assistant, please call the role.

[Roll Call]

The assistant notes a quorum has been established. Now let's hear from our first author, Senator Portantino. SB 2, welcome. The floor is yours.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Committee Members. SB 2 will implement various improvements to California's existing concealed carry weapons regime in response to the recent United States Supreme Court decision in New York Rifle and Pistol Association versus Bruin, SB 2 helps strengthen our state law by ensuring those carrying firearms in public are responsible, law abiding citizens. Who would argue with that? Being responsible, law abiding citizen who do not pose a danger to themselves or others, who should argue with that?

Protecting children and young adults from gun violence by setting a minimum age requirement of 21 to obtain a CCW, as opposed to 18 again, you have to be 25 to rent a car. Seems logical that we should have an age requirement that's commensurate with this awesome responsibility. Advancing safety through stronger training requirements about the proper handling, loading and unloading and storage of firearms creates a safeguarding the public by identifying certain sensitive public places where guns may not be carried.

Frankly, you don't need to take a gun to your daughter's AYSO soccer game. Additionally, SB 2 will also promote due process by allowing anyone whose application is denied to receive a hearing before a judge of the Supreme Court for an additional layer of review. Makes sense. Have an appeal process.

These new procedures will ensure that we are consistent with California's supreme with the Supreme Court decision in Bruin, only law abiding and responsible applicants for CCW licenses will be authorized to receive one gun violence, as we tragically saw yet again yesterday, and God bless the families of those little kids. I mean, gun violence inflicts a terrible toll on our communities. Last year, nearly 20,000 people were killed in gun related homicides in the United States.

To put that in perspective, it's enough people to fill 40 Boeing 747s, and sadly, the number keeps rising. And the problem is just not illegal guns. At least 76% of the guns used in mass shootings over the past 35 years were obtained legally. There is ample evidence showing that increased public carrying of firearms leads to more violence. Let me say that again, the data shows that we are less safe the more guns are in circulation.

Adding guns increases the chances that otherwise nonlethal interactions, such as road rage, dispute over talking on a cell phone, or even in a movie theater turn deadly. And more people carrying firearms leads to more thefts of firearms, up 35% or more. More firearms in public places also creates challenges for law enforcement. The DOJ consulted with public safety experts and prominent scholars across the nation to ensure that this measure is constitutional and consistent with the Supreme Court decision.

So again, we're trying to comply with the Supreme Court's decision by promoting a consistent application of the CCW permit process and then using common sense and logic to make sure that we have a robust list of prohibited places to where one can carry their weapon. We should urgently pass this, we should put it on the governor's desk, and we should make sure that California is made safer. With me this morning have amazing person who's going to tell us about her personal story.

Mia Page Tretta, who is a survivor of gun violence and a Student Demand Action volunteer. Just, you know, please listen to her. We also have Candice Chung from the DOJ, and then we have Michael from the DOJ who's here to answer any technical questions. So I'll respectfully ask for an aye vote when appropriate. And if we could have our primary witnesses come forward. Thank you, Mia, for being here.

Thank you.

Thank you. You have 2 minutes.

Hi, I'm Mia Tretta and I'm a senior at Saugus High School in Santa Clarita, California in Southern California, where I lead my Students Demand Action group and I'm on the National Advisory board for Students Demand Action. I was a freshman at Saugus when a student I didn't know pulled a 45 caliber ghost gun out of his backpack and shot me and four others. I was airlifted to the hospital and underwent surgeries to remove a bullet from my stomach.

Later that night, my parents told me that my 14 year old best friend, Dominic Blackwell, who is standing right next to me, was killed. These days, being someone who is shot in a school shooting, it's not unique. What's unique about my story is that I'm still alive. Healing from this tragedy is an everyday battle, and so many others endure the same pain. I fear public places and large crowds and even school has become a place of anxiety instead of learning.

The thought that just anyone could be carrying a firearm in places that are intended to be safe is horrifying. Parks and libraries and colleges and universities need to be safe. This Bill will help me and other students who live in fear. If law enforcement officer is responding to a violent situation, it is so much harder to identify who the threat is. If everyone is carrying a firearm, this Bill will help law enforcement stay safe and protect us.

Guns are the leading cause of death for children and teens, and this is an American specific epidemic. The more guns in sensitive places is not the answer. I refuse to continue watching people like me die in schools, and I refuse to feel on edge at the grocery store. I refuse to avoid concerts and sporting events. I refuse to search for my exit signs everywhere I go. And this is the land of the free.

And we can be free of gun violence, but it will take all of us. So please, I beg of you to support SB 2 so we can continue leading the nation in California to end gun violence. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Committee Members. My name is Candice Chung and I'm a legislative advocate with the office of Attorney General Rob Bonta, who is pleased to co sponsor this Bill with Governor Gavin Newsom. On behalf of the Attorney General, I'd like to thank Senator Portantino for his continued leadership on this issue and for authoring this Bill, and I don't see him, but dear colleagues Senator Bradford and Senator Skinner for co authoring this measure.

As mentioned by the Senator, this Bill is critical to strengthening California's concealed carry weapon laws in response to the Supreme Court's decision in Bruin. Because of the Bruin decision, currently, applicants need only show that they're not prohibited by law from possessing a gun and of good moral character, which is defined by the individual licensing authorities. Instead, SB 2 will create a uniform, statewide standard that uses clear, objective criteria to assess applicants to ensure that concealed carry weapon permits are not issued to dangerous individuals.

Just as important, it sets out gun free zones to allow Californians to gather, learn, and worship in safety. Young people like Mia should not be afraid to go to her local mall. While the Bruin decision changed our understanding of constitutional regulation in this space, it also affirmed a state's right to prohibit individuals who are not law abiding, responsible citizens from carrying firearms in public.

And it endorsed the establishment of sensitive places. With SB 2, California seeks to set the roadmap to follow the roadmap set forth by the Bruin court. It contains evidence based restrictions endorsed by Bruin and based on real world data. In crafting this Bill, we've welcomed input from the stakeholders, including law enforcement, gun safety advocates, hunting clubs, and transportation groups.

As a result of those meetings, we've refined the language to create a workable system that strikes the appropriate balance between respecting law abiding residents rights to keep and bear arms, and the public's equally weighty interest in having safe streets. Since Bruin, we've seen a roughly 40% increase in CCW applications. That means more guns in public, more guns in your grocery store, your cafes, movie theaters, gas stations. We know that more guns in more places means more people will die because of firearms.

In fact, a 2022 study found that right to carry laws increased firearm violence by 29%. Without SB 2, more Californians will fall victim to gun violence. That is simply unacceptable. California has one of the lowest firearm mortality rates in the country, and that's because we have some of the strongest gun safety laws in the nation. SB 2 is a common sense measure that will further protect Californians from gun violence. I thank you for your time and respectfully ask for your aye vote.

At this time, I'd also like to introduce my colleague Michael Redding, who is a Special Assistant Attorney General that handles public safety issues, to answer any technical questions you might have.

Thank you. Let's hear from any other support witnesses here in the room. Please state your name, your organization, and your position.

Good morning. Natasha Minsker, Prosecutors Alliance of California, in strong support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Jessica Hay, with the California School Employees Association in strong support.

Good morning. Mel Assagai, for the Greater Sacramento Urban League in strong support.

Cassandra Whetstone. I'm a volunteer with Moms Demand Action from Folsom. In strong support.

Alex Navarro. Volunteer with Moms Demand Action in strong support.

I'm Julie Chapman, a volunteer with Moms Demand Action in strong support.

Moira Topp, on behalf of the city of San Diego, San Diego mayor Todd Gloria in support.

Michael Rattigan. On behalf of the Board of Supervisors, Santa Clara County, in support. Thank you.

Alexis Rodriguez, with the California Medical Association, in support. Thank you.

Do we have any support witnesses left in the room that has not spoken already? All right, we will move on to opposition witnesses. This is for lead opposition witnesses. You have 2 minutes. 2 minutes each for two people.

2 minutes total?

Yeah. Each person, but only two people.

Understood.

Thank you, madam Chairman. Members Cory Salzillo, on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association, respectfully here in opposition to the Bill. We appreciate the author and sponsors who have listened to us and our concerns. Unfortunately, this Bill impacts a population that doesn't commit gun crimes. Addressing brewing in this way is unnecessarily complicated and overly burdensome. It will create unnecessary workload for the courts in terms of the appeals process.

And given what we've seen in other states, it's likely to be challenged and probably overturned in whole or in part. We're choosing an approach here that's unlikely to fully survive a legal challenge and is unlikely to stop gun violence. So why are we proceeding down this road? With that likelihood in mind, this Bill disallows recording joint ownership of a firearm and requires a person to be the recorded owner of the firearm to list it on their CCW.

That means a couple who reside together and jointly own a firearm, both cannot carry that firearm, even if it's lawfully and jointly owned. They both can't list it on their CCW. This will encourage the acquisition of more firearms. I just need to point out that a person who intends to commit a gun crime, or who doesn't intend to commit a gun crime but makes an impulsive or irrational decision or has a break, that person is not going to seek a CCW.

They're not going to use that to help facilitate their gun crime. These restrictions will not keep any such person from carrying a firearm in public. For those reasons, we're respectfully opposed to Bill.

Thank you.

Madam Chair Members. Sam Pruit is representing Gun Owners of California and authorized to represent California Rifle and Pistol Association as well. We appreciate that the author includes severability clauses in his Bill. That is oftentimes, since my work in the Capitol since 1980 is a suspicion on the author's part that there are probably unconstitutional portions of this Bill. And I'm here to tell you that there are. Save the time, save the effort. What Bruin said is that any gun control law that's being considered has to be.

First of all, it said that this is not a handcuff to the government with regards to regulating firearms. But it also said it's not a blank check. And then the court said, here is your standard. Whatever you are considering, if it has an analog to 1791, then it can be considered. If it doesn't, by definition, it is unconstitutional.

And they specifically went and discussed about sensitive places and the expansion and churches and things, even though there were colonies at the time who ratified the the Constitution that said if you didn't bring your gun and ammo to, to church, you would be fined two pounds of tobacco, which was an enormous, you know, this was truly an effort to get around New York State Rifle and Pistol Association versus Bruin.

I think you will find that what's happening with the concealed carry weapons Permit Improvement act from New York, which is highly analogous to this piece of legislation that it is being going down in flames before the courts there. And we think that this will also save us all a lot of time and save the taxpayers money. This law will never go into effect. It will be challenged in the courts and it will be found to be unconstitutional, not in part, but in whole.

So thank you for your time. Appreciate it. If you have any questions, we'll be here.

Thank you. We'll now hear from other opposition witnesses here in the room. State your name, your organization and where you stand.

Good morning. Julius McChristian, lieutenant with the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department, in opposition. Thank you.

Good morning. Lieutenant Julie Delano with the Riverside County Sheriff's Office. On behalf of the sheriff's office and Sheriff Chad Bianco in opposition.

Madam chair and Members Randy Perry with Aaron Read & Associates opposed and continue working with the offer.

Dan Reid, western regional Director with the National Rifle Association, also here for National Shooting Sports Foundation, in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any other opposition. Support? It's already passed, so thank you. We will now move on to witnesses waiting to testify via the teleconference service. Please just state your name, organization and position. Moderator, if you would, please prompt the individuals waiting to testify in support or opposition. We will begin.

Thank you. And we first go to line number 33. Please go ahead.

Sylvia Solis Shaw here on behalf of the City of Santa Monica in support. Thank you.

And next we'll be going to line 27. Please go ahead.

Molly Sheahan with the California Catholic Conference. I'm grateful for working with the author and in support. Thank you.

And next we'll go to line 48. Please go ahead. Line 48, you are open. Please go ahead.

Thank you. My name is Michael Finley with the National Shooting Sports foundation, Director of government relations in strong opposition.

Thank you. And we'll next go to line 37. Please go ahead.

Thank you. This is Carlene Ellis. I'm a Member of the California Rifle and Pistol Association, the Gun Owners of California and the NRA in strong opposition. Thank you.

And next we'll go to line 35. Please go ahead.

Hi. Good morning, and thank you for this opportunity to call in. My name is Darren Bedwell. I'm a Member of the California Rifle and Pistol Association and Gun Owners of California and calling to voice my strong opposition to SB 2. Thank you.

And next we go to line number 24. Please go ahead.

Madam Chair, this is Tim McMahon. I'm the chair of the South Sacramento chapter of the California Rifle and Pistol Association and NRA Member in strong opposition.

And next we'll go to line number 43. Please go ahead.

Good morning. My name is James O'Brien. I'm a lifelong California resident, Member of the California Rifle and Pistol Association, an NRA life Member, and strong opposition of SB two. Thank you.

And next we'll go to line number 32. Please go ahead.

Good morning. Kelly Hitt on behalf of Sutter Health in support.

Thank you. And next we'll go to line 54. Please go ahead.

Hi, Ray Grangoff with the Orange County Sheriff's Department voicing opposition. Thank you.

And with that, there are no further lines in queue at this time.

Thank you to all our support and opposition witnesses. We will now bring the discussion back to Members. Do any of our Members have any questions or comments? Senator Ochoa Bogh.

I guess I will. I wanted to give the author an opportunity to explain the Supreme Court's notion or understanding of being unconstitutional. This Bill could possibly, potentially be unconstitutional with regards to expanding it to the category of in regards to the sensitive places or simply all places of public congregation. Would you care to respond to the thought that this could be potentially unconstitutional?

So any law that we pass through the Legislature someone can bring a challenge to, that's not a unique circumstance. This Bill will probably be challenged. But do we believe it's constitutional? Absolutely. Have we looked at the Bruin decision, as the Department of Justice said, as a roadmap to create a constitutionally sound approach. The Supreme Court said, you can't be arbitrary. So this Bill is not arbitrary.

It's creating concrete criteria of who should and shouldn't be eligible to get this responsibility of having a concealed carry permit that's consistent with the Supreme Court. Supreme Court said you can have prohibited places. This Bill has prohibited places that make sense. We have looked at the recent court decisions. The Attorney General's Office has looked at those decisions. We believe at the end of the day, this Bill would be constitutional.

If there's a specific point that you are concerned about, I do have DOJ here who can answer specific questions. But to the nature of this proposal, we believe it's going to stand up. And frankly, that's important. We're not here just to say we want to do this. We're here to make California safer. And we know statistically that this will make California safer. And so that's what we're interested in doing, and we're using Bruin as a roadmap to do it.

The other question I had for you was, with regards to the CCWs, do you believe, and is there data showing that there's a problem with people who have committed murders or mass murders that carry CCWs in comparison to someone who does not have the CCWs?

So the data shows that the more proliferation of weapons that are readily available to the General public, the more concentration of weapons, the more chances of violence occurs. That's statewide. That's nationwide. So states that have lack CCW permitting issues, states that allow more open carry, states that have a more proliferation of weapons in their possession have more violence in those states per capita than California, which has stricter rules.

So, yes, we believe that by restricting CCWs to law abiding citizens and having prohibited places, we are going to cut down on the number of shootings in our state. And the statistics show that that's an aggregate.

But specifically with individuals who have CCWs, do we have any data that specifically.

Shows, there is data to suggest that the more firearms in those homes, the more that homes have weapons in them, the more suicides, the more unintended violence? Yes. That is a valid statistical analysis to make on the proliferation of weapons. The proliferation of weapons in households. So the more weapons you put in private hands, the more violence we have in California.

Senator Skinner.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Assembly Members. Our days together.

Thank you, Senator, for bringing this Bill. On my drive to the Capitol yesterday, I was listening to an NPR report that basically detailed the research and the documentation that those states with the open carry laws have much higher gun violence incidents than those states without.

Now, this Bill is very important, and I really appreciate you bringing it to us because it addresses a situation where California, in my opinion, had a very good law, but a recent court ruling has raised some issues around our ability to enforce it. And so I greatly appreciate how thoughtfully constructed this Bill is to address those concerns and still give us in California the best protections we can to minimize gun violence.

And I think while people have varying opinions on what should be appropriate in these issues of firearms, I would hope that there is no one that wants to see more gun violence in our state. And because the data is clear that unrestricted open carry is more gun violence, this is essential and at a time that's appropriate. If and if it's appropriate. Now, I will move the Bill.

Thank you. We have a motion. Would any other Senator like to speak? Seeing none. Senator, would you like to close?

I would. Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. And I do want to thank the Attorney General and the Governor for being the sponsors of this legislation. How many more tragedies? How many more children? How many more schools? How many more teachers? How many more movie theaters, malls? How many more do we as a society, embrace each other and say, enough. This is an opportunity for California to be safer from gun violence.

And the idea that people are going to advocate for more guns as somehow a valid tool to make California safer when we know it's the opposite. More guns leads to more violence, not less. Arming people leads to more confrontation, not less. So if we want to have less death on our school campuses, we need to have less guns in circulation. It's pretty simple. And the states that allow it have more gun violence than the states that don't.

Now, frankly, this should be addressed on a national level. We should make sure that our neighboring states are just as strong in their advocacy as we are. Because then, collectively, as a society, we'll be safer. But we can't make Nevada or Arizona do what they should do. But we certainly can make California do what it must do. And that's why it's important that we put this Bill on the governor's desk, because we want Californians to be safer.

And as Mia pointed out, this is a uniquely American problem. Other states don't have this issue. And frankly, it's because other states don't allow the proliferation of weapons that the United States does. And so I respectfully ask for you to embrace public safety, our children, our law enforcement, that has to respond to these tragedies and clean up these tragedies, and look at the faces of the family Members when their children are shot in schools or when a domestic violence dispute rises to this level.

We have an opportunity to act. We should take that opportunity. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. So, this Bill has been moved by Senator Skinner. If we can have a roll call, please.

SB 2, motion is do pass to appropriations. [Roll Call]

We will hold the roll open. Thank you. Thank you, Senator.

Thank you.

So, we have another bill that is going to be presented by Senator Portantino as well. SB 368. Senator, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Committee Members, I'll begin by accepting the Committee amendments outlined in the analysis. And thank you for your Committee staff for working with mine. I also want to give a shout out to my staff and the Department of Justice staff for working on SB 2 as well. It is a big bill, and there's been a lot of work. So thank you to my team and to the DOJ.

And again, want to echo the appreciation as they work on SB 368, which is a comprehensive firearm safety package that would expand our prudent laws. It prohibits firearm stores and dealers from raffling off inventory items, accessories and firearms to anyone, whether it be purchased through the purchase of raffle tickets.

And this became to my attention, because in Burbank, one of my cities, they were doing a protest against gun violence on one block, and one of the gun stores decided to do a raffle that same day across the street to give off things to bring in new customers, as sort of a back and forth between the folks who were protesting on the one side of the street. And I was sort of alarmed that you could use raffles to entice more people to buy more guns.

Just doesn't seem, again, more guns means more death. And so we, as a body, should not be encouraging more death. And so that's one of the provisions. It also expands laws around who, in a crisis, are having suicidal thoughts, folks who can turn their weapons back over to those stores.

So if you want to get rid of your gun, we should force the stores to have skin in the game to make society a little bit safer by taking and storing those firearms from folks who want to turn them in. It also extends the 10 year prohibition on owning a firearm. To me, it seemed sort of illogical that we would just have a date, determine whether somebody is a threat to society. So after 10 years, they would automatically get their gun rights back.

They still may have the same issues that cause them to be prohibited 10 years earlier. So there should be some system to evaluate whether somebody gets their gun rights back. And so we think it's a prudent step to sort of put gun stores in the game of trying to make them more responsible. We think allowing a breath at the 10 year point to make sure somebody is an upstanding citizen at that point and should get their gun rights back makes sense.

And so with me, I have Kim Stone from the California District Attorneys Association and Tiffany from the California Federation of Teachers, who will offer witnesses in support.

Chair and Members, thank you to the author for his leadership, Kim Stone of Stone Advocacy on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association in support. Just want to share a couple of brief statistics from E, the Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence. Suicides comprise 52% of the firearm deaths in California. One third of California suicides are by gun violence. Approximately 1600 suicide gun deaths a year every year in California that has held steady from 2010 to 2019.

California District Attorneys Association supports removing guns from people who should not have them, whether that be people who have used guns for violence against others or because they are at risk for using that gun to hurt themselves or others. This bill facilitates that common sense removal in many cases, either if that removal is because the person voluntarily agrees that they shouldn't have the gun or because their criminal behavior has led that to happen. We support the bill and urge your aye vote.

Thank you.

Hi. Tiffany Mock with CFT, a union of classified professionals and educators. We want to also thank the author for this thoughtful bill to remove guns from folks who may not have wanted them but just won them in a raffle and additionally find a safe way to store guns when they're not in the mindset of really wanting to have them around them. We've seen research across this country and this world that indicates that when folks have the ability to not have guns, that suicide numbers are reduced. And so for those reasons, we're proud to support.

Thank you. Do we have any other support witnesses here in this room? Seeing none, we will move to opposition witnesses. We have no opposition witnesses in this room. All right, we will move on. More specifically to those individuals that are waiting to testify via the teleconference service. Please just state your name, organization, and position. Moderator, if you would, please prompt the individuals waiting to testify in support or opposition of this bill, we will begin.

Thank you. And once again, if they would like to make a comment, please press one, then zero. And first we'll go to line 44. Please go ahead.

Hi, my name is Samira Collier-Watt. I'm a Member of the California Rifle and Pistol Association, the National Rifle Association, Gun Owners of California, and Gun Owners of America, and I'm in strong opposition to this bill.

Thank you.

Next, we'll go to line number 15. 15, please go ahead.

My name is Margot Bennett. I'm the Executive Director, and I am also representing Women Against Gun Violence. We are in strong support of SB 368.

And we'll go to line 35. Please go ahead.

Hi, good morning. My name is Darren Bedwell. I'm a Member of the California Rifle and Pistol Association and Gun Owners of California, and I'm in strong opposition to SB 368. Thank you.

Next, we'll go to line 62. Please go ahead.

Thank you for the opportunity. Krishna Permal, Member of Gun Owners of America, CRPA, California Rifle and Pistol Association, strongly in opposition to SB 368. Thank you.

Next, we'll go to line 64. Please go ahead.

My name is James O'Brien. I'm a lifelong California resident, Member of the California Rifle and Pistol Association, an NRA life member, and strong opposition of SB 368. Thank you.

Next we'll go to line 48. Please go ahead.

Thank you. My name is Michael Finley, Director of Government Relations for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, Trade Association for America's Gun Manufacturers, Retailers and Ranges. In strong opposition. Thank you.

And we will go to line 37. Please go ahead.

Thank you. This is Carlene Ellis. I'm a Member of the California Rifle and Pistol Association. The Gun Owners of California and the NRA in strong opposition to this bill. Thank you.

And we will go to line 24. Please go ahead.

Madam Chair it is Tim McMahon. I'm the chair of the South Sacramento chapter of the California Rifle and Pistol Association and NRA Member in strong opposition.

And we will move to line 60. Please go ahead.

Hello, I'm Mark Rasmussen. I'm a retired Californian, and I strongly oppose this legislation.

And we will go to line 58. Please go ahead.

My name is Jeff Turner. I'm a Member of the National Network of Safe Communities and the California Rifle and Pistol Association. I strongly oppose this legislation. Thank you.

And we will go to line 67. Please go ahead.

Hi, my name is Rory Hanley with the Folsom chapter of the California Rifle and Pistol Association, Gun Owners of California, and the NRA, and strong opposition. Thank you.

And, Madam Chair, we have no further comments on the phone.

Thank you to all our support and opposition witnesses. We'll now bring the discussion back to Members. Members, do we have any questions or concerns or comments? Senator Ochoa Bogh.

Really the only one with questions. Okay. And I guess this would not be for you, Senator Portantino, but more for anyone that is opposing this bill. I have here that there's a concern on whether or not it would be more appropriate for law enforcement agencies to be receiving these guns rather than the dealers. Could you speak a little bit to that?

Thank you. Senator. Sam Paredes, representing Gun Owners of California. California Rifle and Pistol Association. First of all, the lawful commerce in firearms is a lawful thing. There's nothing illegal about it. They follow a process. And now, for the state to mandate that they accept firearms from people who admit themselves that they are in crisis is wholly unacceptable for private businesses. If they don't have capacity for additional guns for storage, they're in violation of the law. The law doesn't say you may, it says you shall.

Now, when somebody is in crisis, don't you think it might be a little more wise for them to make an appointment and come to the fire, to the Police Department who can safely handle, make sure that all security is taken care of, instead of putting that inequity on a private business person, which is just not fair to force them? It is not the lawful dealer's faults that people use guns for crime or for suicides. And to make them culpable without trial just goes against our system for values. Thank you.

Do we have any other questions or comments?

I do. So, Senator Portantino, would you care to respond to those comments?

Absolutely. Frankly, the idea that that gun owner, who is suffering from some internal trauma, wants to turn in their weapon, I believe they'll be more comfortable bringing it to the gun dealer than the police station. And that's the point, is if they're thinking about giving up their weapon, let's help them do it. And frankly, I don't shed a tear for the gun store having to have some responsibility in this situation at all. They have the storage capacity.

They're, after all, selling weapons that they properly store in their stores. So I don't see it as a hardship. I see it as a prudent step. To let somebody voluntarily turn back their weapon and let the place they bought it from hold it, to me, makes sense and should be encouraged, not discouraged.

Thank you, Senator. An additional question?

Yes, I do. I want to finish my line of thought on both the comments and the response. And I understand your point with regards, but I also understand the point that the gentleman is making with regards to having the law enforcement space accept these guns. Is there anything currently in law that prohibits dealers from accepting guns that want to be given off by people who are suffering from mental health issues? Is there anything in there that says they cannot?

I do not believe they're prohibited from doing it, but this means that they must do it.

Okay.

And there's nothing to stop somebody from going down to the sheriff's station and turning in their weapon either. People have that ability to do it. Now, the point of this is I believe they'll be more comfortable going to a place that they were comfortable enough to purchase their weapon from. And if they want to give it up, let them give it up.

So there's nothing in statue right now that prohibits them from doing that already. Number two, the follow up to that, by making this a mandate for the dealers, does it bring liability to the dealers in any shape, way or form.

No more so than them having weapons on premises currently gives them liability, does not create any additional burden on them from a liability. They're selling weapons at that place of business. That's what they do.

But with regards to the safety of the individual.

They're charged with keeping their weapons safe on premises as they're currently doing their business. If they let their weapons go without having the proper dispenseful paperwork, they're liable. This doesn't create any additional burden or liability on them other than the capacity to store.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Senator. Do we have any other comments? Senator Skinner?

I moved the bill.

Thank you. No other comments. All right, Senator, would you like to close?

If we prevent one suicide through this bill, the bill is worth it. I believe we're going to prevent more than one. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. A motion has been made by Senator Skinner. Can we call roll, please?

SB 368? The motion is do passed as amended to appropriation. [Roll Call].

We will hold the roll open. Thank you. Senator.

SB 78. [roll call]

Do I have a motion on consent items? Thank you. Motion has been moved by Senator Skinner.

We'll hold the roll open. Thank you. We'll be waiting for our next presenter. Thank you. Guys. We have another lull.Senator Nguyen.

Or Jones is here first. Jones is first. Actually, Jones is.

I saw Senator Nguyen come earlier today. Would you like to present? No worries. Senator Jones. Senator Jones, would you like to present? Thank you. We normally have it here, but it's fine here since you have witnesses. Stand up behind here if you present there. Thank you.

Senator Jones is presenting SB 31. You have the floor.

Safety Committee. I am first presenting SB 31, which does three things to help clean up California and protect public health and safety. First, this Bill prohibits encampments near sensitive communities such as schools, parks, libraries, and daycare centers. This will help us protect our most vulnerable population, our children who go to school and daycare centers play in parks, and go to story time at the libraries. Second, this Bill requires a 72-hour warning period before an encampment sweep can occur.

This will give individuals in homeless communities a chance to find alternative living arrangements and hopefully accept services before their encampment is cleared. Third, when conducting the sweep, the Bill Requires enforcement officers to provide information about sleeping alternatives, homeless and mental health services, or homeless shelters in the area. This will help connect homeless individuals to desperately needed services as we compassionately clear encampments. California has spent over $20 billion in the last five years on homelessness. And what do we have to show for it?

We have encampments lining nearly every block, children being exposed to open drug use and dangerous illicit activity. I'm not okay with letting this continue. Our state has over 170,000 homeless individuals. That makes up 30% of the nation's homeless population. Yet California only makes up less than 12% of the U.S. population. Our current approach to homelessness is failing, and Californians are simply tired of it. We need to try something new. Even Los Angeles gets it.

Our proposed law, modeled after a measure recently passed in the City of Los Angeles, aimed at preventing homeless encampments from being near sensitive areas where children often gather. Cities across the state, including Sacramento and San Diego, are taking action to protect sensitive community areas from encampments. We simply cannot continue allowing people to live in our parks or in front of our schools. This is a public health and public safety crisis.

It is inhumane and unhealthy for our state to continue looking the other way when homeless individuals and families are living and building housing structures on sidewalks and streets. It's also unfair and often dangerous for the neighbors, families, and children in these sensitive areas.

Our measure, along with other legislation combating the homeless epidemic, will hopefully work together to help end the public camping in these areas while also compassionately assisting the homeless with getting the treatment for their mental and or physical health needs that they are struggling with and finding a more sustainable place for them to live. Finally, let me emphasize our goal is not to criminalize homelessness, but rather to protect the public and help lift homeless individuals up out of the streets through a compassionate approach.

Every Californian deserves a path off the streets, and SB 31 will help begin to make that happen. That is why over 2,000 Californians have signed the petition in support of SB 31. I have the petitions here on the table so that you can see the extent and the gravity of this concern from Californians. We have these petitions and we have sent copies to the Committee as well. We have a strong coalition of supporters and bipartisan co-authors.

At this time, I'd like to introduce our witnesses in support. Former San Diego Mayor Kevin Faulconer and Brett Bowman, a homeless advocate.

Thank you. You have the floor. You have two minutes.

Thank you, Senator. Thank you, Senator Jones. And thank you to Members of the Committee for allowing me to testify strongly support of this Bill because it's common sense and I think it should become California law. The street, of course, should not be a home. And what this Bill does, and I'm glad the center talked about compassionately helping people to get off the streets because we need to protect the cornerstones of our community. That's what this is about.

Our schools, our parks, our libraries, our daycare Center for our families, for our kids, and for all of our residents across California. And what this Bill does, of course, is it helps people to get off the street. And I can say from firsthand, based upon my experience as mayor of San Diego, when it comes to providing that information on where those services are available in San Diego.

Our neighborhood policing division from our San Diego Police Department was, in fact, our number one referral source to help folks get off the streets and into the shelters that we have created. This is an important step. It's not the only step, as the Senator has mentioned over and over again, but it's time to take action. It's time to take action because we are seeing cities across California go through similar ordinances.

And I think it's right, absolutely right, to have a statewide standard to say, here's how we're going to help people get off the streets. Here's how we're going to protect the cornerstones of our community. And that's why this Bill does exactly that. And I'm happy to be available for any questions later on. Thank you, Senator.

Thank you. Next speaker.

Hello, my name is Brett Bowman, and I lived on the street for two years. I lived as a meth addict pushing a shopping cart around. Today I stand with Senate Minority Leader Brian Jones in support of Senate Bill 31 as it addresses a two-pronged approach to the homeless. My time on the street has given me some insight into the lives of many homeless and the reasons why they are homeless.

Small percentage of people dealing with homelessness are there because of catastrophic life events, job loss, eviction, loss of a contributing partner, et cetera. They will be the easiest to help, and most will exercise all options and avenues of services and go to any length necessary to get back to being a contributing factor in daily life. And there are people with mental health issues, most of them on drugs. These people will be harder to help.

As I witnessed, most do not make any attempt of getting any help for their mental health issues. These people need help nowadays, and they can't be forced into treatment. Then there's the largest group of people that are on the street. We are there by choice. It is usually choice to keep using drugs instead of being responsible. I fit all three categories.

A catastrophic life event that I use drugs to numb myself from the pain and anger of losing my son, instead of seeking counseling for my mental health issues. We are the hardest to help and treat. Some will never want out with some sort of deterrent. I got tired of being stopped and hassled by the police and being arrested. A forced time out, losing my stuff, my cart full of whatever I had stolen, got out of a dumpster, or accumulated. My mobile life in a cart.

Tired of the weather and the guilt I felt from abandoning my children before I had any interest in making a change. I finally got myself into the Salvation Army in Chico, and that worked for me. I took responsibility for my actions. But for many out there, that feeling of hope is not alive. I support Senator Jones' measure as it provides accountability and hope for many who find themselves at times feeling hopeless in their situations. Sometimes that first step, getting help, is the most difficult.

We also need to ensure that our sensitive areas in our communities, such as school, parks, and daycare centers, are not inhibited by encampments, but also those who need it get connected to services they desperately need. Senate Bill 31 balances both of those approaches and our legislators please support this measure. Thank you.

Thank you. We'll now move on to witnesses in support here in this room. Do we have any witnesses? If you are a witness in support, please state your name, your organization, and whether you support or oppose.

Hi, good morning. Julio De Leon, on behalf of the Riverside Sheriff's Office and Sheriff Chad Bianco, in support. Thank you.

Any other support witnesses seeing none, we'll move on to lead opposition witnesses. You have two minutes.

Thank you. Good morning Chair Wahab and Committee Members, I'm Michelle Paracette, Director of Legislative Affairs for Public Advocates. First, I want to just say that we talk a lot about protecting children when we talk about these bills, but the vast majority of people who abuse children live in houses. Just want to say that right away. Many thanks to Committee staff and their analysis highlighting SB 301's significant due process issues and 8th Amendment implications.

Paraphrasing from the analysis where staff write on the 1000ft prohibition, in a town or city with regular city parks and schools is the distance long enough that it would prohibit a person from sitting anywhere? The ACLU prepared some maps to provide examples of what 1000ft prohibition would look like in some cities, including some in the Committee Members' districts. I'm happy to share those with you if you're interested.

The example I'm going to use today, though, is from Petaluma, where 77% of the land in Petaluma would be prohibited and the remaining 23%, almost its entirety, is private land. There would be nowhere left for people to be. So where are people supposed to go? SB 31 perpetuates a harmful trend of scapegoating our unhoused neighbors and wasting public resources on inequitable and ineffective enforcement-driven homelessness policy. Criminal penalties and fines create legal and financial barriers that make it harder for people to access housing.

Sweeping people experiencing homelessness cruelly from one place to another does nothing to address the actual problem, which is they don't have housing. If this legislation's goal is to increase safety, there are many ways to do that that do not require police or criminal penalties, such as sanitation services, regular trash pickup, housing navigation, and onsite supportive services. SB 31 ignores the fact that families with children are homeless.

I take this very personally as I myself was homeless in childhood with my family, living in a van with my mother and siblings. We parked at my elementary school at night during the week and on weekends we stayed at the park and went to the library, all places we could feel safe that didn't cost money. People experiencing homelessness are people. They are families, children, seniors, veterans, LGBTQ, disabled people. They are part of our community, and they need our help, not criminalization.

Let's stop trying to arrest, find, and sweep our way out of homelessness and instead fund real solutions at the scale of the problem, like tenant protections, affordable housing construction, and the community-based mental health and substance abuse treatment we all know we need. Please vote no on SB 31. Thank you.

Thank you. Next lead witness.

Good morning, Madam Chair, Committee Members. Carlos Marquez, Executive Director of ACLU California Action while we recognize that the author's aims are well intentioned, SB 31 is deeply misguided and we do remain strenuously opposed. SB 31 does little to address the vaccine crisis unfolding in our unhoused communities across the state. Instead, SB 31 has chosen a criminalization response over a health and safety response, and we know that this will disproportionately impact Black, brown, and Indigenous folks.

We did publish, in partnership with our affiliates, a report in 2021 that looked at policies at the local level that resemble SB 31. And what we learned is that these policies ultimately resulted in unhoused people being forcibly banished to remote areas, including harsh desert landscapes, outside city borders, and far from life-saving resources such as water, food, and health care.

These efforts resulted in the dismantling of efforts by civil society to provide aid like food, water, trash removal, blankets, and clothing. And perhaps most disquieting in the context of children in Mountain View, a community of unhoused people, which included several dozen families with children enrolled in Mountain Unified School District, were targeted for removal by a local ordinance, later challenged in court.

So perhaps the most perverse feature of SB 31 is that it's cloaked in an effort to protect children, which ignores the fact that unhoused families with children, like the families in Mountain View, have chosen to live near the children's school. Just like most other parents would choose who are housed, SB 31 would criminalize and effectively banish these families to outskirts inaccessible to vital resources and services. And for those reasons, we urge a No vote on SB 31.

Thank you. We'll now move on to other witnesses. I do just want to state that. State your name, your organization, and whether you oppose or support. Thank you.

Good morning. Emily Harris with the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, in opposition.

Mia Neuman with UCLA Alternative Breaks and strong oppose.

Jessica B. Euden with UCLA Alternative Breaks, in strong opposition.

Lucy Liu with UCLA Alternative Breaks, in strong opposition.

Ashleigh Crable with the Ella Baker Center For Human Rights, in strong opposition.

Good morning, Committee. Adriana Griffith, with Initiate Justice, in strong opposition. Thank you.

Good morning. Lizzie Buchen, Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights, in opposition.

Thank you. Do we have any other speakers in opposition?

Marco George, on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association, in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Any others seeing none. We will now move on to witnesses waiting to testify via the teleconference service. Please just state your name, organization, and position. Moderator, if you would, please prompt the individuals waiting to testify in support or opposition of this Bill, we will begin.

Thank you. And just as a reminder, if they would like to voice their comment in support of opposition of SB 31, press one zero and first go to line 65, please go ahead.

Morning, Chair and Members. Tina Rosales on behalf of the Western Center on Law and Poverty, San Bernardino Free Them All, Project Amiga, Break The Cycle Project, and Disability Rights of California, in opposition.

Next, go to line 53. Please go ahead.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Oussama Mokeddem on behalf of Public Health Advocates, in strong opposition.

Next, we'll go to line 76. Please go ahead.

Hi, my name is Jean Ri. I'm with We The People San Diego, strong opposition to Bill.

And we'll go to line 78. Please go ahead.

Good morning. Jim Lindberg, on behalf of the Friends Committee on Legislation of California, in opposition.

And we'll go to line 79. Please go ahead.

Deb Roth, Disability Rights California, in opposition. Thank you.

And we'll go to line 20. Please go ahead. Line 20. Your line is open.

Melanie Kim, State Policy Director of the San Francisco Public Defenders Office, in opposition.

And next, go to line 80, eight zero. Please go ahead.

Hi. Taina Vargas with Initiate Justice Action, in opposition.

And next, we go to line 73. Please go ahead.

Avalon Edwards with Starting Over Inc., in strong opposition.

And we're go to line 68. Please go ahead.

Erin Tsurumoto Grassi, Policy Director at Alliance San Diego, in opposition.

And Madam Chair, we have one more line coming in. Just one moment.

Thank you.

And we will go to line 81. Please go ahead. On behalf of Disability Rights California. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you to all our support and opposition witnesses will now bring the question back to Members. Members, do we have any questions or comments? Senator Ochoa Bogh.

Yes. So it's interesting because I have to say I empathize with both sides, the opposition and the support witnesses with regards to this issue because I think it's also a perspective of the vision of what we see with encampments. On one side, we have those that see the people suffering from opioid use, mental health issues and so forth, and the need to have them redirected to services.

And then the other side we have the vision and understanding of individuals who literally are in house because they can't find affordable housing, housing that they can afford. So we have two different variant visions on both sides, and I think both are quite valid points to be made. With regards to criminalizing our unhoused population. One of the things that I wanted to mention is I'm grateful that the Governor is expanding the mental health bed capacity that we have a lack of in California to be able to house those people that are suffering from behavioral health and opioid that we need to take care of.

And on the other side, I'm working with my colleague right here from San Francisco with regards to trying to make sure that we are building more housing in the State of California, which we need because we don't have enough housing on that end. So we're working on that front. But on this end, I wanted to give the author an opportunity to explain. I keep hearing that we're criminalizing the unhoused. I want to give you an opportunity. It might be, would you mind sharing the thoughts of the difference between criminalizing and not criminalizing or incarcerating people that are homeless? I mean, would this Bill incarcerate people?

Like, I'm going to give my answer and then maybe I can have Mr. Bowman speak to his experience on this, too, if he's willing to come back up. This Bill is, in my opinion, is taking a soft approach to enforcing these encampments. And I think most Californians have gotten to the point where they're frustrated with government's lack of attention to this particular issue. We're not saying that we're going to sweep up every person in that encampment and lock them up. That's not the purpose of this.

The purpose of this is to protect sensitive areas and give the people in the encampment fair warning of that sweep. Is coming through and then also give them the information that they need to seek the services if they want to seek them. It's nothing in this Bill compels them to seek those services. But I think talking about the compassionate part of the enforcement, Mr. Bowman has a really interesting aspect in his story on what that difference made for him.

I was on the street for two years dealing with all kinds of people, the mental health people that have mental health before they're there, people that have mental health issues from their drug use, meth induced psychosis, heroin. I spent a lot of time sitting in front of businesses in my local community with groups of people smoking meth. There's so many people out there that you could offer them everything in the world, but they have to get clean to get these services.

And a lot of those people are going to stay where they're at. I don't know. They have to get tired of it or they need some encouragement. I had both. I had some people coming out and offering me some places to go, and to llet them know when I was ready. And so I went to the Salvation Army and that worked. It's a great program. If we could come up with some sort of program that helps people get back in the habit of taking care of themselves, getting up early, being responsible, some sort of work program.

I appreciate it. Do we have a motion?

We do, but we're not finished. I'm sorry. I want to make sure that I clarify and finish my line of thought.

Senator Rosalicie Ochoa Bogh, let me explain. Clearly, the language of the Bill presents a tool for the locals to decide whether they want to have this be a citation, infraction or misdemeanor. It's up to the locals determine how they want to enforce this. If they get to the point where they need law enforcement, all our goal would be that public health or some other homeless outreach agency of the counties would do this first without needing law enforcement. But you're not going to go to jail for violating a citation.

Thank you, Senator.

So that's the other concern that I wanted to make sure that we addressed. Your thoughts - and I'm concerned with the notion that there are some communities, depending, you have 1000ft from these sensitive areas, library, schools and so forth. But there was a concern raised on whether or not there was communities that don't have those accommodations within it. So how would you address communities that don't have the ability to accommodate the distance for safety within those sensitive areas?

Well, that's the great thing about the legislative process and presenting these ideas in Committee and getting the input from everybody, the stakeholders on both sides of the issue. If there is a possibility to discuss the proper distance, if it's 500ft, 750ft or 1000ft, that's certainly something I would be open to having a conversation about. And I'm sure the proponents of the Bill would be open to having that conversation as well.

Opioid, fentanyl, meth, everything.

Okay, perfect. So there could be accommodations and it doesn't have to be. You're not. And I say we because I'm the co author of the Bill, but I want to make sure that we have it for the record that the intent of this Bill is not to criminalize the unhoused, but to one, just make sure that we don't have them close to schools or daycare centers and so forth. More specifically, addressing the issue with opioid abuse.

Those are the primary target. And then the other point is to make sure that we have them connected to resources so that they know what's available. Now, the only concern that I have, and I think it's important to maybe talk to this point, is there is concern on whether or not there's sufficient housing to relocate or redirect individuals that are unhoused. Would you mind sharing your thoughts on that concern?

Sure. And I think that I agree with the witnesses in opposition to the Bill that that is a major concern. Obviously, that's a major concern. We have 170,000 Californians homeless, and many of those people are struggling from drug addiction or mental illness. And they need help and we need to help them. And we need to have a compassionate approach to that. This Bill is not that solution. We're not looking to solve every aspect of the homeless situation in California with this one Bill.

This is just one simple first step, to have a compassionate approach to two sides of the coin. One, a compassionate approach to the homeless people that are stuck in those encampments and are having a difficult time finding their way out of them. And the second thing is a compassionate approach to keeping our families safe, our children safe as they go in and out of these facilities, libraries, parks, schools, daycare centers, our families and our children should feel safe going in and out of those locations. And this Bill provides that compassionate approach to that as well.

Thank you. Thank you, Senator Wiener.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank the author for the conversation that we had a little while, probably a month ago about this Bill. And I want to explain why I'm not going to be supporting this Bill today. And I'm probably for probably some different or overlapping but different reasons to some of the opposition. I do agree this Bill is unbelievably broad. And for a lot of cities, we'll basically knock out the entire city.

When we don't have enough homeless shelters, we certainly don't have enough housing. And I want to just acknowledge that the author has been very open minded about housing legislation, and I appreciate that. And I will also say I am not supportive of bills. I've never had to vote on one. But there have been efforts in legislatures to preempt the ability or ban cities from having any kinds of local restrictions on camping in public spaces. I don't support those cities.

My take is that, and I think this is correct, cities currently have the power to decide locally whether they want to restrict encampments or camping in public places, if so, to what extent. And in fact, in San Francisco, we have a number of those laws. Some of them are not being enforced at the moment because of court rulings. That's a constitutional issue that the courts will be hammering out. But we have those laws.

I've supported some of those laws and taken a lot of heat from some homeless advocates for supporting them. But I do believe that cities should be able to manage their public spaces in a way that also facilitates people transitioning off the streets and making sure people have a place to go. I have serious concerns about the state coming in and putting in a law for every city in the state when cities already have the ability to do this.

If a city decides not to do it, that's their decision. I think most cities probably have decided in one form or another to do this, and cities should be making those decisions at the local level. So for those who think because of my housing work, that I'm categorically opposed to local control, I've always said that that's not true. As a former local elected official, and it is not true. There are decisions that are most appropriately made at the state level.

There are decisions that are appropriately made at the local level. I think this is one where cities have the tools to make these rules. And in fact, it's going to be the cities that will be enforcing. Even if this Bill were to pass in the law, it will be city police and city agencies that will be supporting the state will not be coming in and enforcing this.

That's a very important point.

Yeah, but I think that cities should be therefore sculpting the law that works for their communities, since they're going to be the ones enforcing it. So I just wanted to, again, thank the Senator for taking on what is my constituents like. Constituents throughout the state are deeply angry and frustrated with what's happening on our streets. It's a humanitarian disaster, and it is not good for the people who are in those encampments. It's not good for the surrounding neighborhood. It's a huge problem.

But I just don't think that this is the right approach for the entire state, and so I won't be supporting it today.

Thank you. Any other Senators like to comment on this? All right, Senator, would please close.

Thank you. I'll just real quickly address one thing that Senator Wiener mentioned, and that's the statewide approach.

What we're finding in some of these locals, as they're passing these ordinances at a local level, they're forgetting the compassionate side of it, which is giving the warning to the encampments and including either a 24 Hours4872 whatever number they want to pick, but also requiring that whatever agency is coming in to sweep and clean up the encampments is including the information that they need for services, housing, whatever.

So that's the one thing that my Bill would do that some of the locals are leaving out of there. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman and Members. And I want to thank my witnesses for coming up. Mayor Kevin Faulconer for making the trip up. Brett Bowman, who's just a resilient advocate for the homeless here in California, and I appreciate him continuously willing to share his story with us.

SB 31 strikes, I believe, the appropriate balance between accountability and compassion in helping tackle the homeless crisis, while putting public health and public safety as the top priorities. I've talked to people, just as Senator Wiener just mentioned. We've talked to people up and down the state, representing all sides of the ideological spectrum. And it actually surprises me how universally Californians agree that the homeless crisis has gotten out of hand and the encampments have been allowed to get too far out of control.

No matter how liberal or conservative people are, or agnostic or non political or very political, Californians are infuriated by the encampments that they see in their communities every day. We need to do more. The reason the encampments bother people is because they can see them. You can't ignore the problem when it's now taking up a lane of the street on your drive home from work, or, in the case of SB 31, on your way to your kids school, park, library, or daycare center.

So what do we do? We drive by in disgust and frustration and complain about it, but SB 31 does something about it. This Bill cleans up those encampments that are directly causing potential safety issues for our children, and in so doing, touches the homeless individual one more time. One time closer to saying yes to accepting that service. One time closer to saying yes to staying in the shelter for that night. One time closer to letting someone help them pull their life back together.

And this Bill isn't going to solve everything. We know that. But we need to start adding tools to our tool chest. Californians need to adopt the improv mentality of yes. And yes is trying every potential solution and add to it what we're already doing. I'm not okay with California continuing to ignore the problem, and this Bill does something measurable to fix it. This is a bipartisan Bill, and I respectfully ask for your AYe vote.

Thank you, Senator. Do we have a motion on this Bill?

So moved.

So. Senate Bill 31 has been moved by Senator Ochoa Bog. Can we call roll, please?

SB 31 [roll call]

Thank you. Vote is one to one and has failed. Would you like to have a reconsideration?

Thank you. So, unanimous consent for reconsideration. All right. Thank you. No opposition, so you are granted a reconsideration.

Yes, please. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate that.

So, we have Senate Bill 236. Jones creates a grant program for District Attorney offices who use a vertical prosecution methodology for human trafficking crimes. Senator, you have the floor.

Thank you, Senator. Madam Chair, I appreciate it. I would like to start by accepting Committee amendments to remove the appropriation from the Bill. I'm not sure if those are actually in writing or not, but we've had discussions to that end. Okay. SB 236 is an effort to confront the scourge of human trafficking that your Committee's analysis aptly points out is among the world's fastest growing criminal enterprises. This is not a problem of a political party or geography.

This is a problem that impacts all of us across California and the United States, and we must work together to resolve it. Human trafficking is a form of modern day slavery. Simply put, it is criminals preying on those who are most vulnerable in our society in the cruelest way imaginable. SB 236 expands a concept of vertical prosecution that is working successfully in several California counties and is a methodology often used in complex cases like homicide, gangs, child abuse, and domestic violence.

Vertical prosecution is a system that allows a single prosecutor to take the case from the beginning stages all the way to the prosecution and sentencing. Vertical prosecution allows the prosecutor to build rapport with the victim and develop greater community in the case. Continuity in the case. This Bill creates a grant program subject to funding within the governor's Office of Emergency Services to provide funding for district attorneys statewide to take advantage of the vertical funding methodology.

We have made progress in the battle against human trafficking in California, but not nearly enough. This Bill will take traffickers off the street, thus saving future victims. Madam Chair, I have a witness here today, Matthew Greco from the California District Attorney's Office Association.

Thank you. Witness, you have two minutes.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. I am Matthew Greco, a 26 year career prosecutor here on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association in support of this fundamental, very important Bill. Senate Bill 236, which would create grant funds to be distributed amongst 11 counties to supplement funding for vertical prosecution. Human trafficking remains a lucrative criminal enterprise.

It is the selling of flesh, the human body, and it is the selling of that multiple times that really distinguishes it from other types of contraband of weapons, narcotics. Those who traffic in human flesh know very well that they can inflict physical and mental terror upon their victims, making the crime difficult to prosecute. The traffickers also move their enterprise from place to place, from state to state, from city to city. The best way to attack these traffickers is through vertical prosecution units supported by victim advocates.

Vertical units can better coordinate with other jurisdictions to track, apprehend and prosecute offenders. Specially trained prosecution staff can focus on preventing and overcoming the physical and mental manipulations of trafficking victims that truly are the major impediment in ensuring that victims of human trafficking receive the services and the justice that they deserve. San Diego County has a human trafficking task force, spearheaded by the San Diego Police Department, that leverages both local agencies as well as federal agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Homeland Security.

The primary goal of this task force is rescuing those forced into human trafficking. In fact, in a recent coordinated operation in February, there were over 30 individuals of victims of human trafficking that were rescued, including nine minors, one as young as 13 years old. By creating grant funds to supplement existing vertical prosecution units, SB 236 encourages the continued use of vertical prosecution model and helps to hold offenders accountable while also providing valuable victim services to the vulnerable victims of human trafficking. For those reasons, we would respectfully ask for your yes vote.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Do we have any other lead witnesses? All right, seeing none, can we have any of the witnesses that are here in this room? Please state your name, your organization and your support.

Madam Chair Members Randy Perry with Aaron Read & Associates on behalf of PORAC in support.

Madam Chair and Committee Members Gail Stewart on behalf of San Diego County District Attorney Summer Stephan.

Do we have any other witnesses in support? Seeing none, we'll now move on to witnesses in opposition, seeing none. We're going to ask if there's any witnesses in the room in opposition, seeing none, we will move on. Thank you to the witnesses that have testified so far. We'll move on to the witnesses waiting to testify via teleconference service. Please just state your name, organization and position. Moderator if you would, please prompt the individuals waiting to testify in support or opposition of this Bill, we will begin it.

Thank you. Any of you would wish to testify in support or opposition to this Bill, please press one, then zero at this time. And we'll go to line 20. Please go ahead.

Melanie Kim, State Policy Director of the San Francisco Public Defender's Office, in opposition.

Madam Chair, just a moment while we provide the line number for one more.

No worries.

And thank you for that, Madam Chair. We'll go to line 86, please. Go ahead.

Support it. Yeah.

Hi, my name is Marlene Villa. My brother passed away from fentanyl poisoning.

Thank you.

Can we just have. Whether you support this Bill or not.

Madam Chair. We have no one else in queue at this time.

Thank you to all our support and opposition witnesses. We'll now bring the discussion back to the Members. Members, do we have any questions, comments or thoughts? Senator Wiener has moved the Bill. Senator, would you like to close?

Thank you, ma'am. Chair. Senators. Thank you. This Bill will help bring justice to those who have fallen prey to the heinous crime of human trafficking and help stop the exploitation of innocent individuals by putting predators behind bars. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. The Bill has been moved by Senator Wiener. The motion is do pass appropriations, as amended. Can we call roll.

SB 236. Do pass, as amended, to Approps. [Roll Call].

Five to zero that Bill is out. Thank you.

Thank you, Senators. Have a great rest of the day.

All right, we have. Senator.

So, Senator Umberg is presenting SB 44. Senator, you have the floor.

Thank you. Madam Chairman, if I might present SB 64 first and then SB 44.

Sure.

All right, let me begin by thanking you, Madam Chair, and your staff, in particular, Mary Kennedy, for their hard work on this Bill. What this Bill does is this permits a search warrant to be issued in alleged crimes. Hate crimes. It's especially important right now, given the rise of hate crimes, whether it was a consequence of the pandemic or it is consequence of other societal issues. Hate crimes have risen exponentially here in the last few years.

And with respect to antiasian hate crimes, for example, they've increased 339% over the last couple of years. And I expect that other vulnerable communities, other targeted communities, hate crimes have increased there as well. And so currently, a search warrant cannot be issued for most misdemeanors, including misdemeanors alleging a hate crime. And I'll just draw my own personal experience as to why that's particularly important. Many years ago, when I was a prosecutor, I think Abraham Lincoln was a prosecutor at the same time.

Many years ago, there were no hate crimes laws on the books. And in my own county in Westminster, some skinheads tried to drive an African American family out of their neighborhood. They had lived there for over 30 years, and they burned a cross on their lawn. Their defense was this was simply a neighborhood dispute and this was a prank. Well, we did not believe it was a prank, but it was a misdemeanor at the time.

But for the fact that we basically combined it with a conspiracy allegation, it would not have been a felony, we would not have been able to execute a search warrant. And the search warrant was determinative in that prosecution because we had to demonstrate not just the act, but also racial animus. And by virtue of the search warrant we found, I'd be happy to tell folks offline what we found, but some very noxious material and evidence of a broader conspiracy.

There was a conviction, thankfully, in any event. So that's what this is about. This is about allowing prosecutors to be able to seek a search warrant. It has to be just like other search warrants, has to be authorized by a judge after a signed affidavit under penalty of perjury. I have with me as witnesses the San Francisco District Attorney, Ms. Brooke Jenkins, as well as Lori Frugoli from the California District Attorneys Association. Ms. Jenkins, if you don't mind, Madam Chair.

Definitely. You have two minutes. Welcome. Yes.

Hi. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. I am proud to join Senator Umberg and others here today in strong support of SB 64. I am the District Attorney for the City and County of San Francisco, a city that prides itself on our diversity. But like everywhere else in America, San Francisco has proven not to be immune from bias, hate, and bigotry.

Between 2020 and 2021, hate crimes in San Francisco spiked, particularly against Asian Americans, where we saw record spike of 567% increase in hate crimes against the Asian American community. We have also continued to see an upward trend in hate crimes against the black, LGBTQ, and Jewish communities in the past several years. Prior to becoming the District Attorney, I served as the designated hate crimes prosecutor in San Francisco. During a portion of the Trump Administration, I saw hate crimes and hate incidents rise dramatically.

Hate crimes are one of the only crimes in the State of California that require prosecutors to prove motive. We have to prove that a defendant's actions were motivated by hate, bias or animus towards a victim for their protected class or characteristic. Law enforcement needs all the tools available in these cases to prove what motivated these crimes. We also need all of the tools available to be able to identify who suspects and perpetrators are in crimes that are clearly motivated by hate.

By authorizing courts to issue search warrants to enable law enforcement to gather additional evidence of hateful intent, prosecutors can collect the crucial evidence necessary to hold all offenders who commit these acts accountable. One example to offer is just three weeks ago, a victim was riding a bus in San Francisco when another passenger looked at her and said, I don't like China. As the victim tried to ignore the suspect, the suspect forcibly spat at the victim and repeated their statement.

The suspect spat on the victim several more times before getting off of that bus. SB 64 would authorize officers to potentially obtain search warrants to secure video surveillance, transit card data, and other social media data that could have potentially led to identifying who this perpetrator is, as well as uncover further evidence of the animus harbor. Nothing is more personal than being targeted because of who you are. Law enforcement needs every single tool available to solve these crimes and to provide justice to our victims. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any other lead witnesses? Thank you. You have the floor in two minutes.

Thank you. Good morning. I'm Lori Frugoli, the District Attorney of Marin County, and I'm honored here to speak on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association, on behalf in support of Prop. Excuse me, SB 64. And I want to thank Senator Umberg for recognizing that we all need to do collectively what we can to stop hate. Some of you might be thinking at this moment in time, with a moment and a call for criminal justice reform, which we all know is needed.

Why is a District Attorney here requesting additional legislation? But I submit to you, SB 64 is sorely needed. We can't deny that hate crimes are on the rise. As was noted by DA Jenkins, and as it is now, when a hate crime is committed, we don't have the tools we need to properly investigate these crimes. Often, investigators find some evidence a crime was committed by hate, but we have to prove they did it because of the hatred of a particular group.

Jurors and the triers of fact ask for more. Why didn't you search his phone, his computer? Did he text his intent before he committed this crime? Does he belong to racist groups? These are things that people ask us when we are filing these crimes, considering filing them, and also when we attempt to prosecute them.

Once a misdemeanor crime is committed, in this case with SB 64 and an officer believes it was committed because of hatred of identified group, this Bill would allow us to conduct additional investigation based upon articulated facts in an affidavit presented to a judge. In Marin County, these affidavits are presented to my office first and reviewed by my office. So in most cases, with most DA's office, we're talking about three different levels of scrutiny. A police officer on the street, a DA's office, and a judge.

Before any action is taken and any search is conducted, cases such as were mentioned earlier in Marin, we had a case where a Muslim security guard returned to her car to find it vandalized with pig blood and other pork products strewn about her vehicle. Or the Muslim woman in Santa Clara who was attacked at a Starbucks by a person who ripped off her hijab and choked her with it.

Or threatening racist phone calls, which we've had in my county intentionally worded to skirt the felony threats law. Warrants in cases like these will help us determine what was the person's intent. Did they text someone or phone someone before they committed this crime? Are they learning online how to commit these crimes and escape accountability? So as we welcome newcomers and diversity to our communities, those who we welcome and who are already here are already targets of hate crimes, as was noted.

Maybe it's because of their race, their sex, their religious beliefs, whether they're immigrants, Members of the AAPI community, transgender, Muslim, Jewish, gay. The reality is hate knows no boundaries, and we live and see that every day. We ask for hate crimes to be added to the list, which currently includes misdemeanor crimes of child pornography, DUI refusal investigations, even fish and game investigations. As hate crimes and the sophistication to commit these crimes and escape accountability rises. We ask you help by providing us with this tool so that we can stand up and rise against hate.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Do we have any other witnesses in support in this room? State your name, your organization, and your support.

Madam Chair of the Members Paul Yoder, on behalf of San Francisco, Maryland, and..., also in support I urge an aye vote.

Thank you.

Madam Chair and Members Brandon Up, on behalf of Los Angeles County Sheriff Robert Luna, in support. Thank you.

Madam Chair. Members Randy Perry with PORAC in support. Thank you.

Madam Chair. Matthew Greco, on behalf of the San Diego Deputy District Attorneys Association and the San Diegans Against Crime.

Thank you. Do we have any other Members in the room in support? Seeing none, will move to opposition lead witnesses. Do we have any lead opposition witnesses, seeing none, will ask for opposition witnesses in the room? Seeing none, we will move on to witnesses waiting to testify via the teleconference service. Please state your name, your organization and position moderator. If you would, please prompt the individuals waiting to testify in support or opposition of this Bill, we will begin. Thank you thank you.

And if you wish to testify in support or opposition of Bill, please press one, then zero at this time. We'll start with line 94. Please go ahead.

Line 94, your line is open.

Danielle Collette. I support the Bill.

And move to line 20, please. Go ahead.

Melanie Kim, State Policy Director at the San Francisco Public Defender's Office, in opposition.

And in line 85, please go ahead.

Brian Levin, Director, Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism, California State University, San Bernardino, only in support.

And Madam Chair, we have no one else in queue at this time.

Thank you, and thank you to all our witnesses. We'll now bring the discussion back to the Members. Do any of our Members have questions or comments? Senator Skinner, please.

I move the Bill.

Thank you. Do we have any other, Senator Ochoa Bogh.

I just need a clarification on the process and the procedure. There was a comment here that I read that says a search warrant procedure to apply to potential hate field crimes that are ultimately charged as misdemeanors. So would the search warrants be, and I'm not sure if it's you Senator Umberg, would the search warrants be issued for potential crimes or actual crimes occurring or that have occurred?

Well, my belief is that the search warrant will be issued for contraband or evidence of the crime. So, for example, to use the example provided of desecration of a vehicle with pork products, that the officer who was investigating would fill out an affidavit, say, we think we can find evidence of, for example, racial animus or religious animus in this case, in someone's computer. And so they specify a particular area to be searched and how it would be searched.

They fill out that affidavit and why they think that evidence would be there. They then, as was explained by the Marin District Attorney, would submit it to the DA, as is often done, and then it's submitted to a judge, determine whether there's probable cause to believe that a search warrant should be issued. So that would be the typical process. But what you're looking for is you're looking typically, for evidence.

And just for clarifications for crimes that have been committed or are being committed at the time.

Crimes that are suspected to have been committed.

Yes. Sorry. Apologize. Yes. So not the potential of committing a crime, but that have occurred or are occurring. Have occurred.

Well, for example, if there's a conspiracy, so that you believe that there's one, you're the officer, you believe there's been a crime committed. Right. And in terms of hate crimes, often there's a conspiracy to commit additional crimes. So you're looking for evidence of that. And if you believe that there's also a conspiracy, you're looking for evidence of the conspiracy as well, so the conspiracy suggests that there'd be even future crimes.

But the crime you're looking at in terms of the search warrant affidavit is whatever happened, here's what we saw. We saw the following. We believe that the following was generated by racial animus. The reason we believe it is because we believe that, with respect to Muslims, that pork products have a special abhorrence, and it was meant to send a message to that community. And thus we would like to search. I'll use the computer as example.

Thank you.

All right, seeing no further questions. Senator, would you like to close?

Thank you very much. Hate crimes are a unique breed. I actually, in my legislative career, I served here before hate crimes were on the books. But hate crimes are not just targeted at the individual victim. Hate crimes are targeted at a community to send a message to an entire community. They're in a league of their own. And I think that this is a tool that would be most important in basically identifying those who are responsible in preventing further crime. I urge your aye vote.

Thank you. So, the Bill has been moved by Senator Skinner. The motion is do pass to appropriations. Can we have a roll call vote, please?

[Roll Call].

Thank you. The vote is five to zero. The Bill is out. I will do a quick request that we do the items that have already been so lifting roll call.

SB 2, motion was due, passed to appropriations. Current vote is three to one. Wiener. Wiener, aye.

Four to one, that Bill is out. That's SB 2.

SB 368, motion is do pass to appropriations. Current vote is three to zero. Ochoa Bogh. Wiener. Wiener, aye.

That vote is four to zero. That's SB 368. Bill is out.

SB 230. Oh, sorry. That one's done. Consent calendar for four to zero. Wiener, consent, yes.

Five to zero. Consent calendar is out. Thank you. We'll move on to SB 44. Again, Senator Umberg, the floor is yours.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. And I know I've said this before, but let me underline it that you, Madam Chair, the Committee and the Committee staff have devoted tremendous amount of time and attention to this matter. And as is appropriate, fentanyl is causing an unbelievable number of deaths, and the trajectory is unfortunately headed in the wrong direction. Just in the last year, there have been 107,500 individuals who have died as a consequence of overdose. Many of those folks.

Many of those folks, many, maybe two thirds or more, actually, did not know at the time that they purchased or received a particular compound, a particular drug, that that was laced with something like fentanyl. So, for example, if you're thinking you're getting Xanax because you want to calm your nerves before you get on a flight and you buy Xanax from another source, not a pharmacy, another source, turns out it's laced with fentanyl, you die.

There are a number of circumstances where folks have purchased what they believe to be a different compound, oxycodone, whatever, and it turns out it's laced with fentanyl. This is called Alexandra's Law. That's exactly the circumstance. As with respect to Alexandra, who believed that she was purchasing something different, and as a consequence, that was laced, the oxycodone was laced with fentanyl, and she died.

Now, the number of deaths in the epidemic that's impacting us, it's greater than the number of those killed in Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan and Iraq. That's the magnitude of the crisis, and it, again, is increasing exponentially. In this case, it's not just those who, for example, are addicted to heroin and you accidentally overdose. Many, if not most of the victims did not know at the time that they were actually ingesting fentanyl. This is just one tool. There are a number of tools.

This is not a panacea for the fentanyl epidemic. I've spent a good chunk of my life. Sometimes I say doing drugs. What I really mean is being involved in drug policy issues, whether as a prosecutor or being the Deputy Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. It's obvious to me, and I think obvious to most, that multiple tools need to be engaged with respect to drug addiction, drug policy. I used to work for a fellow named General Barry McCaffrey.

He used to say, the most effective tool in terms of substance abuse is a conversation between a parent and a child at a kitchen table. Well, that probably is the most effective tool, but that's not available, and that's not to all. And that's not the only tool. That's not the only tool. Clearly, treatment is an important component. Clearly, education is a critical component.

Clearly, making sure that those who, for example, sell drugs that are laced with something that is fatal, like fentanyl, that dealing with those folks, particularly on their second offense, is critical. Now, this Bill, you've seen other versions of this Bill before. This is different. This is different than the earlier versions you've seen to deal with the supply reduction in terms of fentanyl.

What this Bill does is this Bill says if somebody is convicted of an offense where they have distributed, sold a compound with fentanyl, if they've pleaded guilty, or if they've been convicted, and now they know that what they've distributed, irrespective of what their state of mind was in distribution, they know it contains fentanyl.

If they sell it again and they kill somebody, and they kill somebody and that substance contains fentanyl, then evidence can be introduced that demonstrates that they, on a prior occasion, had sold a compound with fentanyl. And they're on notice. They're on notice that this is a circumstance that is actually fairly common. It is not a conclusive presumption. It doesn't automatically mean that there's a conviction. It is simply evidence of state of mind. We have limited this in many different ways.

We have limited this to make sure that it's not just a user. We've limited to make sure it's not just somebody who's, for example, at a party, providing somebody else at the party with a pill. This is focused upon those who are selling, those who are trading fentanyl for value. Now, this is a topic that has captured all of our interests. And I know that everyone in this room is concerned. I know that everyone in this room is concerned about what I've described as the epidemic.

There are different ways to deal with it. I've described some different strategies. I think they all must be employed. In this case, on this Bill, it's unusual in terms of the legislative process that we have 20 co-authors and authors from the Senate and about 40 overall. I think the need is apparent and the body politic is crying out for action on our part. I'm pleased today to have two witnesses who deal with this epidemic on a daily basis.

First, San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria is here as our first witness. And our second witness is San Francisco District Attorney, Ms. Brooke Jenkins. Mr. Mayor, Madam Chair.

Thank you.

Thank you, Senator. Thank you. Chair and Members of the Committee, I'm San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria. I'm proud to be a sponsor of Senate Bill 44, which create a fentanyl admonishment. I want to start by thanking the Capelouto family and the other families who are in the hallway, who are family Members who had overdosed on fentanyl. Their presence here today is, I think, particularly meaningful. I appreciate their willingness to share extremely painful stories about loved ones who've been killed by fentanyl in order to save lives.

There are far too many of their stories across California, far too many tragedies, far too many parents who've had to bury their children. Senate Bill 44, as was mentioned, is known as Alexandra's Law. It's named after the daughter of Matt and Christine Capelouto from Temecula, who lost their daughter Alexandra in 2019, just two days before Christmas. Alexandra had taken half a pill of what she thought was Percocet and she purchased via social media.

The pill she bought was actually laced with fentanyl, and that half a pill caused her to overdose and to die. Alexandra died alone. There was no one around to administer Narcan. Her mom found her slumped over in her bed in front of her makeup mirror. As it is said in our public service announcements, one pill can kill. And that's why I'm here today. Illicit fentanyl is not just like any other drug. This is a poison that is killing 6,000 Californians a year.

And it is supercharging our homelessness crisis. In San Diego County just five years ago, we saw a few dozen of these overdoses. This last year, over 800 in 2021. Illicit fentanyl is the number one killer of unsheltered San Diegans in the City of San Diego. Number one. And as mayor, I see the impacts every single day amongst those who are still with us. And what I see is absolutely disgusting.

The behavior around encampments are more erratic, and I have no doubt in my mind that fentanyl is making it harder for us to engage the most vulnerable amongst our residents. And our whole city is suffering because of the increased level of street homelessness. Senate Bill 44 is a modest but necessary effort to address the proliferation of illicit fentanyl and to hold dealers accountable. I want to be very clear. This Bill is not focused on users.

It's focused on drug dealers, on traffickers, and on repeat offenders who keep dealing this poison and get people to come back again and again and again until they kill them. The admonishment makes these dealers aware that their behavior, if it continues, can lead to death. And if they ignore that, then the fact of the matter is that they'll have to face those consequences. In closing, it's important to be here today to make sure the Committee Members are aware that this drug is ravaging our cities.

And that is why the League of California Cities, as well as 10 of the largest cities in the State of California, cities as diverse as San Francisco, San Jose, Fresno, and of course, the City of San Diego, are all standing in support of Senate Bill 44. I agree that we need to tackle this as a healthcare crisis. It surely is. We need to make naloxone more prevalent and available. We need to expand educational health resources to help save lives.

But that can't be all that we do. We cannot ignore the public safety side of this particular problem, and we can send a direct message to hold those who steal this deadly poison accountable. And so it's with that in mind and with the memory of Alexandra and so many of the families that you'll hear from today, the victims and the Members of our community, that I respectfully ask for your Yes vote on Senate Bill 44. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. DA Jenkins.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Committee. The level of death and misery on the San Francisco streets as a result of fentanyl is staggering and unacceptable. In the last three years, 75% of the 1,400 overdose deaths that occurred in San Francisco involved fentanyl. And in this January alone, we had 78 overdose deaths. What is left out of the statistics is that a majority of the people that are dying of overdose are people of color, are Black people. This is a problem of epidemic proportions.

And as our county's Chief Law Enforcement Officer, I feel an obligation to stand before you and ask that you support this Bill. I have an obligation to protect lives and to fight to save the lives that are on the street right now.

When I took office in July of this past year, I took a bold step and instructed our assistant district attorneys to go into court and when they were dealing with fentanyl drug dealing cases, to give an admonishment to our defendants at the time of a plea that fentanyl was a dangerous and deadly drug and that it could kill. We have seen pushback from our Public Defenders Office asking judges not to allow us to give that admonition.

And we need this Bill in order to have that right in our courtrooms. Not only are we seeing people who are addicted to fentanyl die, but as you've just heard, there are people that believe they are buying other things and instead are being handed lethal poison without their knowledge, and they are dying.

If we went into a bar and ordered a martini and the bartender put something toxic or lethal in that drink that was handed to us, we would expect that person to be prosecuted for that poisoning. If a doctor over-administered recklessly, any type of opioid like fentanyl, we would expect that doctor to be prosecuted. We impute the knowledge of what they did and the intentionality of their conduct and say that they should be held accountable. This is no different.

I have heard stories of cops watching drug dealers tell fentanyl users when they sell them that poison and watch them use it. Don't die. Make sure you don't die. They understand that it is poison, and they need to be told in a more formal way so that it can be documented that when they do it again and somebody dies, that there can be a second level of accountability for those deaths.

And so as the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the City and County of San Francisco, I know that that's what the public wants. I know that that's what these people need so that we can stop watching lives be lost. And so it is for that reason that I ask for you to support this Bill.

Thank you. Do we have any other witnesses in support of this Bill? Please state your name, your organization and that you support this Bill.

Madam Chair and other Members, Paul Yoder, again, on behalf of San. Francisco, Mayor London Breed, in support.

Thank you.

Senator Scott Wilk, 21st district, in strong support.

Thank you.

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

Nedrich Jenkins, Drug-Induced Homicide, strong support.

Thank you.

Kay Shulz, emergency room nurse from Riverside County, strong support.

Thank you.

Chris Didier with my son Zach Didier from Placer County, in strong support and respectfully ask for your Aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you.

Laura Didier, representing my son Zach, 17, killed by fentanyl in 2020, in strong support.

Thank you. Again, just name, organization, and support, and let's move a little bit faster, too. Thank you.

Carolyn Vasquez from Gilroy, mother of Jacob, in strong support.

Kathy Miranda from Alameda County, with my son Garrett Miranda, in strong support.

Perla Mendoza with Project Eli, with in strong support.

Matthew Greco, on behalf of the San Diego Deputy District Attorneys Association and the San Diegans Against Crime, in strong support.

Gail Stewart, on behalf of San Diego District Attorney Summer Stephan, in strong support.

Good afternoon. Nadia Musharian Benderup, on behalf of Sheriff Kelly Martinez, San Diego County Sheriff's Department, in support.

Lori Frigoli, Marin County District Attorney. I support this Bill.

Christine Capelouto, mother of Alexandra, who this law is named after, in strong support.

Matt Capelouto, father of Alexandra Capoludo, and on behalf of all fentanyl poisoning victims, strong support.

Lisa Marquez, and in strong support. I lost my only son.

Maya Rios, on behalf of Fernando Sanchez, in strong support.

Colette Rhodes for Dalton Finlisson, in very strong support.

My name is Lisa Izel. I'm from Garden Valley, California, and I highly support this Bill.

Megan Zimmer, Sacramento, California, in strong support.

Christy Hoffman, mother of Connor, strong support.

John Hoffman, Stanislaus County, strong support. Son died, fentanyl overdose.

Tina Burke, mother of Christian Taylor murdered July 19, 2020. I'm in full support of SB 44.

Alicia Solario with One Pill Can Kill Sac. and I'm in full support of this Bill.

Victoria Williams, mother of Michael Torado. I'm in full support.

Hi, Dr. Donna Slusher Perez, Drug-Induced Homicide. I'm in strong support.

Lieutenant Julio De Leon with the Riverside Sheriff's Office on behalf of the Sheriff's Office and Sheriff Chad Bianco in support.

I'm Maria Ortega, mother of Adrian De Jesus, who was poisoned by fentanyl in February of 2020. I am in strong support and I ask that you are in strong support, too. Thank you.

Graciela Valles I lost my son in 2020. I strong support SB 44.

Audrey Ratajczak, on behalf of the Orange County District Attorney in support.

Melinda Scott from Sacramento I support my brother, Jacob Ramirez.

Michelle Leopold, Marin County. My son Trevor died in 2019, and we need this public safety, strong support. Thank you.

Patricia Calazans Daniel survived fentanyl poison and died of suicide using fentanyl. I support SB 44.

Hugh Sharkey, San Francisco my stepson Daniel died two years ago and I support SB 44 strongly.

Larissa Sespidez here on behalf of Govern for California, in support.

My name is Duncan Finlisson, El Dorado Hills, California. My son is Dalton Finlisson and I'm in strong support.

Chair and Members, Jonathan Feldman, on behalf of the California Police Chiefs Association, in support.

Chair and Members, Ryan Sherman with the Riverside Sheriffs' Association, in support. Also in support on behalf of the police officer associations of Claremont, Corona, Pomona, Palos Verdes, Newport Beach, Upland, Santa Ana, Burbank, Marietta, Arcadia, Riverside, Fullerton, Culver City, the Monterey County Deputy Sheriff's Association and Placer County Deputy Sheriff's Association, all in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Brandon Epp on behalf of Sheriff Luna, in support, Los Angeles County. Thank you.

My name is Eric Kittendorf, representing Alyssa, my daughter. and I strongly support.

My name is Donna McLaughlin. I lost my son Jacob, in strong support.

Dana Ogden, in strong support for my son, Austin Ogden, who died on June 5, 2021.

I'm Jerry Ogden. I'm Austin's father and I'm in strong support of this Bill. We thank you.

Jennifer Marsh from Modesto and in support of SB 44.

MarcellaBerber from Modesto. I support SB 44.

Madam Chair and Members Bo Biller, on behalf of UPS and Bruce "Double D" Mac Rae, ask for your Aye vote.

My name is Merika Cole on behalf of my son Merick, who is autistic and I was a conservator. I support SB 44. And please, I'm begging for your Aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no other witnesses here in this room. Oh, sorry.

Madam Chair. Randy Perry. On behalf of PORAC, in support.

Thank you. We'll conclude. Do we have any witnesses in opposition? You have the floor.

Good morning. My name is Amy Dunkel. I'm the founder of the Solace Foundation of Orange County. I'm also on the board of Broken No More. Currently, we have 4,600 Members, mostly parents, who have lost a child like myself. First, I'd like to acknowledge the immense pain in the room. We may not be united in policy, but we are united in unimaginable pain. In 2012, we lost our 20-year-old son to an overdose.

At the time, Ben was with three friends three minutes from a fire station. One of the friends was in a drug diversion program. Afraid of being sanctioned and returned to jail, he would not allow the other two to call 911. As they removed Ben's body from the car, his heart stopped. By the time I got to the critical care unit, he was on life support. When Ben heard my voice, tears would roll down his face. He was suffering from a condition described as locked-in syndrome.

Eight days later, as Ben's condition deteriorated, we were advised by physicians that the kindest thing we could do was to take our son off life support. Our 17-year-old son held his brother for 6 hours as he slowly died. Shortly after Ben's death, the 911 Good Samaritan Law was enacted, an acknowledgment that people were dying because their friends were not calling 911. Ben's death was initially investigated as a homicide. After autopsy, we were advised by law enforcement that his death was deemed accidental.

The three people he was with had no intent to kill our son. He was not murdered. Their decision making was clouded by fear, fear of incarceration. Had one of those three people carried naloxone, the outcome would have been entirely different. I therefore created the Solace Foundation. To date, I have distributed 46,000 doses of naloxone and recorded over 2,500 overdose reversals. It was not heroin that killed Ben that night. It was fear. Fear of calling 911, fear of incarceration.

The very threat that SB 44 wants to make more real. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Do we have another lead witness in opposition? Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Diane Goldstein. I served for 22 years as a police officer, including 18 months as a narcotic sergeant supervising a multi-agency task force. I want to express my sincere condolences to all the families here. I'm also the Executive Director of the Law Enforcement Action Partnership. We are a nonprofit group of professionals who speak from firsthand experience serving in the justice system. Our mission is to make communities safer by focusing police resources on the greatest threats to public safety.

But I speak both from personal and professional experience, having lost my brother to a drug overdose. And though I understand why legislators may be attracted to more punishment, our analysis throughout the years reflects that overdose deaths have increased, not decreased. Despite over a half-century of the modern drug war that continues to focus on deterrence to solve a public health crisis, we see how destructive outdated drug laws can be to individuals and communities.

Policing proponents claim that sending a person to jail or prison through drug induced homicide laws will deter drug sales and save lives. But we know today, based on the loss of over 100,000 Americans, that it does not. SB 44 will push drug users further underground while making drugs more dangerous and increasing violence in our communities. Policing professionals here and abroad have recognized we can no longer rely on arrest as a means to address the public health issue.

Saving lives and reducing crime and disorder caused by underlying problematic drug use are not mutually exclusive. A response that will achieve both ends requires a paradigm shift towards evidence-based practices that closely link health and policing strategies with their most important outcomes, which is saving lives. Rather than focus on failed enforcement policies that have resulted in non-regulated drugs that today are cheaper, widely available, and more potent.

Ma'am, if you can wrap it up, we're on a time crunch. Thank you.

If we are to reduce overdoses, we need to design and implement 21st century drug policies. This requires laws that support innovative public health and justice strategies rather than relying on harsher penalties to deter drug use or to send a message thinking this will reduce morbidity and mortality, let's recognize that consensus that this is first a public health crisis and not a policing crisis.

Thank you.

Thank you for your time.

Do we have any opposing witnesses in the room? If so, please state your name, your organization, and that you oppose.

Hello, my name is Edgar Ibara, and I would oppose this Bill.

Thank you.

Margot George on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association, in opposition. Thank you.

Glenn Bacchus, Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, in strong opposition.

My name is Juan Gomez. I'm in strong opposition of this Bill as a Native American, even the use of the word peyote in there infringes on our religious practices. That's a holy sacrament. It's in that language. I ask that it be stricken. We should be going after the manufacturers. We should not just be going after freaking people. Right. People need supports. They need services. Right. We need to think about safety happening outside of the police station. We need to think about safety happening in school.

Sir. Just support or opposition.

I'm opposing, but this is my right. The same ways that everyone.

Thank you. I appreciate it. I'm just throwing it out there.

Next.

James King, Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, in strong opposition.

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

Lindsay Vogue. I'm from UC Berkeley and I'm working at the Ella Baker Center, and I strongly oppose this.

Jose Casada on behalf of ACLU California Action, in opposition.

Alicia Benavides Lewis here in opposition in behalf of Drug Policy Alliance, San Francisco Public Defender's Office, Initiate Justice, CareForce California, Sister Warriors Freedom Coalition, and Friends Committee on Legislation of California. Thank you.

My name is Tina, excuse me, Tina Marie Carriel, daughter of Gonzalo Juan Carriell and Eleanor Cecilia Carriell, and I'm in strong opposition to this bill.

Good afternoon. My name is Nancy Juarez. I'm with the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, and I'm in strong opposition. Peyote is religious freedom. Thank you.

Sergio Annhassa Jr.. I'm in strong opposition.

My name is Seraphine Andrade and I'm in strong opposition.

My name is Anthony Kimberly, Underground GRIT in Orange County and Anti-Recidivism Coalition. I am in strong opposition.

My name is Carlos Hernandez. I'm formerly incarcerated and a member of Yolo County community, and I strongly in opposition.

My name is Ruben Lucero from Fresno County. I'm in strong opposition.

My name is Byron Castillo from San Francisco county. I'm in strong opposition.

Thank you. If we have no other opposition witnesses here in this room, we're going to move on to witnesses waiting to testify via teleconference service. Please just state your name, organization, and position. Moderator, if you would, please prompt the individuals waiting to testify in support or opposition of SB 44, we will begin. Thank you.

And if you wish to testify and support opposition of SB 44, please press one and zero at this time. We'll go to line 47, please go ahead.

And Madam Chair, Members, Carl London here on behalf of Crime Victims United, in support of SB 44.

And we'll go to line 90. Please go ahead.

Ray Grangoff on behalf of the Orange County Sheriff's Department, in support.

Line 71, please go ahead.

Mary Creasy on behalf of Orange County, in support.

Line 33, please go ahead.

Madam Chair and Member Silvia Solis Shaw here on behalf of the City of West Hollywood and the City of Beverly Hills, in support. Thank you.

Line 98, please go ahead.

Hi, this is Tom Wolf, recovery advocate from San Francisco and I strongly support SB 44. Enough is enough. Thank you.

Line 94, please go ahead. Okay, they dropped out of queue. We'll go to line 84, please go ahead.

My name is Lisa Jimenez, and strong support of SB 44 in honor of my son, Jake Jimenez.

And we'll go to line 91, please go ahead.

Chair and Members, Elisa Arcidiocono with the League of California Cities, in strong support.

Line 113, please go ahead.

Taina Vargas, with Initiate Justice Action, in opposition.

Line 104, please go ahead.

Melanie Kim, State Policy Director at the San Francisco Public Defender's Office, in opposition.

Line 26, please go ahead.

Dr. Sam Snodgrass with Broken No More, strongly opposed.

And line 75, please go ahead.

This is Desiree Tellup. I'm an attorney from Los Alamitos, California, and I am strong support on behalf of my brother, Dominic DeRosa.

Line 18, please go ahead.

Hi, I'm Amber Salazar, in memory of my son, Dresden Alizaldi, and I strongly support SB 44.

Line 87, please go ahead.

Hi, my name is Edith Gonzalez. I'm in strong support in honor of Adrian De Jesus.

Line 112, please go ahead.

My name is Denise Collin. I'm with GRASP, Grief Recovery After a Substance Passing, and Broken No More, and I strongly oppose this Bill.

Line 99, please go ahead.

Hi, yes, my name is Dawn Jordan. I am strong in strong support in memory of my brother, Dominic DeRosa.

Line 111, please go ahead.

My name is Joanna Ortega, and I strongly support SB 44 in honoring of my cousin, Adrian De Jesus.

Line 103, please go ahead.

Hi, yes, my name is Lupe Garcia. Arnold Bias's aunt lost him over fentanyl poisoned, in great support of SB 44.

Line 107, please go ahead.

My name is Teresa Almanza, 28-year veteran of the Chicago Police Department, in memory of my daughter, Sydney Sherrigan. I am in strong support of SB 44. Thank you.

Line 100, please go ahead.

My name is Jaime Puerta. I'm the President of VOID Victims of Illicit Drugs, and I am in strong support.

Line 12, please go ahead.

James Gone, Hemet, California, father of the late Mateo Gone. I'm in full support.

Line 110, please go ahead.

My name is Natalie Legaretta from Modesto, California, and I'm in support of SB 44.

Line 109, please go ahead.

Hello, my name is Ruben Rodriguez. In the memory of my nephew, Arnold Sevallos, I strongly support SB 44.

Line 106, please go ahead.

My name is Melissa Guzman. In strong support of SB 44 in honor of my brother, Adrian De Jesus.

Line 118, please go ahead.

My name is Marlene Villa, and I'm in strong support of SB 444 for my brother, Adrian De Jesus.

Line 94, please. Go ahead.

This is Danielle Coet, and I'm in Orange County, and I strongly support the Bill for my brother, Dominic DeRosa.

And Madam Chair, we have no one else in queue at this time.

Thank you to all our witnesses. We'll now bring the discussion back to Members. Members, do we have any questions, comments, thoughts? Senator Ochoa Bogh.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members, I have a statement and a couple of questions for the record.

And I was remiss in not acknowledging Senator Ochoa Bogh as the joint author who's devoted tremendous amount of time, energy and passion to this issue.

Thank you. So, statement first and then two comments. In 2021, 408 of the almost 500 opioid deaths in Riverside County were fentanyl related. I represent Riverside in San Marino counties along with small portion of LA County. That's over 80% in San Marino county. In the same year, almost 90% of our opioid deaths were fentanyl related. 314 out of 354. This is not just the crisis, it's thousands of individual strategies. Each statistic we share is a culmination of thousands of grieving families pain and suffering.

Thank you.

It is clear we need to do more to protect our loved ones, which is why I partner with Senator Umberg to author SB 44, Alexandra's Law, which would require. Sorry. That an advisement be read to those convicted of specific fentanyl related offenses, stating that their actions pose a threat to the safety of our communities. An advisement. Advisement. This measure also seeks to educate offenders regarding the consequences that future offenses may have on their own lives.

It is hard to argue that fentanyl dealers do not know that fentanyl is dangerous. What they may not know is that the district attorneys across California are already convicting individuals of manslaughter or murder for dealing drugs that result in the death of an individual. With or without Alexandra's Law, this is happening. With Alexandra's Law, we can ensure that offenders have full knowledge of what risks their actions carry. Let me be clear. This is not the same Bill this Committee has heard in previous years.

With your input, we have narrowed SB 44 to address very specific fentanyl related offenses. Our youth will be read the advisement so they understand the seriousness of the crimes they've committed, but the advisement will not be used against them. I urge my colleagues to take the necessary steps to provide as many tools to public safety and public health officials as possible so we can begin to address this strategy in earnest.

SB 44 alone will not solve the fentanyl poisoning epidemic, but along with increased naloxone distribution, improved data collection and sharing, and evidence based educational campaigns. SB 44 will make a difference. At the time, I will ask for specific, for an aye vote. But with that, I also now, with my statement, would like to have specific questions for the author for the record. With that in mind, I would like to begin with, I understand we had several witnesses today under the impression that this Bill includes peyote.

Would you care to address the concerns that people had with regards to peyote being in this Bill?

Thank you for that question, Senator Ochoa Bogh. Amendments have eliminated peyote.

Thank you.

But to be clear, amendments have eliminated peyote. This Bill doesn't deal with other opioids. This Bill deals with fentanyl.

Specific, narrowed. The other question that we need to address, to address the concerns for many of our witnesses. Will this Bill authorize murder or manslaughter prosecutions for specific drug related offenses?

The Bill doesn't authorize any sort of prosecution. That's up to the District Attorney or the prosecuting authority. What this Bill does is the Bill provides evidence of a particular State of mind, whether it's recklessness or some other State of mind in a subsequent conviction, for example, the sale of fentanyl.

Thank you, Senator Umberg. The other question we have for you is, why would someone be charged with murder or manslaughter when an individual chose to take the drugs that resulted in their own deaths?

Well, that's a good question. The question for us as a societal value is do we want to, in essence, warn people of the dangers of fentanyl? Number one, to prevent them from selling or distributing fentanyl again. And then, number two, if the person who is profiting, benefiting from the sale of fentanyl, if they tell that person, look at you're taking fentanyl, I would expect that they wouldn't actually commit suicide by doing that. But again, this is not a conclusory presumption.

It still requires demonstration of an intent. And if, for example, the buyer says, I'd really like to buy fentanyl to commit suicide, that's also evidence as to whether or not the person intended, the seller intended to kill that person.

And my last question for the record, will this Bill disproportionately impact black and brown communities?

I don't know the answer to that question. I think that there's 107,500 deaths in the course of the last year. I would expect that there's proportionality among the various demographics, but clearly that's not the intent.

So we're actually going to move on to the next. Is there any other Senator that would like to comment on this? Senator Bradford.

I want to thank the Senator for this measure. And I first want to extend the sympathy to all the folks who testified here today who lost a family Member or friend to this insidious drug, fentanyl. But simply making it easier to prosecute someone for murder will not address or solve this problem. It won't stop fentanyl from coming across the border as we sit here right now. It won't stop the demand for drugs that are unknowingly laced with fentanyl.

And the focus should be on causation, prevention and treatment. That should be our focus. But focusing solely on incarceration will not solve this problem. We've seen this movie before in the 80s, 90s. Mass incarceration, zero tolerant on the war on drugs. And there are thousands of black and brown people doing life in prison for selling an ounce of cocaine where no one lost their lives. Members of this Committee have proposed amendments that maintain the intent of this Bill that preserves admonishment. And that's what we said.

And that's what we said this Bill is about, admonishment. The amendments that have been proposed will maintain that I, as chair last year, dealt with a previous author, and we offered up the same type of amendments that provided to admonishment and to focus on what this Bill is really about. And that's the drug dealers who knowingly know they are selling drugs that are laced with fentanyl and mislead their clientele, that they're not.

That's the real crime, because I don't think anyone in this criminal aspect will knowingly if they had a regular clientele or would want to kill somebody that they're providing drugs with on a regular basis, whether it's Marijuana, cocaine, whatever the case may, I think with the amendments that we're offering up, I think it helps address, it maintains the integrity of what you're trying to do, which we all agree on.

This Committee needs to be addressed because it is killing hundreds, if not thousands of people, not only in California, but across this country. And we want to eradicate it. We want to end it. But I think the amendments will help us address that, like I say, and it maintains the admonishment portion of this Bill.

Thank you, Senator Wiener.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I think the reason that this Bill and the subject matter of this Bill is so painful is that we have a catastrophe on our hands with what fentanyl and car fentanyl and the other fentanyl analogues have brought down on this country. It is absolutely devastating. We know that in San Francisco, and I want to thank my District Attorney for focusing on these issues so intensively.

We are seeing so many people dying, and I think a lot of times the perception is that this is on our streets. We know from all the parents who have been here today and in the past that it's not just on our streets. There are people ordering on social media. In San Francisco around Christmas last year, there were guys who got bumps of cocaine that were laced with fentanyl, and a few of them died. This is happening in a broad swath of our community.

And even though there are a lot of stereotypes about who is using fentanyl, who is inadvertently using it, even though they didn't intend to purchase it, and who is dying, this is affecting so many aspects of society, and the drug supply is so contaminated in a very diverse way, not just heroin or meth, cocaine and so on and so forth, fake percocet pills. This is a problem that is growing, and we need a lot of different strategies to deal with it.

And I don't know that anyone knows the exact answer, because this is so new and the explosiveness of it, especially in the last few years, I'll be honest with you, this is the kind of Bill that normally I would never even consider supporting. As Senator Bradford stated, the war on drugs has been also a catastrophe.

If incarceration relating to drugs were a successful strategy in reducing drugs, we would literally have no drug use in this country because, and California helped lead the way on the war on drugs and in terms of extreme levels of incarceration. And we still had people using drugs, and we still had people getting addicted and overdosing and dying. And it's gotten worse. Even without fentanyl, it's gotten worse.

I know so many people personally in my life who've been deeply impacted by meth for decades, not fentanyl, meth, which is also so extremely destructive. And the war on drugs and the threat of incarceration didn't stop people from selling it or buying it or using it or dying.

When this Bill came up in previous years from Senator Melendez, who was very stubborn about not making any amendments to the Bill, and it was broader than this Bill, we voted down this Bill at least twice that I recall. I want to thank Senator Umberg for at being, having some flexibility and making some narrowing amendments to the Bill. And by the way, I want to note the admonishment in the Bill now is not limited to fentanyl. It covers all drugs. That's what the language says now.

It's all drugs. And I know that the Senator has committed that if the Bill were to move forward, whether it's today or on reconsideration, that inappropriations of that amendment would be made to make clear that the admonishment can only come into evidence when it related to fentanyl, if it's a fentanyl prosecution.

But the reason why I cannot support this Bill today is that the conviction that triggers this admonishment, that has real ramifications around a future murder prosecution, is not limited to situations where the person knew or should have known that the substance contains fentanyl. This will someone who is selling whatever they're selling, that has no idea and no reason to know that the substance contains fentanyl, will receive this admonishment even if there was no way for them to know. I think that that is a huge problem.

And the author and I have had numerous conversations, very lengthy. I've spent a lot of time with the author, with Mayor Gloria, with our own community's District Attorney on this Bill, far more than I've probably spent on any other author's Bill this year, because it is so important. And I do believe that there needs to be a requirement that the person knew or should have known.

Otherwise, we are going to see some significant unintended consequences from this Bill that I don't think any of the supporters are intending. And so I would like to be able to vote for this Bill today. And with that amendment, as I've convayed to the author and to the sponsors with that amendment, I would support this Bill today. So far, the author and sponsors have declined to take that.

I would love to see this Bill continued so that we could see if we can work that out so that I can support it. If the Bill does not advance today, then I know the author will seek reconsideration. And I hope that that can be worked out. But I just wanted to explain why in this form today, I won't be able to support SB 44. Thank you.

Senator, would you be willing to take the amendments of, one, that the individual should know, and, two, it limit it completely to fentanyl alone?

I'm sorry, fentanyl analogy.

Yes. To answer the second question first, yes, we've discussed this at length, and I think it's clear, but I'll make it crystal clear that both the predicate conviction requires fentanyl as a component, and also the second conviction also be for fentanyl or a fentanyl analog. That's clear as to the issue of knew or should have known for the second conviction. What this does is this Bill says you've convicted. Right?

You're convicted of distributing, selling a substance, maybe even the person died of fentanyl, and you're told and you now know, look it, fentanyl is contained in many substances. And if you sell a substance again and it contains fentanyl and somebody dies, knowing already that you have distributed fentanyl, that that conviction, basically that knowledge then can be introduced into evidence. It is not conclusory. It doesn't mean that it obviates. It eliminates the prosecution's role, prosecution's burden in demonstrating some sort of intent.

I would think it does demonstrate recklessness, if nothing else. But recklessness is not the standard, for example, for murder.

Senator Wiener.

Yeah. I just want to add, and I appreciate that, what I've been told in response. zero, this is a poison pill for the Bill. I don't think it is. We initially asked that there also be an element. This is Senator Skinner and I and Senator Bradford, I think in different contexts, we were individually asking you to consider also requiring that the person purchasing did not intend to purchase fentanyl and did not know.

You responded, and you were, I think, correct that that would be a poison pill because requiring a prosecutor to prove beyond a reasonable doubt what a deceased person did not know was unreasonable. And so I backed away, and I believe we backed away from asking for that amendment.

But I think asking a prosecutor to prove that you knew or should have known, prosecutors prove that all the time with so many different crimes, and in fact, for the ultimate murder prosecution here, that's what, presumably a prosecutor would have to prove, knew or should have known for the murder prosecution. And that's what those murder prosecutions are proving. Now, Mayor Breed, in her letter, used the word intentional. District Attorney Jenkins talked about the bartender putting poison in a drink or a Doctor over administering.

They knew what they were doing. And I fully agree. That's a crime and it should be a severely punished crime. So I don't think it's unreasonable or a poison pill to say that they knew or should have known otherwise. We're going to have situations where some college kid sells what they think is a Percocet and has no idea, has fentanyl for whatever, $510 to their college classmate, and then they're going to get that triggered warning when they had no idea and no reason to know.

Unless we're going to say because you could have fentanyl in anything, we're going to make any sale of drugs, no matter what the context, potentially leading up to a murder charge. If we want to do that, that's what this Bill, I think does. If we don't want to do that, and I don't think that's what you want to do, then I think a knowledge or should have known requirement is a reasonable change.

Madam Chair?

Yes, Senator? If you could give us a yes or no, if those two amendments that have been kind of raised multiple times, I'm happy to kind of move this along and kind of help, but we'd like an answer a little bit on that.

Well, this is a very complex issue, and it doesn't lend to a yes or no answer. Let me just explain how this plays out if the Bill is enacted. All right, so someone is convicted, and we will make sure the Bill is amended. Someone is convicted for distributing something with fentanyl, that person now knows they have distributed fentanyl. There's a subsequent distribution sale. Person dies, comes to court, person says, look at, I didn't know.

I didn't know that this second sale, this sale also involved fentanyl at that point in time in terms of being able to prove intent. If this Bill were enacted, the prosecution would be able to say, wait a minute, you knew or should have known because you were already informed before that you were selling substance with fentanyl. What the defense is going to say, if this is included, is that a predicate to being able to introduce that previous conviction is that, wait a minute.

This is a bad act. You can't introduce that until you prove the person knew it. You can't introduce the prior conviction until you prove as an antecedent that the person knew it. And that doesn't come in evidence. And the judge, unless this law is enacted, could easily, and my guess is, will often say that another conviction is not probative beyond it's not basically relevant because of the probative value, doesn't outweigh its prejudice. Section 350. And so, thus, it undermines the Bill.

Thus it won't come into evidence. Thus the person who's killed a person in the second sale basically is treated as though there hadn't been a previous acknowledgement that they were distributing a compound with fentanyl.

Senator Skinner.

Like my colleagues, I can't express the pain that any family who's lost someone to this is feeling. And that pain, I know is it does not go away. This is one of the most difficult, if probably the most difficult Committee to serve on. And we have an obligation to apply the law as best we understand it. I appreciate the author's intent to give that warning, and I would support the issuing of a warning.

I do not want to have a circumstance where, as the DA from San Francisco indicated, she's being prevented from issuing a warning. However, the warning needs to reflect existing statute. And in order to be convicted of murder, one must have knowledge. Now, putting in the warning that they should know or should have known is not a poison pill, because in that case, author, you know as, because they have received the warning, that alone could potentially provide the should have known.

But it at least respects what our current statute is to give a warning that would be allowed to be put in evidence that does not reflect our current laws. I cannot do, and so I cannot support the Bill without the amendments. And with the amendments, then there would still be that advisement, and there would still be, as we know other people have already referenced, there's already achieving some prosecutions on this, even without it, which is legitimate.

And potentially this may increase, but at least it would do so in the context of respecting and acknowledging current law.

Senator, do you have any final words.

To close out responsive to Senator Skinner? And Senator Skinner, I appreciate your interaction on this Bill, your very thoughtful analysis. The challenge is if that is the predicate to the conviction coming in. In other words, the prosecution's got to prove that the person knew or should have known before the previous conviction comes into evidence. It basically undermines it. A warning without any consequence is really not a warning. So let me finish my close, Madam Chair. Thankful you've been very patient.

Let me associate myself with Senator Bradford's comments. I agree with almost everything Senator Bradford had to say that this challenge, the challenge of dealing with substance abuse, the challenge of dealing with fentanyl, which is not just a substance abuse issue, it is an issue where people don't know they're actually ingesting fentanyl. And prevention and treatment and education, those are all really important, even more important than any other. Ali G will be back with two other tools here. But this is also a tool.