Assembly Standing Committee on Public Safety

Item number seven, AB 667 Maienschein pulled by the author. Item number nine, AB 977 Rodriguez, pulled by the author. Item number 12, AB 1047 Maienschein, pulled by the author. So we will begin as a subcommittee because we have quite a few to go through. And the first on the agenda is bill number 1034 and item number 11 Wilson. You may take a seat. So we do these in sign-in order.

So all the freshmen, could you make sure that you sign in at the desk, otherwise you'll be waiting here a really long time. Whenever you're ready, Ms. Wilson.

Just give me 1 second. All right.

Good morning.

Good morning Chair, members. I am pleased to present AB 1034, the Freedom from Face Surveillance Act. This would prohibit a law enforcement agency or officer from installing, activating or using any biometric surveillance system in connection with an officer camera or data collected by an officer for 10 years. Police body cameras were intended to guard against policeman conduct, not to grant police officers the power to identify and track us whenever we're in public.

Adding face recognition technology to body cameras would transform a device meant for accountability into a powerful mass surveillance network that would exacerbate racial profiling and erode our civil rights. For three years now, a now-expired state law prohibiting body camera face surveillance successfully helped prevent the misidentification and wrongful imprisonment of Californians, safeguard our freedom of speech, impeded creation of dangerous biometric database and protected our privacy. AB 1034 would restore these critical protections. Why does that matter?

I put before you, each of you, this sheet and it notes at the top. This document is not a positive identification. It is an investigative lead only and is not probable cause to arrest. Further investigation is needed to develop probable cause to arrest. I have a blown-up version of this picture. This is the picture that they used and it's noted there on here.

This is the picture of a man who was arrested in his home in front of his children, not following what the document said, and was held for over 30 hours in prison. Even given that, the document said that it was not supposed to lead to arrest and he was actually on his way home from work during the time in a 40-hour commute. Sorry, 40-minute commute. That is what happened in 2019. And so that's why this ban is so important.

We need to do all that we can to avoid worsening racial disparities and policing, repressing freedom of speech, undermining the right to protest, and violating our privacy. With me today is Carmen Nicole Cox from ACLU and Chao Jun Liu from the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

Thank you. Good morning. My name is Carmen-Nicole Cox. I'm Director of Government Affairs for ACLU California Action, and I am here in proud support and as a co-sponsor of AB 1034.

Facial recognition technology has no place on body cameras. Body cameras were intended to guard initially and primarily against police misconduct, not as a surveillance system for the police to identify and track Californians. AB 1034 will prevent flawed face and body tracking systems from being used against Californians. Federal research has shown us that facial recognition software is inaccurate and biased, generating up to 100 times more false positives for women and people of color.

Research also shows that the skewed and constant movement inherent in body camera footage raises the risk of these false positives. This is a problem in any context, but is especially fraught if added to the thousands of body cams in the field. I think about my little brother, and I worry about him being stopped, wrongfully identified as someone with a violent record, and because of the wrongful ID, the police draw their weapons.

People who look like my brother or me are still two to three times more likely to be killed by police than white people, and many of these killings occur during day-to-day interactions with police. Adding face surveillance to body cameras risk increasing these dangerous interactions, putting people like my brother at even greater risk. Adding face scanning to body cameras would also facilitate the creation of databases of immigrant faces, databases that ICE has already demanded access to in other states.

All Californians should be worried about facial recognition on body cameras, but the risks are particularly acute in communities where police misconduct regularly threatens the safety of black people, Latinos, and immigrants. This bill reinstates protections of civil rights for these communities and all Californians. AB 1034 brings back an essential civil rights law that protected Californians until this January.

For nearly three years, existing law successfully prevented the harms of body camera face surveillance by protecting privacy, safeguarding our freedom of speech, helping prevent misidentification and wrongful imprisonment of Californians, halting the creation of vulnerable biometric databases. These important protections sunset it at the beginning of this year. AB 1034 would bring them back. I respectfully ask that the committee vote aye today. Thank you.

Thank you. You may begin.

Good morning. My name is Chao Jun Liu. Here on behalf of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. We support AB 1034, which would ban face recognition technology on body cams because law enforcement cannot use this technology without eroding fundamental rights and worsening racial disparities in policing. We all deserve a level anonymity in our daily lives and civic expression. Face recognition technology on body cams makes it so anytime someone walks by a police officer, they could be recorded and identified without reason and without even knowing it.

It's you, your friends, your loved ones, your children. Are you okay with that? In daily life, this is unsettling. Let alone there are sensitive places like houses of worship or healthcare facilities for abortion access. Face recognition chills our ability to move and speak freely and anonymously. Second, face recognition is notoriously inaccurate. As Carmen noted, even when given a clear image, there are 100 times more false positives for women and people of color. Faces like yours and mine. This has already led to wrongful arrests.

And should the technology be deployed, it will only lead to more wrongful arrests and tragedies. And third, even if it were 100% accurate, 100% of the time, face recognition cannot and will not solve the problem of racialized policing in America. The technology will only perpetuate over-policing, racial profiling, putting black and brown faces into databases, and ultimately, the incarceration of people of color.

A ban on the use of face recognition technology is the only principal path this committee can take to protect the rights of Californians and the safety of already marginalized communities. I respectfully ask the community to vote aye on AB 1034 today. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any others in favor of 1034? Name and organization, please.

Thank you. Yes, good morning. Tracy Rosenberg speaking on behalf of Oakland Privacy, in strong support of AB 1034.

Danica Rodarmel. On behalf of the San Francisco Public Defender. In support.

Norma Orozco with the Ella Baker Center, in support.

Becca Cramer Mowder. I've been asked to speak in support for Media Justice, Secure Justice, and the San Francisco Public Defenders Racial Justice Committee. Thank you.

Thank you.

Morning, Mr. Chair. Armand Feliciano, on behalf of Asian law Caucus, in support.

Thank you.

Leslie Caldwell Houston. For the California Public Defender's Office and Association in support.

Hi, I'm Ali Rastegar from the Bay Area, California. I'm with Encode Justice, a youth-led organization fighting for civil rights and accountability under AI and I support.

Thank you. Ms. Wilson, if you just excuse us for a minute, we're going to establish a quorum and then get right back. Today we have Assemblymember Corey Jackson, who will be substituting for Assemblymember Liz Ortega.

[Roll Call]

Quorums is present. Thank you. We'll now do the consent calendar. Item number one, AB 44, Ramos, peace officers, tribal police. Item number three, AB 458 Jonoes-Sawyer, peace officers. Item number five, AB 5617, criminal records relief. Item number 16, AB 1118, Kalra, criminal procedure discrimination. Item number 17, AB 1149, Grayson, Human Trafficking Act. California Multidisciplinary Alliance to Stop Trafficking. California MAST. Item number 18, AB 1177, McKinnor, parole hearing records. Item number 20, AB 1226, Haney, corrections, placement of incarcerated persons.

And last item number 23, AB 1351, Haney. Coroners and medical examiners reporting drug overdose deaths. And your motion to approve the consent.

Seconded.

Call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Consent calender's adopted we'll now go to witnesses in opposition. Are there any witnesses in opposition? Hi, welcome.

Thank you sir. Mr. Chair and members. Brandon. I'm going to make this very brief on behalf of the Los Angeles County Sheriff. In opposition. And we're hosting the Olympics. It's going to be here before we know it. 2028. Law enforcement needs, especially down in Los Angeles County, we need every tool available at our disposal to protect the, probably close to a million people that will be coming to Los Angeles County. So we respectfully ask for your no vote on 1034. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in opposition? Any other witnesses in opposition? We'll bring it back to committee members for any questions, comments, or concerns.

Good morning. So the gentleman who was unfortunately arrested and spent time in prison, do we know what happened with that case afterwards?

For him, it was dropped. He wasn't the perpetrator of the crime.

Did he do any legal action on the department or anything like that?

I'm not sure. We hope to be able to have his testimony here today, and we are not able to due to his schedule, but he will be if we get out of this committee. He will be here in Sacramento shortly to provide testimony at another committee.

Okay. And, ma'am, you mentioned how the body cameras were to help basically monitor the performance of police officers. It's also my opinion that it's also to basically capture what happened in that moment. And unfortunately, yes, body cameras do get faces that come around or in contact with them. This is an investigative tool. This actually right here is actually a police-sensitive piece of paperwork that usually only departments are allowed to have. And again, as it does say, we do need probable cause.

And that's something that agency should have been doing. I know it's something that my agency definitely would be doing, because we would have to find out everything that goes on with that. But I get the points that you guys are bringing up, but do we know exactly how many people have actually been misidentified? Is what I'm wondering. I know you said hundreds of people, but do we actually have a number of people?

Is that question for me? Yes. We are aware right now of five people, black men specifically. We are, of course, of the belief that one wrongful misidentification, apprehension, detention, set of charges, prosecution, no matter the outcome, is traumatic. It is problematic. It is an invasion of privacy. It is an abuse and misuse of government resources. And, of course, it is for black men especially. It is fraught with tension and the risk of police violence from which people don't come back from.

Okay, so how many people were actually identified, that were actually captured, that were perpetrators, that were murderers, rapists, kidnappers, missing persons, missing people? How many of those do we know of?

That testimony is conspicuously absent here today, which we would have expected, if any, to be here in opposition.

Okay, well, I would like to know who and how many it's actually helped, because, again, this is an investigative tool. And as the opposition did bring up, that we'll be hosting the Olympics, and that will be helping as well.

Assemblymember Alanis, if I can speak to what you just stated? It is an accountability tool, is what it was intended for. And through that accountability tool, investigations can happen. It was not intended when body cameras were asked which most law enforcement fought getting body-worn cameras because they didn't want the ability to be held accountable to those actions, they saw a benefit eventually, that it also could clear them of wrongdoing in a particular situation.

And now they're taking it one step forward to use it one step forward to use it as a surveillance tool, which was never an intended purpose, as was noted from both of the testifiers, is that there should be a level of anonymity when you're in public, and it shouldn't be assumed that you will be surveilled. And then if the surveillance technique, the resource or tool that you're using misidentifies people. That is even more problematic.

And as was, you know, LA is getting ready to host the Olympics, and every single person in our country is excited about that. We all get excited about the Olympics because America always does well and shows well. And yes, tools should be available to allow us to keep Americans safe and those visiting our country safe. But at the same time, not every tool is a good tool. And we have to have safeguards around every single tool that we use.

And outside of one major incident in the Olympics in the US, we have managed to have safe games here in our country and in other countries without having massive surveillance tools. So I think we're using the Olympics and the fact that we want to keep murderers and rapists and all those off the streets, we do that. But there are other tools that allow us to use that without giving up our rights and freedoms of just regular citizens that are not doing the wrong thing.

And so sometimes when it comes to an investigative tool, you want to ensure that you're not casting too broad of a net, that lets regular Americans that are just leaving their home, going to work, going to places of worship, going to their economic centers or retail or recreation centers, not having them get caught up in the system.

And this allows us to, having this moratorium or ban allows us to be safe and tell the proper safeguards in place and potentially additional legislation surrounding what does it mean to be surveilled in today's society with the systems, with the tools and resources that are available to us.

Got you. So I know the NAACP did want body cameras in the beginning of this, and law enforcement did fight it. And from what I have found in my career, that it was helping. As a sergeant, I had many of my internal affairs investigations cleared. Once the person who came in making the complaint actually saw the video and saw that for the most part, they were in the wrong when they came to make those complaints.

And so from what I understand, yeah, the NAACP does not want the cameras now because it is showing just the opposite of what they thought it was going to do. But I don't think taking and getting rid of this tool completely is helping. I do agree that there needs to be some kind of rules or policies on that, that needs to strict that. But taking away this tool is a terrible idea.

With technology the way it is, we have cars that are doing surveillance that are constantly. I see things on YouTube of crashes that have happened. Those people were recorded. And yeah, they were out in public. Your ATMs are recording you. We have cameras up on our houses, we have cameras at the banks, at the ATMs. Cameras are everywhere now, pretty much everybody should assume that they're being videoed. We're being videoed right now as I speak. So those are things that should come up as well.

But I think getting rid of this tool would be a wrong thing to do. It'd be going in the wrong direction. And I'll leave it at that. And I can't support this. I'm sorry.

Understood. Understood.

Any other questions? Mr. Lackey?

Yeah, I don't really have a question. I just have a comment. Know, perfection could be the enemy to good. And there's a lot more good that comes especially from a public safety aspect. This is the Public Safety Committee. And we should be looking on the balance between the challenge associated with this technology and with the good that it accomplishes. And I think that there's quite an imbalance. And I do think that the points of mistaken identity need to be taken very seriously.

But in the same right, it doesn't mean you eliminate the technology. It means you perfect it and you work with the technology because of so much good that is accomplished. That was just shared by my good friend there to my right. I would just tell you that this will be shameful if we follow the course of this particular proposal. And I hope that we get smarter on how we amend this. I can't support this path. Thank you.

Anyone else? Okay, Mr. Bryan? You may close.

Thank you. I would just like to note in my close first, thank you to the chair and the nembers for listening and hearing this bill and the lively discussion with some members of the committee. I appreciate that. And that is part of the democratic process. I appreciate the votes I brought in testimony who shared their points of view, as well as those who are in support and in opposition of this bill.

I'd just like to note that there is a distinct difference between being recorded and being surveilled. And public safety is not only keeping us safe from crime, but also keeping us safe from government abuse. With that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Okay, and thank you. This is an important topic. I was shown the surveillance at the Colosseum using drones. And I thought at that time that it was really important to have this technology since the Olympics is coming, and a large portion of it will be in my district at the Colosseum. And I could see the benefits of it. Then, a little while later, in fact, it was Mr. Ting.

There was some work done by the ACLU which showed some facial recognition which described me as a criminal, and several other Members of the Assembly, we didn't have hearings. We didn't have hearings in the moratorium. We didn't have hearings on it. And in this room, there was a law enforcement officer sitting where the ACLU is sitting there. And I mentioned that. And that law enforcement officer told me, and I think Mr. Lackey will remember, that I was wrong. That never happened.

And for the first time as a black man, I realized how devastating it is for law enforcement to accuse you of something that you did not do. He basically called me a liar in this committee to my face and to everybody in the room. I'm getting a little upset now, but I was very upset then. I think even one of the members here tried to tell him that he was mistaken, that that did, in fact, happen.

The fact that one person could be misidentified and brought into the criminal justice system is just one person too many. We should not be willy-nilly with this idea that, yeah, we captured a whole lot of criminals, but we put a few people in jail by accident. Let's sit down and figure out how to perfect this technology. I think this technology could be very effective once it's perfected.

And I think even the author, she may not say it in public, but I think she would agree with me. Part of the discussion we really should be having is how do we perfect this? Or how do we put safeguards to ensure that if someone is misidentified, it doesn't get to a point where they end up in prison or in jail, and so until we get to that Chair is recommending aye vote.

I'm pretty sure there'll be other discussions on how we can move forward with this, but I want to make sure you understand the context of what we're really trying to do. Hopefully, we're really trying to make sure that this technology ultimately is perfected in a way where innocent people don't end up on the wrong side of the criminal justice system. Like I was. With that, is there a motion?

On AB 1034 by Assemblymember Wilson. The motion is due pass to the Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee. [Roll Call]

That measure passes. Thank you. Mr. Patterson is going to let Ms. Quirk-Silva go next. Ms. Quirk-Silva, bill number AB 455. Item number two. Whenever you're ready.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. And it is a good morning. The little rain here. First, we'd like to thank your committee and consultant for working with us and this bill. We know that there's been several variations. We will continue to work with your office on AB 455 and accept the committee amendments. In 2018, California Penal Code 1036 established the state's mental health diversion program.

Mental health diversion allows individuals with diagnosed mental health disorders to participate in a mental health treatment program for up to two years in lieu of criminal prosecution. California has long imposed gun restrictions on individuals convicted of felonies and certain misdemeanor crimes. I want to be very clear. I understand the vast number of people who suffer from mental illness do not act out violently or commit crimes.

Excuse me, could you close the door, please? Sorry about that.

However, individuals who have been charged with the specified criminal offenses and choose to participate in a mental health diversion program should adhere to gun restrictions while in the program. With us today, we have my joint author, new Assemblymember Diane Papan. Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. I want to echo the comments of Assemblymember Quirk-Silva. Our state has a history of protecting individuals who may be a danger to themselves or others by placing firearm restrictions on such individuals who have been convicted of serious crimes.

AB 455 is straightforward and narrow in its scope, as most diversion programs already prohibit participants from possessing firearms until successful completion. AB 455 is a step towards parity among restrictions imposed during diversion programs, and I look forward to continuing to work with you and your staff on this measure. With me today, I'm very honored to have the District Attorney from my county, Steve Wagstaffe, to testify in support of the bill. Welcome, Steve.

Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Good morning. Good morning to Members of the Committee. I am Steve Wagstaffe. I'm the District Attorney of San Mateo County, as just noted. I have been a prosecutor for 46 years, all in San Mateo county. And I should start, of course, by saying that I support the bill as proposed, amended, and urge the Committee to do so. During those 46 years, I have seen unending violence with firearms. Just unending. I have spent so much time with families of victims who have suffered.

I never thought mass shootings would be an issue in my county. And in January, it was in Half Moon Bay, where seven people were gunned down. And my office is now prosecuting that case. It just enhanced my feeling about the need to take whatever steps we can to do what America wants, which we got reminded about again yesterday about the shooting in Nashville. That was very personal to me.

As soon as I heard it, I immediately got on the phone, because my son, daughter-in-law, and 6 and 3 year old granddaughters live in Nashville. And I was worried: could it have been them? So at 2500 miles, I had fear grip me. That happens constantly. Over 9,700 people in this country have been killed with guns this year. There have been, at the end of February, we crossed the 100 mark for mass shootings. Three or more people killed in one shooting.

I see this as a small step at trying to remedy what we're doing. I think the amendments, as did, balance the second amendment rights of individuals against the need to protect the public because so many people involved in these mass shootings do involve, including the one in my county, mental health. Mental illness is involved.

I think this is a small step to take, and I ask you to do so so that what I've seen for 46 years in San Mateo county and across our state and nation, perhaps we can take a small step. 400 years ago, this year, William Shakespeare wrote that to climb a steep hill, it takes a slow start. We've been doing a slow start for so long in this country.

I hope this small step would move you to want to pass this bill so we can protect our community. I thank you for listening. I will continue to work. I'm very grateful to both Assembly Members for what they have--carrying this because it's so important to all the people that all of us know who've been affected by this. Thank you.

And thank you. And you recited Shakespeare, so you upped the quality of testimony in this Committee. Anyone else in support? Anyone else in support?

Move the bill.

Is there anyone in opposition? Unless you have a shakespearean quote, you're trouble.

Lesli Caldwell-Houston for California Public Defenders' Association. While we thank the author and the Committee for working with us on amendments, we must remain opposed unless amended. We are hopeful that we will be able to work with the author in working out the remaining issues. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else in opposition? We'll bring it back to Committee Members. Mr. Zbur.

Thank you to both of my colleagues for, I think, a really well thought out and narrow and important bill. I think gun safety, as we see every day in the news, is one of the things we really need to focus on. I looked at the bill carefully and I think it has very clear protections for the public by making sure that the evidence is presented, is clear and convincing, that the restrictions should go into place. So I think it's a really great bill and I want to thank you for bringing it. I'll be supporting it.

Thank you. Mr. Lackey.

Yeah. I'm very thankful for this proposal because it's a gun safety measure that's associated with behavior and those who are prone to difficult circumstances in their lives and are more prone to the types of behavior that may threaten their own lives and the lives of others. And so, the fact that it's associated with behavior, I'm very thankful for, and happy to support it.

Thank you. Anyone else? You may close.

Respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you all.

And I want to thank you for working with Committee. I apologize for any confusion. It was my fault, not yours. And so, I'm glad you accepted the amendments and the chair's recommending an aye vote.

Thank you.

On AB 455 by Assembly Member Quirk-Silva the motion is do pass as amended to the Appropriations Committee. Joan Sawyer. Aye. Alanis. Bonta. Aye. Bryan. Aye. Lackey. Aye. Jackson. Aye. Santiago. Zbur. Aye.

That measure passes. Thank you.

Thank you, Members.

Now, Mr. Patterson. You're waiting for the Vice Chair. Okay.

He's on another Committee, and I'll be back soon.

So next, is Mr. Gibson here? Then it will be Ms. McKinnor. Item number 10, AB 1028. Reporting of crime mandatory reporters.

Good morning. Good morning, chair and Member.

I'm sorry. And you also have 1310. I'm sorry. You have two. Item number 22 after.

Good morning, Chair and Members. I'm here to present AB 1028, a bill to center survivor health and safety. AB 1028 will do two important things. First, it will require healthcare providers to provide a referral and warm handoff to connect survivors of domestic violence and local victim service providers so that they can receive the services, support and safety planning they need.

Second, the bill eliminates the mandate that healthcare providers report to law enforcement when a survivor of violence or abuse seeks medical care for injuries related to the abuse. This bill maintains the requirement for mandated reports in the case of firearms injuries, but eliminates the mandated reporting for other abusive conduct. Existing mandated reporting requirements in medicine deter survivors of domestic and sexual violence from seeking medical care out of fear of being reported through nonconcetual reporting requirements. This issue creates distrust between patients and their providers.

Marginalized communities are disproportionately impacted by medical mandatory reporting. LGBTQ, black, indigenous, and immigrant survivors have been found to be more negatively impacted by medical mandatory reporting laws than any other demographics. Immigrant survivors may be reluctant to engage with law enforcement due to fear that law enforcement involvement could lead to detention or deportation for themselves or their family. Additionally, data shows that medical mandated reporting requirements may place people of color, particularly black women, at risk of increased violence.

LGBTQ survivors may be afraid to seek critical medical care for fear of mandatory reporting to the prevalence of discrimination harassment from law enforcement against the LGBTQ community. These disproportionately impacted groups of survivors deserve increased access to health care and would benefit from being connected to trained advocates who could develop safety plans and support connections to legal resources. When providers are able to have open, traumainformed conversations with patients about abuse, survivors are four times more likely to access an intervention such as domestic violence advocacy.

To be very clear, this bill is about removing barriers to crucial healthcare services and allowing survivors to make the choice about when or if to contact law enforcement. Survivors who wish to contact law enforcement would still be able to do so at any time, and a healthcare provider could still contact law enforcement on behalf of the survivor, if the survivor requests this. AB 1028 simply eliminates the requirement for a report to occur without the survivor's consent.

By eliminating the mandated reporting and also requiring an offer to connect survivors with victim services, we can increase survivor access to health care and create greater trust and openness between survivors and their health care provider. Then, if a survivor chooses to make a police report, an advocate can support the survivor in making sure a strong safety plan is in place.

This bill is supported by healthcare associations, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, District Nine, and health focused organizations serving traditionally marginalized community, including the Los Angeles LGBTQ Center and the Health Alliance for Violence Intervention. I have two witnesses here today, Karen Earl, Chief Executive Officer of Jenesse Center, and Caitlin Collins, Clinical Fellow, Surgical Critical Care, UCSF General Hospital.

Thank you.

Thank you. Both have a total of 5 minutes. You can split it up any way you want.

Chair Jones-Sawyer and Members, I'm Karen Earl, CEO of Jenesee Center, a domestic violence intervention and prevention program in soft Los Angeles. I am also co lead of the culturally responsive domestic violence network, consisting of 20 statewide DV organizations, including Jenesee, that uplift survivor centered and culturally specific services. I am here today to strongly support AB 1028, a significant step forward in recognizing that mandated reporting is not a survivor centered or trauma informed response when a victim comes forward to seek health care.

Published, peer reviewed research looking at outcomes of mandated reporting show that these requirements often put victims in greater danger. They may also disproportionately harm marginalized communities that have complicated relationships with law enforcement. Like domestic violence itself, mandatory reporting removes survivor autonomy and self determination in determining what is best and safest for them. For example, a Jenesee client experienced horrific acts of domestic violence and entered the program with multiple untreated injuries because she was afraid to go to the hospital for fear of losing her children.

Because health care was so delayed, doctors feared she could lose her leg. Another organization in our network worked with a client who did seek health care but end up being arrested and put at risk of deportation when law enforcement was contacted. Instead of mandated reporting, AB 1028 focuses on support and requires referrals to community based partners for services that victims choose to access. Medical providers can be powerful allies for domestic violence and sexual violence victims.

We believe that survivors should have access to health care separately from criminal legal systems. I respectfully ask for your support of AB 1028. Thank you.

Thank you.

Chair Jones-Sawyer and Committee Members, thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. My name is Dr. Caitlin Collins. I'm a trauma surgeon and critical care fellow at San Francisco General Hospital, our safety net and only major trauma hospital in San Francisco. I treat patients who have suffered severe injury from intimate partner violence. I'd like to share my concerns about the current law and highlight how AB 1028 would align our legal mandate with the needs of our patients.

Our current mandatory reporting law forces physicians to violate their hippocratic oath to do no harm. Positioning the healthcare provider between their legal responsibility to report to law enforcement and a patient's express wish not to involve law enforcement coerces the provider into breaching their ethical duty to do no harm. This conflict retraumatizes patients and causes moral distress for providers. Countless times I've witnessed the terror that comes across a victim's face when a police officer enters the room.

The fear is palpable and unforgettable, especially for black and brown patients. I recently cared for a Latinx man with a stab wound who we strongly suspected had been assaulted by his partner. During my evaluation, a police officer entered his room in the emergency Department to question him. Tears welled up in the young man's face and he trembled as he stuttered to answer the officer's questions. This patient subsequently refused admission to the hospital, citing his fear of further interrogation as he departed hastily,

we were unable to provide quality care for his stab wound nor connect him with advocacy services to improve his safety. Under AB 1028, this patient might have felt safer seeking care before the violence escalated. He would have received appropriate care in the hospital and a warm handoff to community based domestic and sexual violence advocacy services. This Bill is evidence-based. It's consistent with trauma-informed care.

It honors patient autonomy and does not restrict the provider from helping a patient engage law enforcement should they choose it with my testimony today. I also bring individual letters of support for AB 1028 from every single trauma surgeon at UCSF. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in support?

Danica Rodarma, on behalf of the San Francisco Public Defender, in support.

Annalisa Ruiz with Young Women's Freedom Center, in support.

Juan Govea representing the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, in Support.

Alicia Lewis on behalf of Alliance of Boys and Men of Color, in proud support and co sponsor.

Abigail Alvarez with the Culturally Responsive Domestic Violence Network, a co sponsor and support also expressing support on behalf of Chan BoF for Peace Collaborative, East Los Angeles Women's Center, Korean American Family Services, Def Hope, Jenesse Center, My Sister's House, East Los Center for Pacific Asian Families. Thank you.

Kate Banner Tai Kier expressing support from Futures Without Violence and also on behalf of the Bay Area Women Against Rape, BAWAR, Young Women's Freedom Center, Shidi Consulting, LLC, California LGBTQ Health and Human Services Network, Sunita Jane Initiative at Loyola Law School, California Mental Health Connection, Citizens for Choice, The Health Alliance for Violence Intervention, Deaf and Hard of Hearing Service Center, Black Women for Wellness Action Project, Gray's Trauma Informed Care Services Corps, Anti Police Terror Project, Justice Teams Networks, Shidi Consulting, LLC, Mirror Memoirs, La Defensa, California Health Advocates, Youth Leadership Institute, La Defensa, Heel Trafficking. Thanks

Rebecca Gonzales National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter, in support.

Thank you

Christine Smith, California Partnerships to End Domestic Violence in support.We're actually a co sponsor and then also expressing support for Naurica Family Violence Law Center, Community Solutions, Lumina Alliance Women, Inc. Next Door Solutions to Domestic Violence, Somos Familia Valle, Free From Last and Family Services, Empower Yolo, and the Collective Healing and Transformation project.

Good morning. Gregory Fidel with Initiate Justice, in strong support thank you.

Good morning. Anthony DiMartino on behalf of Californians for Safety and Justice and Crime Survivors for Safety and Justice, in support.

Good morning. Melissa Sigun also on behalf of the Culturally Response of Domestic Violence Network, proud co sponsor and support thank you.

Good morning. Arabella Gabara with the Young Woman's Freedom Center in support.

Jeronimo Cuauhtemoc Aguilar here on behalf of Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, in strong support.

Good morning. Tatiana Lewis, with All of Us or None in strong support.

Thank you.

Sonja Tonnesen-Casalegno with Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice here in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any witnesses in opposition?

Pick a seat. Any seat.

Well, clearly, I have my work cut out for me. Okay if I go first?

Yeah.

Okay. My name is Hillary Larkin. I'm a physician assistant. I'm a physician assistant, a forensic examiner, and I've spent the last 30 years working in a level one trauma center and safety net hospital in Oakland. I am also the Chairman of the Alameda County Domestic Violence Fatality Review team, and I have seen firsthand how lethal domestic violence can be. I'm here representing the California Sexual Assault Forensic Examiners Association. We represent 300 forensic examiners, doctors, PAs, NPs, and nurses from across the state.

Last year alone, we provided over 14,000 medical forensic exams to children, adolescents, and adults. All of these people were consenting, agreeing, and wanting to report to law enforcement. Our goal in the state is to provide state of the art, acute trauma-informed, evidence-based, medical forensic exams, not to discourage victims from seeking health care or to take away their autonomy.

CalSAFE agrees that the current domestic violence language could be hardened and could be made more specific, and we've submitted amendments to the authors to come to some compromise around this. What we're concerned about is repealing Penal Code 1160 would repeal all of mandatory reporting, which includes sexual assault, domestic violence, suspicious injury, which tracks gun violence and violence against, crimes against homeless people, all sorts--LGBTQ, and the infrastructure of the system would be completely in chaos.

So the way that we trigger exams and how we prioritize victims of crimes is based on the mandate that the hospitals and healthcare providers are subject to. What we propose is what we've been doing in sexual assault for years, which is an opt out. What repealing penal code 1160 is is an opt in, meaning nobody gets reported unless they ask to be reported. And without creating the priority and mandate within the hospitals and emergency departments, this will go away.

In sexual assault, we have been using the NIR, which is a non investigative report, which means we make a report to law enforcement, but the victim is not obligated to speak to law enforcement. We go ahead and do that medical mandated report, and basically, it is set aside.

So when a victim who comes to the emergency department is undecided or who does not want to report at the time of exam, is given time: the report is held separately, and they are able to get their information that they need, get their advocacy and make a clear decision about whether or not they want to report. By continuing to mandate medical documentation of injuries, we're giving patients an opportunity to have that documentation that they can use later for criminal or civil matters.

And the one thing that civil lawyers tell us is that there is not enough medical documentation. So removing medical documentation, the mandate to report, is going to make it harder for those patients who want to report, who want to get help. I think the other and most important thing that we can do here is advocate bedside advocacy. We need in person advocacy. That has been the gold standard for both substance abuse and sexual assault for the last 20 years. I'm going to conclude there.

I'm going to let you go ahead and talk, but thank you for your time. I urge you to oppose and let us work with the authors to amend.

Thank you.

Thank you, Members. Mira Morton, on behalf of Stone Advocacy here for the California District Attorneys Association, in opposition. Mandated reporting by healthcare workers protects victims who are too frightened to report, who've been brainwashed by their abusers and traffickers, and thus do not believe they are victims and who underestimate the dangers their injuries suggest that they are in. Healthcare setting may be the only place many individuals ever present where their injuries are detectable.

While we appreciate the concerns raised here about discouraging victims from seeking health care, we believe far more people will suffer needlessly if law enforcement is not notified so they can intervene early. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in opposition?

Good morning. Patrick Espinoza, on behalf of the San Diego County District Attorney's office in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Now I'll bring it back to Committee for questions or comments. Mr. Lackey.

What a delicate topic this is. This is really important that we understand the delicate nature of this from all aspects. However, I know this is not the intent, but I think that this is the unintended consequences of see something, say nothing. I think that's a mixed message, and I think it's very dangerous that we're also changing the importance of assaultive and abusive conduct in this new measure.

I think that that's a very dangerous pathway, and I can't support it because I think sexual assault and domestic violence is such a toxin in our society that we need to use all tools available to us to prevent it. And so I think, in my estimation, that minimizing the importance of reporting is not the pathway. So I can't support this particular measure. Sorry.

Thank you. Anymore?

I'll keep this short. I used to be a domestic violence detective, and a lot of our cases were brought upon by people bringing that to our attention. The abusers in domestic violence do their best to make sure that the victims do not have a voice. And this was one way I found, for them to have a voice. And I see the intent, I do, with what you're doing with the bill. But right now, I can't support this. Thank you.

Thank you. Any more comments? Bonta.

I know that this is an incredibly thoughtful bill. We saw a version of this, actually, last year. So I appreciate the Committee working with the author to get to this point. Quite frankly, I had reservations about the bill as presented last year, and do feel like this is moving in the direction of putting the power of being able to have agency, full agency, in the hands of the survivors.

We know all too well that once people report, if they do, this may not be something that--beyond that, they don't necessarily have control at the point of even reporting to a healthcare practitioner or disclosing any information to a healthcare practitioner that can be used essentially against them in a justice system that is not there yet in terms of adequately providing support to survivors, particularly of sexual assault and interpersonal assault.

So for those reasons, I know that you will continue to work with the opposition to get this to a place where we can have the weight and the heart of agency be in the hands of those survivors. I will be supporting this bill, and thank you for working on that.

Any other comments? Okay, you may close.

I would like to clarify that this bill does not change reporting requirements for elder abuse, child abuse, or other types of crimes. This bill does not eliminate the ability of any victim to contact law enforcement if they choose to do so. The intent of this bill is that survivors should have the ability to choose for themselves if and when to engage with the criminal legal system.

Victims will still have access to victims compensation, as it is not a requirement for victims to provide a police report to access compensation. I'm committed to continuing conversation with the opposition to address their concerns about the impacts on child and elder abuse reporting, data collection and other concerns, while still maintaining the goal of this bill to eliminate the potentially harmful mandated report to law enforcement. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

And thank you. And I personally know your sponsors, so I know her work. I won't say how long because don't want to embarrass the both of us. We've been working at this for quite some time, so I know you wouldn't let anything happen because I know your heart is genuine. So thank you for coming before us and testifying and so with that, the chair is recommending aye vote. Is there a motion?

Second.

So moved.

Call the roll.

On AB 1028 by Assembly Member Mckinnor. The motion is do pass to the Appropriations Committee. Jones-Sawyer. Aye. Alanis. No. Bonta. Aye. Bryan. Aye. Lackey. No. Jackson. Santiago. Zbur.

That measure's on call, needs two more.

Thank you.

Okay, your next item. Item 22, 1310, sentencing recall and resentencing. She had two, Mr. Patterson.

Yes, sorry. You want me to start?

Yeah, whenever you're ready. Thank you.

Chair and Members of the Committee, I want to first say that I accept the Committee's amendments. Firearm enhancements are one of the most commonly used enhancements that add extra years to a sentence. The latest available data shows that 37,237 people in CDCR custody had some form of gun enhancement as part of their sentencing. 89% of these people were people of color. There is no compelling evidence that enhancements improve public safety. In fact, the opposite may be true.

While initial incarceration prevents crime through capitation, studies show that additional sentencing year causes a 4% to 7% increase in recidivism. Enhancements do not increase public safety, and there is no data to support that enhancement deter crime. Research has consistently shown that people age out of crime. So by the time the state has sentenced someone to an extremely long sentence, they have reached an age where they no longer pose a threat to public safety.

AB 1310 will ensure people receive equal treatment under the law by allowing past legislation to be applied retroactively. Passed in 2017, SB 620 Bradford gives judges the discretion to strike or dismiss firearm enhancements at sentencing. But this change in law was not made available to anyone currently incarcerated. AB 1310 will allow currently incarcerated people with firearm enhancements to file a court petition for resentencing.

Judges will remain full discretion, and prosecutors will have the opportunity to prove that someone is an unreasonable risk to public safety and unfit to be resentenced. Therefore, public safety will not be jeopardized, and there will be significant state savings. I have two witnesses with me, Greg Fidel, policy Director at Initiate justice, and Leah Gills, criminal defense attorney. Thank you.

Good morning, chair and Members. My name is Gregory Fidel and I'm the policy Director with initiate justice. I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you all today. Gun violence is an epidemic in our communities, but we know that locking people up forever hasn't solved the problem. This approach has cost the state billions of dollars and has greatly increased racial disparities in the criminal legal system. We need safe, wellbalanced measures that are driven by what the data is telling us to solve these problems.

AB 1310 is just that. To be very clear, this Bill is not a get out of jail free card, nor is it a one size fits all approach. Incarcerated persons with a firearm enhancement will have to submit a court petition to get resentence. And even if a judge decides to reduce or remove the enhancement, the base term will not be touched, and a lengthy sentence may still remain.

So, as an example, someone convicted of second degree murder may receive a 25 year sentence and then a 25 year firearm enhancement on top of that for a total term of 50 years. So just removing or reducing the 25 year firearm enhancement still leaves a base term of 25 years the person would have to serve. And again, to be clear, many other countries in the world do not apply sentences that long, right? And we do, just as a mechanism to extend sentences.

So I'd like to quickly highlight just one story today of someone who may benefit if this Bill becomes law. Silas is a veteran who is serving a sentence that includes a 10 year gun enhancement. Upon returning from his service overseas, he experienced PTSD and began self medicating. To cope, he started committing burglaries to Fund his habit, and was eventually arrested and charged with a gun enhancement. Since being incarcerated, he has completely transformed his life and was recently accepted into UC Berkeley as a transfer student.

If he were to get resentenced and have to do this extra enhancement time, he would parole immediately to UC Berkeley and study social welfare with the goal of building where he once destroyed. There are many, many people like Silas, who would be eligible to get back to court if this Bill passes. So, in closing, we need to reinvest these funds into violence prevention programs and use a public health approach to solve this enduring problem in society. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, chair and Members. My name is Leah Gillis, and I'm a criminal defense attorney. I have practiced for the last 14 years in San Joaquin and Santa Clara County. I'm very grateful to be here to speak in support of this Bill every day. I represent clients, indigent defendants, who are facing the prospects of extreme sentencing, the vast majority of which are young men of color. Judicial discretion is key to combating many of the problems that we have in the criminal justice system.

But for far too long, judges have had very little, if any, discretion when it comes to sentencing. Over the past 14 years of my practice, I have had many clients who did not receive sentences that were just where the lack of discretion prevented the court from doing what they felt was just and resulted in extreme sentences with no recourse for anyone involved.

I have seen judicial officers forced to impose sentences that they felt were too harsh and that left them in tears because of the lack of opportunity that they had to make a different choice. The good news is that this Legislature, in 2017 made a decision that one of the main paths towards combating racial disparities in sentencing as well as extreme sentences is to breathe life into judicial discretion. And it makes sense, because judicial officers are the people who sit and listen to the evidence.

They are neutral fact finders who have an opportunity to listen to both sides and to victims and to the defense and to the people. The problem is that those bills, SB 620 and SB 81, were not retroactive. So, unfortunately, what we have now is a criminal justice system that has been fractured. We have the people who I currently represent, who have judges that have the opportunity to actually make these decisions and to do what they think is right.

And then we have all of the many, many young men of color who are languishing in prison because the judicial officers that sat before them did not have this choice. It is not a just system. When we have two separate systems, we have, as a society, decided that we are moving forward and we are doing better.

And the only way in order for us to actually do that is then to go back and apply these laws retroactively so that the people who have suffered under the old draconian, nondiscretionary sentencing enhancements could be provided an opportunity, if they have earned it, to get relief. So with that, I would open up to any technical questions that might arise and reiterate my strong support for this Bill.

Thank you. Are there any other in support? Name and organization, please.

Danica Rodarmel, on behalf of the San Francisco Public Defender and Smart Justice California,

Leslie Caldwell Houston for California Public Defenders Association. In support.

Anthony DiMartino, on behalf of Californians for Safety and justice, in support.

James King, with the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights and Support.

Carmen Nicole Cox, ACLU Cal action and strong support.

Kelly Walters, on behalf of Legal services for prisoners with children. In strong support.

Lawrence Cox, all of us are none Strong support.

Jim Lindbergh, on behalf of the Friends Committee on Legislation of California, in support.

Roy Ballard, advocacy fellow for Center for Employment Opportunities and Member of Initiate justice. In strong support.

Arabella Gabara at the Young Woman's Freedom center. In strongly support,

Stephanie Chavez and the Young Woman's Freedom center and I support

Ken Hartman for the Transformative imprison work group. And strong support.

Mary Lou Alejandro, Santa Cruz bodies and needles in strong support.

Thank you. Are there any witnesses? In opposition.

Mr. Chair and Members, Mira Morton with stone advocacy on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association and opposition. We are opposed to the blanket resentencing, regardless of the underlying crime committed by the defendant. For firearm enhancements, this is very different.

To give discretion to judges going forward as cases arise as to whether they want to use the firearm enhancement or reduce it, versus going back and reviewing potentially tens of thousands of cases, this broadstroke approach will pose an enormous burden on the system and also dredge up lots of painful memories and for families and for victims who will have to come back in and testify again and relive the experiences that happened to them in the past.

And we also think, just looking at the data and the analysis from CDCR, it suggests that very few, if any, of these firearm enhancements would be overturned. The data has shown that not a lot is different from before the Bradfordville versus afterwards, which means that you have all of this burden and all of this bringing this back up for victims and their families with potentially very little change in the actual issuance of these enhancements. Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Patrick Espinoza. I'm a prosecutor, a deputy District Attorney in San Diego. county. I'm a Chief Deputy there, and I come here to testify before you to offer some perspectives on the ground. What will happen. And what will happen is you will provide the opportunity to resentence some of our criminal offenders who committed mass shootings.

And I personally, along with our elected District Attorney Summer Steph, had prosecuted a case where a shooter went on to a school ground, an elementary school, Kelly elementary school in Carlsbad, and shot at two second grade girls and hit them with bullets. In our county, we've also seen shooters go on Granite Hills High School in El Cajon, and shoot and kill students at the high school.

And recently in the City of Poway in San Diego, county, we had a shooter go into a synagogue and shoot and kill people who were worshipping. Those are the type of individuals you will be offering retroactive resentencing benefits to. And I think this is poor public policy, particularly at this point in time, when earlier in 2023, we saw over a span, I think it was 34 or 44 hours, three separate instances of mass shootings.

And we saw a shooting yesterday in the State of Tennessee, where we saw elementary school children killed by firearms. And there is people look to California to say, you know what, California, we think that they have it right on guns with respect to trying to limit the ability to have bad people do bad things with guns. And that's why we have sentencing enhancements where we can have tools in the hands of judges to make sure that serious crimes like mass shootings can have serious punishment.

And what this will do, well, this will give retroactive lenity to some of those folks who we've sentenced, and we've sentenced to long prison sentences because that was a public policy statement from the State of California to say, you know what? When bad people go onto our schools, go on to our elementary schools, our high schools, or go to our places of worship and shoot people, there should be punishment. That's okay, because folks like that deserve punishment, and they deserve serious punishment.

That's what these sentencing enhancements, these particular gun enhancements do. And we know the writing is on the wall, but we'd ask you to take a second look and say, can we make this Bill better? We know that it's likely going to pass, but please, someone take a look in light of recent events and say, can we narrow this a little bit better so we can ensure Californians are a little bit safer and that the punishment fits the crime. Thank you. Thank you.

Are there any others in opposition? Any others in opposition? Seeing none will bring it back to Committee Members for any comments? No.

Mr. Lackey, once again, I have great respect for the author, but the sensitivity of talking about this behavior in this country and misconduct with weapons is intolerable. Too often we go after the weapon itself instead of the behavior with the weapon. And here is a chance for us to message once again, the behavior and misbehavior with the weapon deserves special consideration. And this gets away from, and sends the opposite message. So I think it's a dangerous direction for our Public Safety Committee to embrace.

And so I can't embrace the fact that that's irrelevant, that this misconduct with a weapon is not only, it's just hurtful in every aspect. And so we need to send that message as powerfully as we can. And this goes the other direction. So I can't support this.

Thank you. Any others response?

And yet, sentencing enhancements did not stop Poway or Oakland or Monterey Park or the Lunar New Year shootings or any of the mass shootings that we have been a victim to in our society most recently since the existence of these sentencing enhancements.

As I understand it, this legislation is about ensuring that there is parity in the application of sentencing from what is current law to what is existing in prior law, and that there are people who are sitting in our carceral system today who do not have the ability to avail themselves of the current law as it stands right now.

And I appreciate the author for bringing forward this legislation to be able to offer us an opportunity for a balanced approach or at least an approach of parity within our existing encarseral system.

Any others you may close?

I would like to reiterate that individuals that pose a threat to public safety will not get their gun enhancement stricken. We are trying to apply the law equally with this Bill and trust judges to make the right decision. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Do we get a motion so moved call the roll.

On AB 1310 by Simmer Mckinnon the motion is do passed as amended to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

That measures on call needs two more votes. Thank you. So Mr. Patterson.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So item 13, AB 1067. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And Members, the chair, Mr. Santiago, will remember seeing this a couple of times. It is identical to what came before, just for the new Members. This Bill is named after Gavin Gladding. He was a beloved vice principal from Clovis, California, who was tragically hit and killed in the early morning hours while he was out for a run in 2018. The driver who killed Gavin did not stop, did not help. As Gavin lay there clinging to life, the driver fled the scene.

Right now, there is a perverse loophole in the law which encourages drivers under the influence to flee the scene of an accident, not to stay and to help. By fleeing, they can purposefully avoid additional charges for DUI causing injury or death. AB 1067 attempts to close to some degree that loophole by reducing an incentive for a driver to flee the scene and help prevent future tragedies. Here to tell Gavin's story and to testify in support of the Bill is Gavin Gladding's mother, Rita.

And following Rita, we'll hear from Mike Osaguda, who will share his story of Courtney Oseguda.

Thank you. Whenever you're ready. You both have 5 minutes altogether.

Good morning, Chairman, Members. I'm Gavin's mother. This is the fourth time since 2019 Assembly Patterson has brought us this appeal before you. I'm a fighter, a two time breast cancer survivor, and since September 16, 2018 a grieving mother. I forwarded each of you a book. This is a book that I wrote for our foundation. It's a short book. As Gavin had a short life. My son possessed a gravitational sphere for drawing people to him. 2000 persons attended his funeral.

He was an exceptional man. This August, 2.1 mile of the Road Gavin was running on will be dedicated in his name. Gavin was one of 978 pedestrians killed in California in 2018. Nationally, one in four pedestrians are killed by hit and run drivers each day. The unlicensed driver who struck Gavin from behind chose to leave the bloody scene. Gavin was still alive when Rogelio Oliveira's Maravea sped away. This killer hid out for five days, rid his system of any abusive substances, then turned himself into authorities.

Pleading no contest, he got a get out of jail free card and spent the night at home in his own bed. Later, as a convicted felon. After being sentenced to three years, he was free after 13 months. 13 months for taking a life. A loophole exists in our California law that sentences a driver who has fled the scene to a two to four year sentence.

As Assemblyman Patterson has just told you we are looking to increase that sentence to four to six years, a very important two years. In an effort to heal and help other California families and carry on our son's legacy, our family has founded the Gavin Gladding foundation. We Fund river camp to send children to camp. We Fund students in high school going on to study environmental science as Gavin did. And we've also partnered with another nonprofit in the Gambia, Africa.

My son served and volunteered for his country as a Peace Corps volunteer and spent two years there. This help will help send the girls to school for high school. So our family, as so many others, have become collateral damage left behind by the acts of hard hearted, callous drivers who hit and run and flee. My two grandchildren, you might ask how they have felt for the past four years, six months, seven days, having their father not at their sides.

I assure you their answers will break your heart. AB 1067 will strengthen the penalty and awareness of driving drunk. An appeal written by Gavin while at the River Parkway stated, together we can turn our hopes into realities. Please let this work begin in this room today. Please vote in favor of Gavin's law. AB 1067. Thank you.

Yes, sir.

Thank you, Rita. I'm Mike Osaga. I'm speaking to you today on behalf of my sister, Courtney Osageda, and in support of Gavin's law. AB 1067. This is my second time talking to this Committee, and today I'm asking you to care about Courtney, to care about Gavin, glading to care about the other victims that this kind of crime happens to. It was a bit over two years ago, February 25, 2021 when my sister Courtney died. She had just left her job at a nursing facility in Oakland.

She was about to get into her car when she was struck so hard by a car speeding on the wrong side of the road that she flew out of her shoes. It's baffling again. The car was driving on the wrong side of the road. They had driven around a line of stopped cars, sped up. It hit my sister as she was trying to get into her car. So what did the driver do? Certainly not the humane thing. She didn't stop.

She didn't see if my sister was okay. She just kept driving and left her there to die. My sister did nothing wrong that day. She was simply walking to her car after finishing her day at work. She was getting ready to go home to her seven year old daughter. She was doing things that we all do every single day.

Yet the last time I was here to testify on behalf of Gavin's law, I didn't understand why the discourse revolved more around the victim, I mean, around the criminal than the victim. Why not Courtney's daughter? Why not our family? Why not my father? Why not our other two sisters? We are left wondering every day how we can get justice for Courtney.

Why is it when a young mother who did nothing wrong gets sentously killed by a person who literally did everything wrong, the person who took a life can only get a maximum sentence of four years? How is my sister's life worth a maximum of four years in jail? It just doesn't seem just. I'm here today because I want someone to care about my sister, about Gavin, about the other victims in crimes like this. Now that I'm in this world, I realize how often it happens.

And trust me, it happens a lot. There's all kinds of hit and run victims on the news all the time. I've been told anonymously on social media by one of her friends that the woman who hit my sister was drunk that day. That would make her punishment greater. Of course, we don't know that for sure. It can't be proven because she left. So we have no idea. And that's the loophole. And that's what AB 1067 will fix. We know justice wasn't served for Gavin's family.

The woman who killed my sister is still out on bail and awaiting trial. It's been more than two years and Countless Court hearings, and for two years now, I've just felt like nobody cares. But I can't accept that. And I don't think we as a society should accept that. That's why I'm here today asking for your support of this Bill. So, please, I sit in front of you today and ask you to care about these victims, because this is going to keep happening. So we have to do it for the future victims, we have to do it for Courtney, and we have to do it for Gavin.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support?

Mira Morton with Stone Advocacy on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association in support.

Any witnesses in opposition?

Danica Rodarmel on behalf of the San Francisco public defender in respectful opposition.

Any other witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Bringing it back to Committee Members for any comments.

Mr. Chair, for a moment, I think for the new Members, it would be appropriate if I quickly outlined the loophole and the specifics of.

You can do that in your close.

Okay.

Yeah. I think it comes as no surprise that most people know that I spent a lot of time dealing with this particular challenge, working for the high patrol for almost 30 years, and working during the hours 20 of my 28 years was working, when most people were asleep. And so I saw a lot of, a lot of hit and run circumstances for a lot of different reasons. People run fear for any kind of outcome. But when there's loss of life, it becomes especially egregious.

And all you're asking for in this particular measure is that you provide a disincentive to run. And I will tell you that there's a significant amount of people that run because they know they're under the influence. I don't know what those numbers are. We'll never know because it's not proven.

But I would hope that we would try to send the message that accountability is important and the people should, once they've engaged in an unintentional act or even an intentional act, that they should be not rewarded for running. And that's what the current system does. It rewards you for running. And so I'm hoping that we will see that unfairness and support this Bill, because I certainly will.

Thank you. You may now close.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. By way of a bit of history, this Bill did receive support from this Committee. It did go to the floor of the Assembly. It was passed. It went to the Senate, and by one vote, the Senate Public Safety Committee denied it. To go forward. I wanted to give that history because we have worked with this Committee and with the chair.

The product that is here, the six years, the judicial review intact in addressing what has been described as this loophole, we think is a reasonable, and will be fairly adjudicated, and judges will use their discretion on this. But given historical facts of some cases which seem to me that judges may very well want to look at a six year maximum using judicial review. Remember, this is about those who run.

In the case of the person that struck Gavin immediately attempted to hide the evidence, reached out to individuals to try to cover up the damage on the car. And as was reported here by the mother, he was alive at the time. He was hit and was left to die.

And so I think that what we've tried to do, and frankly, with the help of the Committee, we were looking at different penalty numbers and all of that, we accepted amendments and advice from the Committee, and so we made it the 6th year. And obviously, judicial discretion remains. And we hope that you'll consider this as a reasonable effort to sort of move the penalty a little closer to the egregious nature of the act and appreciate your consideration and hope that you can vote this through.

All right, thank you. Is there a motion. Okay. Is there a second? Yes. He can do it. Thank you. Go ahead and call the roll.

On AB 1067 by Assembly Member Jim Patterson. The motion is do pass to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll call].

That measures on call.

Appreciate that. Thank you very much members.

Next is Mr. Gipson, 89. I'm sorry. Item number 14.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Members. Thank you for allowing me to present. I'm very grateful to be able to present to you Assembly Bill 1089, which aims to close any additional loophole surrounding ghost guns, specifically to limit those who keep finding ways to break the law in this state. Before I start, I want to thank the Committee, the Chairman, as well as the Committee staff for working closely with my team, and I will be accepting the amendments offered by the Committee today.

Assembly Bill 1089 will strengthen our state laws regulating the sale and use of ghost guns manufacturing machines. This bill builds upon--and many of you who was here last year supported in both Houses Assembly Bill 879--which seeks to require state background checks of individuals seeking to purchase firearm frames and receivers. And also, we went further, and this bill in both Houses supported Assembly Bill 1621, which bans ghost guns kits. We're very grateful to our Governor, Gavin Newsom, for signing both bills into law.

Assembly Bill 1089, which makes it clear that only state licensed firearm manufacturers are the only ones allowed to use these 3D printers and the CNC mill machines to produce firearms. It would ensure that companies selling these machines can be sued by the victims harmed by their conducts as well as their products. Lastly, this bill will allow an individual to bring civil action when these harms are by someone who distribute the digital code used to program these machines to print the products of firearms that's before you today that's embodied into 1089.

I want to tell you a story, a story that this Committee heard before. If you was here last year, you know this story very well. It's about a father who had a domestic violence dispute with his wife. A divorce took place. And because of the work that this body has done, there was a registered owner by the husband. The firearm was taken out of the home. But this father, David Mora, made an AR-15, a ghost gun.

He had supervised visitation to see his beautiful, three vivacious daughters with a supervised chaperone. Well, he went and made arrangements to meet his three daughters at church. He went to that church in Sacramento--that I did say Sacramento--in Sacramento, and he used the AR-15 and killed his three daughters at church, the supervised chaperone--which is a social worker--and then he killed himself.

And law enforcement don't know how he got this gun. He made this gun. It was AR-15. It was, in fact, a ghost gun. And this happened last year, March, made one year ago. Since April 2021, Mr. Mora was under a restraining order and that prohibited him from possessing firearms, and authorities still don't know how he got his hands on making this illegal gun. But he did it.

And he took his life, as well as his daughter and the social worker. As a lawmaker, we have responsibilities and opportunity to influence positive change in our communities in which we represent. And so today, I have the pleasure of having witnesses in support of Assembly Bill 1089 with me: Rebecca Marcus, and also Jamie Minor, representing Gifford, who will speak in support of Assembly Bill 1089.

Thank you. Good morning. Jaime Minor on behalf--

By the way, you guys have five minutes to share.

Thank you. On behalf of the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, the proud cosponsor of AB 1089. In recent years, as mentioned by the Assembly Member, and especially since the start of the pandemic, California suffered an explosion in the market for do-it-yourself ghost gun build kits and related products that allow people to easily assemble their own firearms without any background checks or other protections.

The ghost gun industry sold its gun kit products directly, immediately, and often anonymously over the Internet to buyers, including children and teens who never passed a background check or gun safety test and never showed ID verifying their age or identity. Our organization is proud to have partnered with Assembly Member Gipson, this Committee, and the Legislature to introduce the nation's first and most comprehensive ghost gun reform bill back in 2016, as well as the nation's strongest ghost gun reform legislation last year.

Early indications suggest that new reforms have had enormous success in driving leading ghost gun sellers and manufacturers to change their business practices or stop selling ghost gun products in California. However, we have also seen how some companies have sought to circumvent these reforms by openly selling and marketing digitally programmable machines, including ghost guns, printing 3D printers that encourage unlicensed manufacturers to produce key firearm parts with the press of a button.

These companies are encouraging unlicensed manufacturers to break the law and print their own firearms without any background check or serial number. AB 1089 will build on California's recent ghost gun reforms and strengthen our laws to proactively stop these abusive and dangerous practices and stop the sale and purchase of ghost gun manufacturing machines. Specifically, this bill would clarify and strengthen California's limitations on the sale of ghost gun manufacturing machines and hold individuals accountable for harms caused by their distribution.

We want to thank the Committee for continuing to discuss how do we refine the bill's key focus of strengthening mechanisms of accountability and liability for companies that are knowingly and recklessly causing or encouraging unlicensed manufacturers in California to violate California law. This bill will urgently address dangerous attempts to undermine California's life-saving ghost gun reforms before they can take root and fuel the next generation of proliferation of unregulated ghost guns in our communities. For these reasons, Gifford strongly supports AB 1089 and asks for your aye vote.

Thank you. Yes.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Rebecca Marcus, representing cosponsor Brady Campaign in strong support of AB 1089. Ghost guns circumvent or undermine almost every state and federal gun violence prevention law. They can circumvent waiting periods, assault weapons bans, age restrictions on purpose, and most importantly, background checks. Whether assembled from unregulated parts or parts printed from a 3D printer, ghost guns have caused havoc in communities all over the state. Last year, you all said enough and passed two of the strongest laws regulating ghost guns.

However, despite the immediate and life-saving impact of the passage and implementation of these bills, certain ghost gun industry members have worked diligently to find a way around the law and subsequently continue to sell ghost gun manufacturing machines. These machines are specifically designed and intended to allow anyone to produce firearms or firearm frames or receivers with little more than a press of a button.

These industry members are intentionally circumventing the intended purpose of both AB 1621 and AB 2156 at the risk of public health and safety. AB 1089 can prevent these businesses from undermining your work for their profit. For these reasons, the Brady Campaign urges your support of AB 1089.

Thank you. Are there any others in opposition--I mean in support? Sorry about that.

Mary Lou Rossetto, Yolo County Moms Demand Action volunteer, in support.

Hi. My name is Becky Rena, and I'm a Moms Demand Action volunteer in Marin, and I ask for your yes vote.

Good morning. Thank you for having us. My name is Renia Webb from Oakland, California, gun violence survivor, and proud to be in support of AB 1089.

I'm Liz Russell from Napa. I am a gun violence survivor and a Moms Demand volunteer, and I also ask your support for this bill.

Good morning. I'm Cheryl Davis. I'm from Folsom and a Moms Demand Action volunteer, and I urge your yes vote on this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any witnesses in opposition? Last time you had a bulletproof vest. You don't have a ghost gun on you, do you?

I told him to leave the props at home. Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee, for the record, Dan Reed with National Rifle Association, also here for National Shooting Sports Foundation today in opposition to AB 1089. Americans have a rich history and tradition of self-manufacturing firearms, whether it be hobbyists going back before the Revolutionary War, right, and with the recent Supreme Court decision in Bruen, one of the key things that you're looking at is a historical analog to the types of restrictions.

And with this type of legislation, it's just not going to get to the criminal element. When you think about it, we have laws regarding the self-manufacturing of firearms where you're supposed to go through, get a serial number, et cetera, and the law-abiding people are out there doing that. And the criminals are just, they're not going to comply whether we continue to tack on and tack on. This is dubious when it comes to surviving a court challenge.

There's not only the Second Amendment issues, but also some takings issues where you have machines that maybe not marketed in a similar way are going to be not phased, whereas others, so it comes down to some words. But at the end of the day, I think that we really need to just focus on the criminal element out there and just not continue to pile on to the law-abiding citizens. And with that, we're in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr. Chairman and Members, thank you for allowing us to be here and testify. Sam Paredes, representing Gun Owners of California and the California Rifle and Pistol Association. Last time I was here, there were some Members who alluded that they're used to hearing our arguments. Well, it's because they're true. In fact, this bill will affect--you have to understand that every 3D printer and every CNC machine in the State of California is capable of making these kinds of parts. Everyone.

So you're saying, 'well, these are being marketed as specific.' Yeah, but the guy can make toys or candles, whatever he wants to do out of that same 3D printer as well. So I don't know how this is going to be enforced. Lord, I'm--

Sorry about that.

I ask for forgiveness right now. So it impacts potentially 3D printers and CNC machines across the board. We think that's a little bit of a problem, and as my colleague pointed out that the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association versus Bruen decision held that, yes, the legislatures across the country can consider gun control laws. It's not a straitjacket against doing that, but it's also not a blank check.

And then let us give you the standard by which to evaluate your consideration of these bills, whether they affect the Second Amendment. And in this case, it also affects the First Amendment because federal courts have already deemed that it is unconstitutional to prevent the data for programming 3D printers and CNC machines, is protected by the First Amendment.

But it says that if there is no historical analog for this type of law--and it doesn't have to be a twin--but if there's no historical analog--going back to 1791, not post reconstruction after the Civil War when one particular party was after gun control laws in order to prevent former slaves from acquiring guns to protect themselves, that period of time goes all the way to 1791--if there is no historical analog, then it's by definition unconstitutional, and the burden of proof goes to the government to prove that there is a historical analog. This is going to go to court.

The manufacturers of all kinds of 3D and CNC machine apparatuses are certainly going to challenge this in court, and they will certainly win. And again, the taxpayers of the State of California will be going to pay the attorneys fees of our folks. That's the reality. Like it or not, if you doubt us, check the track record of what's happening in lawsuits from sea to shining sea. We are winning like all of them based on the logic that we are putting forth here. All of them. So thank you for the opportunity to share with you. I'm sure there will be some pithy comments in response to what we said. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in opposition? Seeing none, we'll bring it back to Committee.

I'll move the bill.

Thank you.

Any other comments? Mr. Zbur?

I have a hard time seeing how, quote, 'law-abiding citizens' are sort of using this to basically make weapons of war. I mean, it seems to me like it's a clear strategy to get around background checks and all of the things that we need to protect our kids and our families and people in schools and shopping centers and every place else. I just don't want to see a world where basically we've got these weapons of war in the street.

I think we need to close every loophole. I want to thank the author, and I want to thank the Brady Campaign and Everytown and Moms Demand Action and everyone who's here today for supporting this bill. I think it's a good bill. I also know the folks that are advocates for this, and frankly, I am comfortable that they've got good folks with legal strategies in place. And, of course, we'll do everything possible to defend this as it makes its way through the courts.

And frankly, I think we, at this point, just need to do everything we can despite the fact that there may be risks out there. So I will be supporting the bill, and I just want to thank all of you for bringing it and for the author for doing it today.

Thank you. Seeing no other comments, you may close.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Committee, and thank you very much for the comments that've been made by the Committee specifically. I want to say, what should we do? Should we just sit around and do nothing? Should the families who lost their loved ones in Sandy Hook not advocate? Poway, Mississippi, Texas, Georgia, Missouri, Sacramento, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin? Should we just sit around, do nothing? I would say we should continue to move ahead.

We continue to close every loophole that's out there to making sure that we, that our churches, our synagogues and our place of worship, our dance halls are safe. When is enough is enough? When we are no longer turning on the news and the news reporting is showing that there is no more mass shootings. That's when I think we've done enough. But right now, we just had six people lose their lives. Six people: three children and three adults, just in Tennessee alone.

When can we get on the same page that life is more precious than the guns that we collect and use to go into movie theaters and shoot up people? When is enough is enough? And I've heard this from those who are opposition to this bill, and I understand that people in glass houses should not throw stones, but for me and for the community in which I represent, I will continue to bring forth good policy, sensible policy, and law-abiding citizens will do just that.

They will obey the law. It's the ones that refuse to obey the law is the ones that these kinds of policies are seeking to making sure that guns are restricted. David Mora, he took three of his beautiful daughters and the social worker right here in Sacramento, at church, a place of worship. And he took their lives after his weapon being taken away. He made an AR-15 using a 3D printer and a kit to take his daughter's lives away.

And I simply want to thank Gifford, Brady, Everytown, Moms Demand Action, and everyone who's testified in support of this bill. I believe we are moving into the right direction, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote to close this loophole in 1089. Thank you.

Thank you. Chairs recommend aye vote. Is there a motion? Okay, let's call for the vote.

On AB 1089 by Assembly Member Gipson, the motion is 'do pass as amended to the Judiciary Committee.' [Roll Call]

That measures on call; needs two more.

Thank you. Whom do we volunteer would do call? Mr. Bryan? Item 21: AB 1266, infractions, warrants, and penalties.

Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and colleagues. I come before you today on behalf of Assembly Member Ash Kalra to present AB 1266, which addresses the disparate or the disparate punishment of low-income people that has done little to further public safety by prohibiting the issuance of a bench warrant if the underlying charge is merely an infraction. Each year, three million low-level infractions are processed in California courts.

These minor offenses can include traffic violations that are punishable by a fine and do not require a court appearance as long as a ticket is paid. However, despite recent reforms, judges can still issue bench warrants for arrests in cases where a person fails to appear in court or pay a citation. Arresting a person unable to pay a fine not only further drives them into poverty, but can have adverse long-term and immediate impacts on their ability to secure housing, employment, and higher education opportunities.

Furthermore, a 2016 report showcased that bench warrants have disproportionately targeted low-income people of color. For example, in San Francisco, despite being only 5.8 percent of the population, Black people made up almost 49 percent of those arrested for failure to appear or traffic fines, and most of these arrests occurred in neighborhoods with high poverty and unemployment rates.

Infraction bench warrants have functioned as a debtor's prison, creating a system where people who have money for fines never even have to appear in court, while those who are unable to pay can be arrested for minor tickets and incarcerated for a cost even greater than the infraction themselves. With me to testify in support is Stephanie Campos-Bui, Assistant Clinical Professor at UC Berkeley School of Law, and Tamitha Myler, who has been directly impacted by these kinds of policies.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Tamitha Myler, and I have been impacted by this. I live here in Sacramento. Over the last decade, I've been issued multiple bench warrants for not being able to pay a fine. To be honest with you, my first ticket was not using my blinker. Since then, it's just been downhill. That's crazy. To me, that's just crazy. Having a warrant out for my arrest because I don't have the money to pay the fine doesn't make any sense to me.

I know that whatever the ticket was for, I realized that that was my bad and my wrong. I should have used my blinker. I don't think that it's fair that they continue not only to arrest me for this one ticket because I haven't been able to pay the fine, but they continue on and on and on. It becomes a bench warrant, then becomes a failure to appear, then it's more money. Then it's more and more and more.

It just tacks on more money than I can afford. I've always had a job. I've always tried to work, but looking over my shoulder daily is insane. It's crazy. So it's been a mental thing to me where the police are around and I get nervous. I get scared. Am I going to go back to jail because of this warrant? It's not right. It's not fair. And to this day, I'm still working to pay off years of tickets for bench warrants that I can't afford.

So it's like every job I have, I can't get a real good, good job because I can't. Because if I do, I'm afraid that I'm going to go to jail if the police come in there. You know, it's just, it's crazy. It's not fair. It's not right.

Good morning, Chair Jones-Sawyer and Members of the Committee. My name is Stephanie Campos-Bui and I'm Assistant Professor at UC Berkeley School of Law. I think we can agree that no person should end up in jail simply because they cannot pay a fine. Yet under current California law, a person can be arrested for failing to pay a fine for an infraction.

And an infraction is a type of low-level offense, including for things like loitering, sitting in public, playing loud music, that are not crimes but are considered violations of the law. In other words, they're not punishable with jail time. Instead, people are ordered to pay citations or fines. But when someone doesn't pay their citation, courts can issue a bench warrant for their arrest. So the punishment for failing to pay ends up being much more severe than the initial ticket or the fine itself.

While some counties have stopped issuing bench warrants for infractions, many counties, including Los Angeles, Sacramento, and Stanislaus counties, still issue warrants for people who do not pay citations and particularly for non-traffic infractions. In fiscal year 2020-2021, the Judicial Council reported over 107,000 non-traffic infraction cases filed across the state. But as Assembly Member Bryan said, we all know that given targeted policing practices, the vast majority are charged to low-income people and Black and Brown Californians.

Data from LA County show that nearly 90 percent of the thousands of people arrested on bench warrants each year are Black and Brown residents. There's no evidence that bench warrants encourage timely court payments or appearances. It only makes it harder for people to pay and waste law enforcement and court resources. Removing the authority to issue bench warrants will not impact the underlying infraction.

People will still have to pay their fines, and courts will still be able to use existing mechanisms to collect on the debt, including referring debt to the Franchise Tax Board, which can garnish wages and intercept tax refunds. California has the opportunity to end this outdated practice with AB 1266 and ensure that we are no longer in the business of criminalizing poverty. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in support?

Danica Rodarmel, on behalf of Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights, proud cosponsor in support, also delivering support for Smart Justice California and the Prosecutors Alliance of California.

Good morning. Analisa Ruiz with Young Women's Freedom Center in strong support.

Leslie Caldwell Houston for the California Public Defenders Association in support.

Arabella Guevara with the Young Women's Freedom Center and strongly support.

Carmen-Nicole Cox, ACLU Cal Action, in strong support.

Anthony Di Martino, Californians for Safety and Justice, strong support.

Christopher Sanchez with the Western Center on Law and Poverty, proud to be a cosponsor.

Rebecca Gonzales, National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter, in support.

Kellie Walters, Staff Attorney for Legal Services for Prisoners with Children. Strong support.

Michael Mendoza with the Anti Recidivism Coalition in strong support.

Norma Orozco, Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, strong support.

Gregory Fidell with Initiate Justice. Strong support.

Jim Lindburg, Friends Committee on Legislation of California, in support.

Roy Ballard, Center for Employment Opportunities and Initiate Justice, in strong support.

Lawrence Cox, All of Us or None, strong support.

Mary Lou Alejandro, Padres Unidos, in strong support.

Tyrese Boswell for Impact Our Youth, our strong support.

Thank you. Are there any witnesses in opposition?

Mira Morton with Stone Advocacy, on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association, in opposition. We've been working to schedule a meeting with the author staff to discuss our concerns, and due to issues on our end, it hasn't happened yet. So we look forward to having that conversation, assuming the bill moves forward today. Thanks.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in opposition? Bringing it back to Committee Members. Mr. Zbur?

Move the bill.

It's been moved. I'll second. Any other comments?

I have a question. If there's no bench warrant issued for failing to appear, what is the consequence for failing to appear?

What is the consequences for failing to appear? Well, you wouldn't have a failure to appear without the bench warrant. You would still owe the citation, an infraction that you've already been levied in the Franchise Tax Board and numerous--

This goes on the record is you didn't pay it?

No, no. You can be impacted by a whole bunch of other mechanisms by which we use to collect debt.

Give me an example, please.

Can I say something? Can I--okay. Actually, when I had gotten my ticket, I don't mean to be rude and interrupt, but when I got my ticket, I actually got arrested and did 32 days in jail for it. And I was told that my time done in jail was going to pay off my fines, and I wouldn't have to pay the fines because I did the time in jail.

That didn't happen. They told me also if I turned myself in on a certain day at a certain time, that it would give me good time, which would also go towards the fines that I owed. It didn't. They added another two weeks. And here I was out of work for 32 days, and my son was stuck with my mom or whoever it was, I think, believe it was my mother at the time that was watching him.

So it not only affects the physical and mental part of us, but also my money--I couldn't make no money at that time I was in jail. But then again, I was thinking, 'okay, well, I am making money because I'm paying these fines while I'm doing this time.' It's not like that. I'm still paying for them. Even after I did the time, I still have to pay the money for them. So it makes no sense to me. So I'm being punished like two or three times for the same thing.

I'm sorry to hear that, but that really doesn't answer the question that I'm trying to get at. Maybe there is no real satisfying answer.

No, I'll give you an example. I had a half dozen parking tickets at UCLA that I couldn't pay because I was a struggling college student. The next time I filed my taxes, when I was due a refund, I didn't get the refund. UCLA got the refund. The state has a number of mechanisms to try to collect this debt. But again, you're right. You will never collect from people who have nothing, right?

And spending tens of thousands of dollars in her case, 32 days is over ten grand if it's in LA County Jail. It's significantly more than the cost of the citation to begin with. We could have paid her citation and saved money as opposed to this criminalizing approach to clear poverty.

Yeah. Excuse me. I just worry that we're creating a disincentive to attend court. I just really believe that that's going to be a reality. I don't think that's the intent, but I think that's what's going to happen. So I clearly can't support that because having been an enforcer of the law, I can just tell you that--and I do think our fines are outrageous, truthfully. I think that's part of the problem, but that's the problem we should be addressing, not penalizing people for not showing up. So sorry; I can't weigh in on this one.

Thank you. Any others? You may close.

I think one of the best things about this bill is that it undoes an overburden on our court system. It reduces the need to drag people into court simply because they couldn't afford to pay a fine or a citation. It's a decriminalizing poverty initiative, and it's government effective. We waste money every time we incarcerate somebody because they were too poor to pay their initial citation or infraction. This is smart governance, it's good governance, and it's justice. On behalf of Assembly Member Ash Kalra and now as his principal coauthor of this bill, we respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Chair is recommending aye.

On AB 1266 by Assembly Member Kalra, the motion is 'do pass to the Appropriations Committee.' [Roll Call]

The measure's on call; needs two more. Mr. Lackey, would you like to go? You're the only author in the room, right, other than me.

I was supposed to have two witnesses that flew in from out-of-state, but I don't see them here. But I'll still move forward.

Okay.

So thank you for allowing me to present this particular bill. It's AB 1368, and this legislation provides a timeline for testing sexual assault evidence kits collected before 2016. These kits do not fall under the same statutory testing requirements as newly collected kits. The timeline in this bill is the product of working with relevant stakeholders on this matter. Sexual assault is one of the most traumatic crimes that a victim can endure. In the aftermath, survivors often experienced difficulty readjusting to everyday life.

The estimated lifetime cost of being raped is over $120,000 per victim, a cumulative economic burden of nearly 3.1 trillion in the entire country. The apathy for victims of sexual assault in our policy is the reason why this felony charge is so underreported. The Rape and Incest National Network used an amalgamation of federal data to estimate that 230 out of 1000 rapes are reported. Of those, 46 lead to an arrest, nine to a prosecution, and five to felony convictions.

Only 4% of all reported rape cases ever see the inside of a courtroom, translating into 1% of every 1000 rapes committed. As a state, we should show survivors their suffering is of great importance to us by investing in victim response. If this were our policy, we could expedite healing through a trauma recovery process and minimize the stagnation felt by victim survivors. California has made monumental progress, fortifying a path for victim survivors to seek justice and heal.

However, we continue to allow thousands of kits to degrade over time as they've been totally forgotten. Each and every one of these kits represents a victim who is subjected to hours long, invasive examination following the worst experience of their life. These are horrific stories that should not end with an excuse for why the kit was under-prioritized, or worse, lost. We owe it to our victims to ensure that their kits are tested.

The Department of Justice has $4 million to disperse to local law enforcement agencies and the crime laboratories for assistance with the costs incurred from a previously approved budget that I was actually able to support and champion. Additionally, Assembly Member Lowe's voluntary tax fund to bring this goal to fruition has collected more than $2 million, and it is yet to be sent out. We should prioritize victims by creating policies that empower their self advocacy. This bill, AB 1368, provides each victim is treated with equitably-

I'm sorry, is treated equitably by testing their sexual assault evidence kits despite when the incident occurred. It is time that we finally end the backlog of untested kits, and I ask for your support.

Thank you.

My witnesses aren't here. They were from out of state, too, so it's kind of a big deal. Sorry they're not.

Any other witnesses in support?

Mira Morton with Stone Advocacy on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association, in support.

Thank you.

Patrick Espinoza, on behalf of the San Diego County District Attorney's office, in support.

Thank you. Are there any witnesses in opposition?

Good morning.

Good morning.

My name is Lesli Caldwell-Houston. I'm appearing on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association in respectful opposition. I'm a rape survivor. My daughter is a rape survivor twice over. Two, at least two of my four brothers were molested by our parish priests, so I know the agony of this type of assault. I have full experience with the issues of sexual assault, both as a victim survivor and as a defense attorney.

No one was brought to face criminal investigation on any of the assaults that I just referred to. However, we are opposed as an organization, and I am opposed personally as a survivor to the policy presented by this bill, not the intention of bringing abusers to our justice system. First, it's our understanding from Assemblymember Lackey that there are $6 million currently available for this type of testing. There is nothing stopping the testing right now.

This bill requires that all sexual assault kits received before January 1, 2016, be analyzed, regardless of whether the testing is necessary to a prosecution, regardless of whether the suspect has already pled guilty, and regardless of whether there are items of evidence from other types of cases, murders, robberies, other assaults, the results of which are necessary for a successful prosecution that will not be tested because the lab's resources will be devoted to the testing of sexual assault evidence.

While well-intentioned, this is not a well-conceived bill. The Legislature should not be in the business of prioritizing a crime laboratory's workload. The crime labs must be able to prioritize their work with the guidance of prosecutors. Further, the state should not be throwing money at ensuring evidence is tested in one type of case first, regardless of the import of the evidence to a criminal prosecution. We respectfully request your no vote.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in opposition? Mr. Lackey, are these your witnesses?

I think so.

Go ahead. You have five minutes total.

Thank you.

Hello. My name is Natasha Alexenko. Again, I'm really grateful for the opportunity to be here and speak. I am a survivor of sexual assault. I was raped and robbed at gunpoint by an unknown assailant. To say that it changed my life forever is an understatement but what happened next changed my life further, and my rape kit was not processed for nearly a decade.

In the interim, the man that raped and robbed me was on a nationwide crime spree, creating other victims, placing a burden on law enforcement, and, yes, placing a burden on the laboratories as well. I am a living, breathing example of the necessity of this legislative measure, and I certainly hope you consider all the survivors in California when you're considering this legislation and public safety of Californians in general. Each kit represents a victim, a survivor, and their family, a victim whose body was a crime scene.

And I will tell you from experience, we never forget. No matter how many years go by, we never forget those that support us. And we never forget when our rape kit, as mine did, languishes for decades. So I thank you for this opportunity to speak with you.

Thank you.

Thank you. I'm Ilsa Knecht. I'm the Policy and Advocacy Director for the Joyful Heart Foundation. Joyful Heart Foundation was founded in 2004 by Law & Order actress and advocate--Law & Order SVU--actress and advocate Mariska Hargitay to help survivors heal and reclaim joy in their lives. And in 2010, we made ending the rape kit backlog our top priority. We're honored to be a sponsor of this bill with Natasha's Justice Project. This bill would end the rape kit backlog in California.

DNA evidence contained in rape kits is a powerful law enforcement tool to solve and prevent crime. Too often, however, as you heard from Natasha, these kits languish in law enforcement facilities and sometimes hospitals and crime labs without being tested--for decades sometimes. And estimates are that there are 13,000 of these kits in California right now. The following case from California illustrates the fact that DNA is a powerful tool to take these dangerous offenders off the streets, and they're often repeat offenders.

Keith Asbury Jr. of Antioch, California, kidnapped and raped two young women in 2008, it was a 15 and a 19 year-old. The rape kits collected in this case sat untested for years. Meanwhile, he had later attempted rape of a 46 year old woman, and a few weeks later, in 2008, he burglarized a home and raped and murdered a student.

Several of these crimes, including murder, could have been prevented with the timely testing of a single rape kit in 2008. So he avoided coming to responsibility for decades while keeping on destroying lives. In Detroit, the testing of more than 11,000 previously untested kits has resulted in the identification of 800 serial rapists. These rapists have been linked through DNA on the DNA databases to crimes in 40 other states in Washington, DC. These guys don't stop they move around, and they commit all kinds of crimes.

So testing rape kits also saves communities millions of dollars. Because I know your question often is, how are we going to pay for this? It's important to know that Case Western University in Ohio has conducted research on the 4,000 untested kits in Cleveland that were finally tested. And it found that the community saved $48.2 million, almost $9,000 per rape kit, in future averted costs to the community. And Dr. Lawrence Wein of Stanford University estimates that testing every rape kit could save communities $4,000 per averted assault.

So it's important to know that this also can be done. It has been done across the country. 16 states have eliminated their backlog. It's time for California to get on board with that. I think this will be one of the most important public safety votes you'll take in this Committee, and I urge you to pass this bill. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Any other witnesses? We're done. We'll bring it back to Committee. Any questions, comments, concerns? Mr. Zbur.

So I think this is a pretty compelling bill. And I guess the question I had for the witness--I'm just horrified hearing your experience--but why was it that the rape kit was never tested? Did they explain that to you?

Yeah. Thank you for that question. Yes, very similar to other jurisdictions across the country. My rape kit was one of thousands that remained untested, and it was actually in the hands of law enforcement. It was not at a laboratory. It just had not gotten there yet. And that seems to be very similar cases across the country.

I think, to answer your question, a lot of it is priority. There's a tremendous amount of workload that's associated with this. And when it doesn't rise to the level of priority, for a number of reasons, it just gets overlooked.

So, as I understand, the bill--requirements came in place in 2016 to test these rape kits within a certain amount of time-

That's right.

-Short amount of time. And so what this is getting to are the rape kits that were never tested prior to 2016. Is that correct?

That's correct.

And what is the cost of testing a rape kit amount to, roughly?

I'm not sure.

That, if you want me to. It depends on the actual case, but generally it can be between $1000 to about $3,000. But right now, actually, there are so many kits that have been sitting on shelves across the country. At one point it was 400,000 that the private crime labs have been helping with the public crime labs. So a lot of states are outsourcing to private labs to help get rid of the backlog while they keep up with what's coming in the door today. And they can test these kits at about $500 per kit.

Thank you. I think it's a good bill, and I'll be supporting it. I'll move the bill.

Just real quick. I'm sorry, I showed up late, and I know you were just answering the question, but was that on older kits, or is that current kits?

Thank you.

Both, actually. The State of Massachusetts has a 30-day turnaround for rape kits, and they outsource some of their new kits to help keep them under the turnaround time as required by law.

So, same price across the board, then?

Oh, you're saying because some of them might be more complicated cases? I mean, that's a little bit of a case-by-case basis. But, for example, when a city like Memphis, who had about 10,000 or 11,000, or Detroit, go into a contract with these private labs, they give them kind of a bulk discount, I mean, for lack of a better way to put it. So it usually is sort of like, "Well, if you're going to send us 10,000 kits, we'll say over the whole course, you're going to pay probably $500-650 a kit," something like that.

Thank you.

Thank you. Any others? You may close.

First off, I'd like to thank my witnesses for coming, making the sacrifice to come from out-of-state to testify on this very important measure. And I think enough has been said, and I let their testimony stand as my close, and I ask for your support.

Thank you. You and I have been going at this for quite some time. Really, the problem is, this has not been a priority, as far as testing. And as more cases come in with different other crimes, the rape kits get pushed down and down and down and get lower in priority. I commend you. You stuck with this for quite some time, so I commend you for doing that, especially for the Members. This is your first time here. This is not Mr. Lackey's first try at this.

And he's heard a myriad of different reasons why we can't get to this, but he's pushed the envelope a lot further. And there are a lot of people, rape victims, that owe you a debt of gratitude for sticking with it. Chair is recommending an aye.

On AB 1368 by Assembly Member Lackey. The motion is do pass to the Appropriations Committee. Jones-Sawyer. Aye. Alanis. Aye. Bonta. Aye. Bryan. Aye. Lackey. Aye. Jackson. Aye. Santiago. Zbur. Aye.

Thank you everybody.

That measure passes. Ms. Bonta, you have two items AB 1186 Bonta juvenile restitution and Bonta AB 1104 corrections, rehabilitation and sentencing. Move the bill.

I'm starting with 1186. Good before lunch, Mr. Chair and members, I would like to express my appreciation to the Committee staff for their time working on this bill. I authored this bill because our current youth restitution system is broken. Restitution was meant to make crime survivors whole, but in reality, it just creates a perpetual cycle of debt, especially for poor black and brown families. Young people and their families cannot afford to pay restitution and face significant financial burdens from these orders.

The inability to pay restitution often creates long standing financial harm and instability that prevents young people from moving forward in their lives. Parents can also be liable for their child's restitution and subject to unforgiving collection practices and the collateral consequences of court ordered debt, including negative credit impacts, bank levies, and even property liens. The system isn't working for crime survivors either. Each year, around 12,000 youth in California are ordered to pay restitution. The average amount of restitution ordered is $1,559.

However, because most youth cannot pay, only a fraction of crime survivors ever receive any compensation. Public records data received by the Berkeley Law Policy Advocacy Clinic shows that statewide, only about 20% of youth restitution ordered since 2010 has been collected. Much of the outstanding youth restitution owed is years old and unlikely ever to be paid. To add to all of this, many young people who cause harm are crime survivors themselves or have histories of trauma in communities experiencing pain.

AB 1186, The Repair, realizing equity while promoting accountability and Impactful Relief Act, fixes this broken system. AB 1186 eliminates the existing system of direct restitution for youth and makes crime survivors harmed by youth eligible for financial assistance through the California Victim Compensation Board. Youth will be ordered to participate in non monetary alternatives to encourage reflection on the impact of their actions, including restorative justice conferences, community service programs, skill building, and job opportunities. AB 1186 makes our youth restitution work better for everyone, both for crime survivors and youth who owe restitution by providing crime survivors with more equitable, timely and stable compensation and setting both the young person and the harmed person on a strong path towards accountability, transformation, rehabilitation and healing. Thank you. And as witnesses today, I have Arabella Guevara with Young Women's Freedom center and Anthony Di Martino with Californians for safety and justice.

Thank you. You have five minutes altogether. Whenever you're ready.

Good morning, Chair and members. My name is Anthony Di Martino and I am the government affairs Director for Californians for Safety and Justice, as well as a social worker. We are a member of the Debt Free Justice Coalition and co sponsor of this legislation. Our organization, founded in 2012, has worked to organize victims of crime and people that are formerly incarcerated throughout California. We have over 52,000 crime survivors in our California network and over 120,000 crime survivors nationwide.

One of the many reasons we are cosponsoring this legislation is because we know that the current restitution process does not work for anyone involved. When we survey our crime survivors, they consistently share that they want alternative forms of accountability for those that do harm, and they themselves need immediate resources for support. In fact, in our 2022 nationwide survey of over 1500 crime survivors, we found that 87% of victims did not receive financial or economic assistance to help recover.

Only one in four victims found the justice system helpful in providing information about recovering from crime or referrals for support services. And by a nearly two to one margin, victims prefer the justice system focus more on rehabilitating people who commit crimes than punishing them. That is why we, along with other advocates, have been successful in advocating for $39 million yearly to the Victim Compensation Fund, as well as creating a $50 million flexible cash assistance grant grant program for victims just last year.

In addition, in just the last four years, we have expanded our trauma recovery centers from 14 to 23 throughout the state with support from the state as well as savings from Prop 47. We know that this bill will actually result in victims receiving the support they need, and youth and their families will have meaningful opportunities for rehabilitation. This Bill will make us all safer and responds to the needs of victims and youth and their families. Thank you, Assembly member Bonta, for your work on this and thank you to all of the other co sponsors and supporters. We respectfully request your aye vote, thank you.

Good morning everyone. My name is Arabella Guevara and I am a lead organizer for the Young Women's Freedom Center. We are proud co sponsors of AB 1186. At the age of 13, I was placed on juvenile probation and spent the next five years in and out of incarceration. Most of these were technical violations, some even because the judge felt incarceration was a necessary answer to my own mental health needs.

Being on juvenile probation often means continuous court dates, which parents are mandated, and sometimes subpoenaed to attend. This meant my mother was forced to come into court, even if it meant she was at risk of losing her job. At one point she did lose her job and because we were unable to pay the rent, we were evicted. At 15 years old, I was sentenced to the girls ranch in Santa Clara County.

While I should have only been there for six to eight months, I didn't get released until 17 years old during the Covid-19 pandemic. As an adult, I now reflect on what support could have been in place to provide my mental and emotional health needs, which didn't include the added stress of $60,000 of debt by the time I was 18. Upon my release, I soon fell into homelessness and addiction due to unmet mental health needs of not just myself, but my entire family.

I was also a victim to street violence and exploitation. During the time I was homeless, I notified my restitution caseworker that I was currently struggling to survive with my own daily needs and was unable to make my $300 to $600 monthly payments. My mother and I continued to receive daily threats that my missed payments would be garnished and we would be taken to court in addition to the money that was already garnished when I was released from the ranch. This was money that was meant to fund me for my reentry needs as well as support my mom, who was only making $1,500 a month and expected to make $300 a month rent payments. If it weren't for Covid renting regulations, she would have been evicted a lot sooner. I am now 20 years old, a mother, a fiance, but most importantly a community leader and a survivor.

I serve as a role model to show our young folks that even the most impacted have the potential to use their experiences to change the way the society and even we view ourselves. I've mentored system impacted youth. I've led legislative change and youth justice, and most of all, I've led healing and transformative justice circles to support youth like myself in understanding and working through harm they may have caused or even experienced.

I'm one of very few folks who had support from other youth leaders and organizers who saw my voice as important and my story as sacred. I stand here today much different than the young woman who entered the system and who was a victim of exploitation and violence. Debt added stress and continued cycles of poverty. The people and the restorative justice spaces that provided love, support and patience were what made me enough to see others as whole beings. AB 1186 has the potential to do the same. I urge you to pass AB 1186 to ensure that youth are given the opportunity to grow into their potential as they learn the impact of harm. Young people do not deserve to be treated as unworthy of these opportunities, but deserve to be empowered and given appropriate support with extra barriers. Thank you.

Yes. Any other witnesses in support?

Danica Rodarmel, on behalf of Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights, the San Francisco Public Defender, Smart Justice California, and Prosecutors Alliance of California.

Annalisa Ruiz with Young Women's Freedom Center as well as Sister Warriors Freedom Coalition, San Jose chapter in strong support.

Stephanie Chavez at the Young Women's Freedom center in strong support.

Lesli Caldwell-Houston for the California Public Defenders Association in support.

Norma Orozco, Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in strong support.

Rebecca Gonzalez, National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter in support.

Gregory Fidel will Initiate Justice, proud co sponsor strong support.

Izzy Swindler on behalf of the City and County of San Francisco in support as well as San Francisco treasurer, tax collector Jose Saintros in support. Thank you.

Linda Wanner with the California Catholic Conference in strong support.

Hello Sonja Tonnesen-Casalegno on behalf of Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice, a co sponsor and strong supporter of the bill. Thank you.

Arlene Rosales with dream beyond fellow strongly support.

Kelly Walters, staff sttorney with Legal Services for Prisoners with Children. Proud co sponsor and in strong support.

Tyrese Boswell, System Impacted, I support.

Tatiana Lewis with All of Us or None, proud co sponsors and strong support.

Xochitl Mucier Larios, System Impacted, I'm in strong support.

Christopher Sanchez with the Western center on Law and Poverty and strong support.

Jim Lindbergh on behalf of the Friends Committee on Legislation of California in support.

Roy Ballard with Center for Employment Opportunities and a member of Initiate Justice, in strong support.

Ken Hartman on behalf of the Transformative In-Prison Work Group in strong support.

Thank you. Are there any witnesses in opposition?

Mira Morton with Stone Advocacy on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association. We are in opposition, however, we thank the author and the sponsors for their willingness to work with us, and we look forward to continuing conversations to address our concerns if the bill moves forward today. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in opposition? Any? Bring it back to Committee. Mr. Bryan, thank you.

I want to thank the author for bringing this bill forward. The Youth Justice Coalition just celebrated 20 years in Los Angeles this past weekend, and I'm thinking of all the young people. Lupita, Anthony, all the stories of the way that restitution has stifled their ability to build any kind of economic base. Having come from conditions that already did that in a whole community sense. There are plenty of ways that accountability is already rendered through the juvenile justice system.

There are plenty of ways that victims can be compensated, such as the Victims Compensation Fund. But putting these barriers on young people only increases the likelihood that they encounter the adult penal system. This is smart legislation. It's compassionate legislation. It's fiscally responsible legislation. And if you are looking for co authors, I'm happy to join you.

Any other comments? You may close.

Thank you. In closing, I'll just say that it's time we create a youth restitution system that better supports crime survivors by ensuring that they get immediate relief without saddling youth and their families with long lasting debt. I respectfully request your aye vote.

And I also want to thank you. We got to get to a point where we stop criminalizing poverty, especially our young people. So thank you for bringing this forward. Chair's recommending an aye.

On AB 1186 by Assembly Member Bonta. The motion is do passed to the Appropriations Committee. [roll call]

That measure passes.

Thank you.

Next, AB 114 Bonta Corrections and Rehabilitation Sentencing.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. Thank you for letting us get set up. I would like to express my appreciation to the committee staff for their time working on this bill. Given the deep commitment I have to expanding in prison programming, I am excited to author this legislation. In the 2015, 2016 session, the Legislature decided to move away from punitive justice towards a more restorative justice approach and directed the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to create a mission statement in line with those stated goals.

CDCR's mission statement now reads as follows. To facilitate the successful reintegration of the individuals in our care back to their communities, equipped with the tools to be drug free, healthy, and employable members of society by providing education, treatment, rehabilitative and restorative justice programs, all in a safe and humane environment. Despite the progress, the penal code has not been updated to reflect this change in approach. My boll aligns penal code 1170 with CDCR's stated mission by making two critical changes.

First, AB 114 makes clear that once a person has been sentenced to a term of incarceration, the punishment goal of sentencing is satisfied, meaning that a person's incarceration alone is punishment. Secondly, my Bill clarifies that the purpose of incarceration is rehabilitation and preparing for reentry, and highlights the critical role that community based organizations play in having providing this type of programming. All incarcerated people should have access to rehabilitative programming. People in prison should have access to quality, impactful programs.

Programs run by community based organizations are best positioned to provide quality services to incarcerated people. I want to be very clear that this bill does not mandate CDCR to do anything. While the language changes may seem minor, this bill is creating a foothold for further change. The clarification around punishment and rehabilitation is necessary to shift the culture of our system that has for years focused on a lock them up and throw away the key approach.

And rather we want to move towards recognizing that the goal is to be rehabilitative and seek accountability and eventually release. Thank you. And as witnesses today I have Ken Hartman with the Transformative in Prison Work Group and Mary Lou Alejandrez with Santa Cruz Barrios Unidos. Thank you.

My name is Mary Lou Alejandrez and I work for Santa Cruz Barris Unidos in Santa Cruz, California. We are a multicultural, nonprofit organization. Our mission is to reduce violence in our community and we advocate for prison policy reform and programs that reduce recidivism, support reentry, and unified families. Today I come here as a survivor of someone who's been harmed and as an advocate of prison policy reform.

As a reentry program coordinator, I've worked in the California prisons with the incarcerated population for over 30 years. Over those 30 years, I have witnessed and incarcerated individuals transform in making positive, life affirming changes and becoming better people. Many of these individuals now are running their own nonprofits, private businesses, and giving back to their communities. They have told me that this could not have happened without them having the opportunities to take advantage of different programs that community based organizations provide within the prisons.

With this said, I have also witnessed institutions without any or very limited programming availability, which in turn limits a person's opportunity for healing and the ability to acquire the necessary skills needed. Making them, through no fault of their own, ill prepared for reentry back into society. This bill AB 114, will support community based organizations who are best equipped in providing these necessary programs to expand throughout the California prisons and that will help reduce recidivism and increase healthier reentry for all.

I brought with me a whole bunch of letters with me of people requesting programming from throughout the State of California. Just as a show, we get these letters probably 10 to 15 letters a day from my organization. In closing, I really would like to thank Assembly Bonta for continuing to push for better conditioning and programming in all the California prisons I urge you to vote a yes for this bill to move forward, and I thank you all for your time.

Thank you, sir.

I'm Ken Hartman from the Transformative in Prison Work Group. We are a coalition of 85 community based organizations that provide rehabilitative programs, trauma healing, restorative justice programs, and collectively in all of California's prisons. We are proud once again to be working with Assemblymember Bonta to continue to push to make positive change to conditions inside the prisons, which ultimately improves outcomes for all Californians.

By clearly defining into law that the purpose of incarceration is rehabilitation, education, restorative justice, and healing, this bill resets expectations, and it signals the definitive end to the failed, purely punitive approach that propelled mass incarceration in our state. This bill also recognizes the central role of community based organizations in the remaking of our prisons. As a formerly incarcerated person, I know how important it is to provide opportunities for growth and transformation.

Including the voices and presence of people with most impacted by incarceration, particularly the formerly incarcerated, increases the likelihood of success for our future fellow community members coming home. I would not be living the life I am living now without the care and support of community based organizations inside and outside. Dostoyevsky said that "the way you judge any civilization is by entering its prisons."

And in that light, I just want to encourage everyone around this table to please go inside our prisons and visit our member organization's programs. I am very confident you will be extremely impressed, as Mr. Lackey recently was. And with that, I just want to say thank you very much, Assemblymember Bonta again and ask for a yes vote.

Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in support?

Danica Rodarmel, on behalf of Grip Training Institute and San Francisco public Defender.

Anthony DiMartino, on behalf of Californians for Safety and Justice, in strong support.

Annalisa Ruiz with Younger Men's Freedom Center, in support.

Gregory Fidell with Initiate Justice, in support.

Leslie Caldwell Houston for the California Public Defenders Association, in support.

Linda Wanner with the California Catholic Conference, in strong support.

Jeronimo Cuauhtemoc Aguilar, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, in strong support.

Tatiana Lewis with All of Us or None, in strong support. Thank you.

Jim Lindberg, on behalf of the Friends Committee on Legislation, California, in support.

Estefany Chavez at the Young Woman's Freedom center, in strong support.

Sonja Tonnesen-Casalegno on behalf of Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice, in support.

Thank you, are there any witnesses in opposition? Any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none, bring it back to the Committee for any comments, the moves and second you may close.

Thank you, chair and members, I leave you with this thought that I've shared previously. 95% of incarcerated people will be released from prison back into our communities. Let's continue to focus on rehabilitation and reentry services that provide people with the tools they need to be successful in their reentry journeys by supporting CDCR in doing so and codifying this into California law so that a mission can be our direction in legislation.

Thank you, chairs. Recommend the aye. Call the vote.

Call the roll on AB 114 by Senator Member Bonta. The motion is due. [Roll Call]

That measure passes. Thank you.

You may begin.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Today I present AB 852, which would declare the Legislature's intent to correct the racial bias within our criminal justice system and require courts to consider the disparate impact on historically disenfranchised populations when imposing sentences. Last year, the California Reparations Task Force released its interim report as scheduled to release its final report in the coming months.

In our initial report, the task force studied all aspects of government, including specifically the unjust legal system, in preparation for the task force final report, due in the coming months. AB 852 brings parity to defendants by requiring courts to weigh sentences against the backdrop of historically unequal application of discretionary sentencing. This bill is a work in progress and will be updated to instead codify necessary changes in law as recommended by the task force in the final report.

I ask for your support of this bill so we can continue the work of the task force. Thank you. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Any other witnesses in support?

Danica Rodarmel, on behalf of the San Francisco Public Defender, in support.

Leslie Caldwell Houston. On behalf of the California Public Defenders Association in support.

Gregory Fidell will Initiate Justice, in support.

Anthony DiMartino on behalf of Californians for Safety and Justice, in support.

Any witnesses in opposition. That was quick. Okay, we'll bring it back to staff. I should say good morning. We have a first and a second, guess we're ready for a close. That was fast.

Yeah, real fast. It's good. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Okay, we'll call for the question on.

AB 852 by Senator Member Joan Sawyer. The motion is due pass. [Roll Call]

Congratulations.

Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you.

As we're waiting for other members to come so we can finalize, and they should be here in a few minutes, I want to quickly read a statement. Good morning, members, or good afternoon. Now, the fentanyl crisis has impacted countless lives across the state and has been on the rise in recent years. This year, a number of my colleagues have introduced fentanyl related bills that have sought to address the issue in a variety of different ways.

As such, as chair, I have pulled all fentanyl related bills from the order of business for each of this year's committee hearings and will hold an informal hearing this fall on the topic. The fentanyl crisis cannot be combated through incremental measures. We must tackle this with the multilayered approach it deserves. It is complex, controversial, and unbelievably important to everyone in California.

I look forward to bringing all authors, all stakeholders, all victims, all of law enforcement, everyone that's intimately involved with the fentanyl crisis to provide their perspectives in ensuring the data and research lead the conversation in informing our response to this crisis. I am pulling these bills for the following reasons. First, I want to bring all aspects of the fentanyl conversation together so we can address the issue holistically and not through a piecemeal approach from a variety of bills.

Second, this issue must be addressed as a public health crisis and public safety crisis. As such, I will be inviting health advocates and policy experts, including the Health Committee, to this hearing. Finally, we, as a Legislature, allocated almost 7 million to the Attorney General to establish a fentanyl enforcement task force, in addition to the Governor recently announcing plans for a multimillion dollar investment into Naxalon and other emergency resources to combat this crisis.

These are important stakeholders that must be a part of this conversation, and an informal hearing allows us to do just that. I look forward to holding the fentanyl informal hearings this fall and invite my colleagues, including the fentanyl bill authors, all stakeholders, victims, law enforcement and others Health Committee, the Attorney General and the Administration, to join me in tackling this crisis. Thank you. Next, we will do any add ons listing of calls and vote changes. Madam Secretary, please go through all the measures taken up today.

On the consent calendar. [Roll Call ] Item one, AB 44, was on consent. Item number two, AB 455, by Assemblymember Member Quirk-Silva. [Roll Call] Item number three, AB 458, was on consent item number four, AB 523 was pulled by the author. Item number five, AB 567 was on consent. Item number six, AB 642 was pulled by the author. Item number seven, AB 667 was pulled by the author.

Item number eight, AB 852, by Assemblymember Joan Sawyer. [Roll Call] Item number nine, AB 977 was pulled by the author. Item number 10, AB 1028, by Assemblymember McKinnor. This measure was on call. [Roll Call] That measure passes. Item number seven, AB 11, AB 1034. [Roll Call] Item number 12, AB 1047, was pulled by the author. Item number 13, AB 1067.

This measure was on call by Jim Patterson. Excuse me, Assemblymember Jim Patterson. [Roll Call] That measure now passes. Item number 14, AB 1089 by Assemblymember Gipson. This measure was on call [Roll Call] AB 1089, by Assemblymember Gipson [Roll Call] that measure passes. Item number 15, AB 114 by seven Member Bonta.

[Roll Call] Item number 16, AB 1118 was on consent. Item 17, AB 1149 was on consent. Item 18, AB 1177 was on consent. Item number 19, AB 1186, by Assemblymember Banta [Roll Call] Item number 20, AB 1226 was on consent. Item 21, AB 1266, by Assemblymember Kalra. This measure was on call. [Roll Call] That measure passes. Item 22, AB 1310 by Assemblymember McKinnor. This measure was on call.

[Roll Call] That measure passes.

Okay.

Item 23, AB 1351 was on consent. Item 24, AB 1368 by Mr. Lackey Santiago Santiago Aye. What measure would you like to go back to?

A little bit?

Yes, sir. I have you as aye on AB 1034 by Ms. Wilson.

Okay.

Yes, this concludes.

This concludes the Public Safety hearing Committee meeting.