Senate Standing Committee on Public Safety

All right. The Senate Committee on Public Safety will come to order. Good morning. The Senate continues to welcome the public in person and via teleconference service for individuals wishing to provide public comment. Today's number is 877-226-8163 and the access code is 6948930. We are holding our Committee hearing in Room 2200 in the O Street building. I ask all Members of the Committee to be present in the Room 2200 so we can establish our quorum and begin our hearing. Secretary, can you take the role, please?

[Roll call].

Thank you. We have now fully established a quorum, and I do want to say we have nine bills on today's agenda. One is on consent, SB 226, Alvarado-Gil, will be pulled and reset at a later date, as well as Bill number SB 349, Roth has also been pulled.

Oh, I didn't see that. No, I'm sorry. I missed that. Only one is the Alvarado-Gil that was left. What? We pulled, that. Was it on the.

That was previously pulled. So we have one Bill pulled, SB 226, Alvarado-Gil. Now let's hear from our first author. Senator Umberg, will you present your Bill, SB 22?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for your personal engagement in SB 22 and your work on it. Same thing with respect to your chief consultant, Ms. Mary Kennedy. I appreciate the work that's gone into this Bill. This is a process that began over three years ago. Remote access to the courts and providing for remote testimony is something that we learned, during COVID, can be quite useful. It can be useful to allow those who might miss a day of work to participate remotely.

It can be useful, for example, if someone is incarcerated, to be able to participate in a hearing involving their child. It can be useful in terms of expense. It can be useful in many ways. We've worked out some of the issues concerning technology. We're still working on technology as we improve. What SB 22 does is very, very simple.

It simply extends the sunset on last year's budget Bill, AB 199, with a sentence that acknowledges long-standing case law in two areas with respect to, in particular, juvenile victims. The sunset for AB 199 is January 1, 2024. The second provision is simply an extension of the option for juveniles and those who are mentally ill to be able to use remote appearances to make their appearance. Now, there's been a number of different amendments suggested.

There's been a lot of conversation about, in particular, this area and in this area. What I'm committed to is I'm committed to making sure that the person whose liberty is in jeopardy has the option, assuming that they're not being conserved, assuming that they can make that informed decision, has the option to appear personally. The challenge is sometimes from state hospitals that may require someone being transported a great distance, but the person whose, again, liberty is in jeopardy has that option.

They can either appear remotely, they can appear in person. If the court is so inclined. If the court wish to come to the facility, that's fine, too. So we're going to make sure that that is clear in the Bill. We're going to make sure, especially in criminal proceedings, especially in criminal proceedings, that if someone wishes to be physically present, they certainly may be physically present, cannot be prohibited from doing so. I know that we had an informational hearing.

Thank you, Senator Wahab, for your participation, your leadership in that hearing. And at the time the issue was raised that some courts were prohibiting individuals from appearing personally. We asked for information, and indeed, we got information that in one court, there were several departments, civil departments, that were requiring remote participation only. That has been resolved. That was not part of the extension. That was not part of remote access in SB 241.

And I think the message has been clearly communicated to all the courts that that's the State of the law. So with me today is Judge Lisa Rodriguez from Judicial Council. She is Vice Chair of the Criminal Law Advisory Committee. And Mr. Michael Fermin, Chief Assistant District Attorney in San Bernardino. County. And if I might ask that we first hear from Judge Rodriguez. Madam Chair.

If the witnesses would please come up and speak.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. I'm Judge Lisa Rodriguez from San Diego Superior Court on behalf of the Judicial Council, to testify in support of SB 22. SB 22 is an access-to-justice measure that gives in-custody and out-of-custody defendants the option to appear remotely in misdemeanor and felony proceedings. It excludes court trials and jury trials as well as felony sentencing hearings.

But the Bill does extend the sunset of a law that was supported by a broad coalition of groups just eight months ago that we worked two years, three years with trying to ensure that this could go forward. Central in this law is that remote appearances require the informed consent of the defendant. The Council also supports the bill's extension of the remote option for both commitment and juvenile delinquency proceedings.

The Judicial Council has seen the many, many benefits of giving people the option to participate remotely in civil and criminal proceedings, and court users agree. In a survey that was conducted between March 2022 and just last month, February 2023, it was conducted by Judicial Council as required by law. Of the more than 60,000 individuals that responded, including parties, attorneys, and court employees, 96% reported that they had a positive experience.

The remote option preserves access to justice for court users so they don't lose time from work, have to find childcare, or incur travel and parking costs for short hearings and appearances. It increases the efficiency of court services by continuing to allow courts the flexibility to require in-person court proceedings when it is appropriate or necessary.

And just this past Friday, during testimony provided to the Committee on the Revision of the Penal Code regarding the Racial Justice Act, a public defender explained how helpful it was to have expert witnesses appear remotely to discuss the complicated analysis necessary to prove racial bias. These experts and others like them are spread across the United States, and their time is at a premium. Remote technology makes them accessible on a greater scale to appear in court.

It also extends authority to the courts for especially vulnerable populations, such as hearings to determine competence to stand trial, not guilty by reason of insanity, LPS certifications, and juvenile dependency proceedings. Collaborative courts and participants in diversion review hearings have found remote proceedings to be very helpful because, unlike other court matters, they have to appear for frequent check-ins on their progress. They're able to schedule hearings during their breaks so they don't have to miss time from work, school, or other obligations by traveling to court.

This increases their ability to rehabilitate and reintegrate into the community. In veterans treatment court, veterans can take advantage of the remote option when they're stationed in other counties or even outside of California and are able to fully participate in their proceedings. The remote option helps avoid potential for decompensation and other treatment setbacks when patients at the Department of State Hospitals must be transported via bus for in-court proceedings.

If the facilities are too far away for one day transportation, the patient must be held in county jail and as we know, jails are not therapeutic settings. It also maintains continuity of care for patients in other hospital settings, including acute psychiatric and substance abuse, by allowing those who can't leave their facilities during in-house treatment the ability to participate, increasing their access to justice. And as the state's mental health crisis continues to grow, behavioral health experts are in short supply.

If clinicians must attend court proceedings in person, this impacts the continuity of care not just for those individuals receiving the care, but other staff and patient care, as much-needed services can't be provided while clinicians are away. For participants in juvenile court proceedings, the remote options helps minors avoid the educational costs and travel and missing school.

Youth who couldn't otherwise participate due to inpatient facility restrictions now can participate, and their family Members who don't have to take off time from work, find childcare, or incur other travel-related costs can now attend hearings. It especially helps youth who are sensitive to change in their environment and who struggle with health issues.

It also supports the goal of the recently realigned Office of Youth and Community Restoration by providing a continuum of services for youth that is trauma-responsive and culturally informed while supporting positive youth development. The Council understands that some justice partners have concerns about technology issues. This is of utmost importance to Judicial Council, too, and something the courts have been working very hard to improve and are committed to continuing to approve.

The council is in productive conversations with justice partners about this and other issues related to evidentiary versus nonevidentiary testimony, as well as language related to liberty interests implicated by juvenile delinquency and civil commitment proceedings. We are committed to continuing to work with all the organizations that have raised concerns about this legislation. We look forward to continuing these discussions and working with Senator Umberg's staff. In conclusion, it's important to point out that remote proceedings are entirely optional.

If an individual subject to court proceedings doesn't want to appear remotely, they don't have to. Thank you very much for your time. I'm available to answer any questions if you have them.

Thank you. We'll move on to the next witness.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Michael Fermin, Chief Assistant District Attorney, San Bernardino County on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association, we stand in support of SB 22. I don't intend to go over many of the items that Judge Rodriguez just talked about. However, I wanted to make sure the Committee is aware, in addition to the extension, this Bill permits both the defendant and the people the opportunity to introduce testimony through the use of remote technology that had previously been authorized by law.

As Senator Umberg acutely pointed out at the Joint Judiciary and Public Safety Overview Oversight Committee meeting on March 7, the current version of 977.3 would prohibit parties from the use of remote technology for that purpose. Mr. Stephen Monkhelt of the CACJ accurately pointed out that before 2022, a party could request evaluation and approval of the trial court for the use of remote technology in these limited areas. This ability has long been recognized in both statutory and Supreme Court decisional law.

This modification, now as a result of SB 22, returns this opportunity to the litigants and restores the discretion of the trial courts within this law, and for that reason, we support it. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. We'll move to any support witnesses here in this room. Seeing none, we'll move on to witnesses in opposition. I'm so sorry. All right. And I'm assuming you guys are in support of this?

No. I thought you said you were moving to opposition.

Were you moving in support, sir? Okay, thank you. We'll start with you and then.

Madam Chair and Members Mike Beloat for the. California Judges Association, in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Madam Chair and Members. Stephen Manley, judge of the Superior Court, Santa Clara County, in support.

Thank you. Any other people in support? All right, we will be moving on to opposition.

Thank you. Good morning, Chair and Members. I'm Margot George. I'm here today on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association, in respectful opposition. We have been trying to work with the author for over a year to get the amendments that we feel are necessary to protect our clients and their constitutional rights. SB 22 makes convenience more important than people's freedom. Taking COVID-era emergency rules and statutes and extending them for the convenience of the court, it degrades our judicial system.

And it's true, we did agree to the original rules and extension because public defenders and our clients were dying. I don't think there were any prosecutors or judges died as a result of COVID but public defenders were in the courtroom and they were dying. But we're no longer in that era. We've shown that if necessary, we can do remote. But the lack of adequate technology exacerbates existing economic and racial disparities and denies justice doing particular damage to Black and brown communities.

Only 49% of African Americans and 51% of Hispanics have high-speed Internet at home, compared to 60% of Whites. Remote evidentiary hearings or trials or witnesses appearing remotely make a mockery of the right to cross-examine and confront your accuser. There's no ability for the judge or jury to evaluate the credibility of a witness appearing remotely. The witness could be coached or threatened by someone off-screen, and no one would ever know.

SB 22 would, in its present form, allow for remote trials in cases where an individual faced the death penalty or life in prison. There are serious problems with the COVID-era rules that SB 22 seeks to extend. We have now experienced that for over a year, as the courtrooms return to normal, we have seen that defendants have been denied the right to appear in person, even though it said explicitly in the statute it had to be with consent.

In a Capitol case in Los Angeles, both the client and their counsel requested repeatedly that the client be brought in and that they be allowed to appear in person, and the hearing to determine the client's competency was held over their objection. The client could not understand what was happening. The people in the courtroom could only see the top of his head, and the sound was such nobody who was in the courtroom was heard by the client.

Judges have dismissed court reporters' pleas that they're unable to accurately transcribe the remote proceedings or the court reporter as faced retaliation. In some counties, and only one has been fixed, including Santa Clara, entire courtrooms have been closed to the public and have been posted on their website notifying individuals they must appear remotely. In the mental health calendar in Los Angeles, witnesses have testified from their cars or other inappropriate locations.

There is so much noise in the courtroom that the clients have no idea what's going on because they're appearing remotely. A minor in at least one case was sanctioned by the court officer, who assumed that the minor's technical difficulties were a sign of disrespect for the court. In Contra Costa County and elsewhere, there have been incidents of hackers infiltrating remote proceedings and using the chat function to masquerade as lawyers or court employees, requesting fees from unsuspecting public defender clients. Our system is about fundamental fairness.

It is not fair when we toss due process out the window. For the sake of convenience. We respectfully ask for your No vote on SB 22. Thank you.

Next opposition witness.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Sandra Bureau, on behalf of SEIU California, first want to address some of Senator Umberg's comments. He mentioned that there had been conversations. However, I want to point out that these conversations have not occurred with the Coalition of Oppose Unless Amended. Also, you said that there was only one instance where courts were requiring remote. However, we're aware that this is happening in other courts, too.

If the Judicial Council is unaware of where this is occurring, then I think that speaks to the need for accountability and standardization for remote procedures. I'm going to align myself with Ms. George's comments, and I want to add that we took an opposed unless amended position because we believed that our requested amendments demonstrate a good faith effort to honor agreements made last year. And they also include feedback from court reporters and public defenders who dedicate their careers to upholding the highest standards of our justice system.

But to this date, we have received no indication that the author intends to address our concerns. We first reached out to the author's office in January, and then we met on February 14. At the February 14 meeting, Senator Umberg expressed a desire and a commitment to work together on this Bill. When we followed up on our requested amendments, we were told that they were still being reviewed.

Then we discovered that a court reporter had not been invited to speak on the panel about remote proceedings at the Joint Hearing. After considerable organizing, a court reporter was invited to speak at one of the panels on remote. Court reporters are solely responsible for ensuring the accuracy of the verbatim transcript. They're keenly aware of what's working and what's not working with remote procedures. So it seemed common sense that they would be invited to speak on this issue.

On February 14, Senator Umberg committed to working together, but actions speak louder than words, and the Senator's actions convey that the perspectives of court employees and public defenders are not valued in this process. And, Senator Umberg, with all due respect, if you do not intend to address our concerns, we would prefer transparency as a courtesy to court employees and public defenders who serve our justice system. I respectfully ask for a No vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any other opposition witnesses in the room?

Madam Chair and Members Pat Moran with Aaron Reea and Associates representing the Orange County Employees Association, in opposition. Thank you.

Morning, Chair and Members. Janice O'Malley with the American Federation of State County Municipal Employees, in opposition.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Ignacio Hernandez, on behalf of the California Court Reporters Association, opposed unless amended. On behalf of the California Federation of Interpreters, opposed. On behalf of United Public Employees, opposed. On behalf of California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, serious concerns with the language.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair, Members and staff. Mitch Steiger with the California Labor Federation. Also opposed unless amended.

Thank you. Madam Chair and Members Matt Cremins here on behalf of the California Nevada Conference of Operating Engineers. We are respectfully opposed unless amended.

Thank you. Do we have any other opposition witnesses in the room? All right. We will be moving on into witnesses waiting to testify via teleconference service. Please just state your name, organization, and position. Moderator, if you would, please prompt the individuals waiting to testify in support or opposition of this Bill, we will begin.

Thank you. And to show your support or opposition, please press one zero at this time. Again, it's one zero, and give me just a moment here. I'll remind everybody else. It is one zero.

Yeah. Okay.

We do have one. Give me just a moment here.

No worries.

Thanks for your patience here. All right. And we'll go to line number 10, please. Go ahead.

My name is Lily Zmachinski. I'm with the NASW, National Association of Social Workers California Chapter, and we support the Bill. Thank you.

And currently none further in queue.

Thank you. Thank you to all our support and opposition witnesses. We'll now bring the discussion back to Members. Senator Wiener?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I made some comments at the oversight hearing, the very helpful oversight hearing we had on this. And I'm going to just start off by saying I'm going to support the Bill today. However, I have concerns which the author and I have discussed, and I'm going to be watching the evolution of this Bill as it heads towards the floor. But I want to allow you to continue to work on this.

I know this is something you've put years of work into, and I really respect that. And I think that the pandemic taught us that there are things that we can do more efficiently, remotely, and whether it's different kinds of meetings, and there are a lot of things, and we learned how to do that, especially when need be, but also situations where it's just more efficient. The pandemic also taught us that there are times when remote does not work well.

And we have all seen that in our daily lives, meetings, things that we do online, that we're like, you know what, this really should have been live. And I think it's fantastic, for example, that the Capitol is alive again and people are here and we're able to interact in public staff to staff, Member to Member, advocates, et cetera.

And so there are times when I think, because there are some situations where remote make sense, including in our court system, that we veer, and that there will be enormous pressure whatever we enact, that judges will veer towards really creating strong incentives to do that, whether it's within or not within the bounds of the law. And so I think it's really important that we draw bright lines.

I personally, absent truly exceptional circumstances, I don't see why we would ever have a trial, evidentiary hearings, competency hearings, sentencing, and so forth done remotely absent exceptional circumstances. I think it's very dangerous and can lead to some really problematic situations. I'm sympathetic to a number of the issues raised by the opposition around what kinds of proceedings and so forth. And I just want to sort of express all of that.

Now, I know that the public defenders pointed to times where very significant trials or competency hearings, et cetera, were held remotely. When I look at the Bill, I see several sections that could be, I think, read that you're not supposed to do that. Can you just talk, like, with crystal clarity? Are there any situations where a jury trial, a sentencing, a competency hearing, and related really significant hearings with consequences, civil or criminal, could be held remotely?

Because I'll tell you, the idea that a competency hearing would be held remotely unless there was some extraordinary circumstance to me is horrifying. The idea that a sentencing hearing, the idea that a jury, that's horrifying to me. And I know that if we're not crystal clear, there are judges in California who will absolutely, effectively force people to have remote trials and hearings. So if you could comment on that.

Sure. Let me make it absolutely, crystal clear that if the person whose liberty is in jeopardy, and that includes defendants in criminal proceedings, a respondent in a commitment proceeding, or somebody in a juvenile proceeding, if they wish to be present, physically present, they may do so, and the court cannot prohibit them from being physically present. Can I imagine circumstances? I can imagine many circumstances where counsel would prefer to have, for example, a remote evidentiary proceeding.

So, for example, where the defense has an expert witness from some other state that they wish to present remotely, I can easily imagine that the court may conduct what's known as a Daubert hearing remotely. It saves time and expense to the defense. So if the defense counsel says, your honor, we'd like to have this hearing remotely, I can imagine that circumstance.

In a criminal matter, I can imagine a circumstance where, for example, defense counsel, with the consent of the accused, defense counsel says, I would like to have this sentencing done remotely because I would prefer the victims not come into court and describe what's happened to them in person, I would prefer to do it remotely. So if you have the consent of the defendant, you have the consent of defendant's counsel and the prosecution and all consent to do that. Yes, I can imagine that.

I can imagine other hearings that would also be held remotely. But the key point here is with the consent of the accused, with the consent of the accused attorneys, the accused attorney in a criminal matter is always facing an allegation of ineffective counsel. And of course, that's a very serious allegation, but also a very important allegation, both for the accused as well as for the lawyer.

And so if a lawyer literally falls asleep on the job, there is recourse, but is the same as if it were in person. If the lawyer in person fell asleep, sadly, that's happened before. That's ineffective advice at counsel.

But let's say in a criminal case, if a criminal defendant wants the prosecution's witnesses to be live, is there any situation where the court could allow remote testimony by a witness over the objection of a criminal defendant?

There's very limited circumstances that currently exist in law that have been ratified by the U.S. Supreme Court. So, for example, a four-year-old, I can't remember the case name, a four-year-old victim of child molestation, rather than having that four-year-old have to confront their molester in person. There are very, very limited circumstances. They currently exist in law that allows someone to testify remotely.

But other than those very limited circumstances, there is no other circumstance where a defendant, over the defendant's objection, is subjected to someone testifying remotely over their objection.

So if a criminal defendant says, I want this entire jury trial to be 100% live, 100%, everything live, everyone in court, court reporter, judge, attorneys, witnesses, everyone, everyone. Other than the pre-pandemic exceptions, then it will be a purely live in-person trial?

Except for those limited exceptions that I.

Those are the pre-pandemic.

Right, exactly.

And how about in a civil case?

Well, civil case is a bit different. There's no right to confrontation in a civil case, but yes, largely that is the same circumstance. This Bill, of course, only deals with SB 21, which will be in Judiciary Committee, deals with civil matters. This is only criminal, juvenile and competency hearings.

Okay. And in competency, it's the same thing?

Competency is the same thing. I can't imagine. When you said, can you imagine? I can imagine many circumstances where someone is in a state hospital and says, I would rather not be transported, spend a night in jail, go to the hearing, go back to jail, and then go back to the state hospital. But it has to be a knowing waiver, for example. Otherwise, there are three options in a competency hearing.

If you're in a state hospital, either you go to court, the court comes to you, or it's done remotely with your consent, your informed consent.

Okay. So there seems to be, it's like a little bit like ships passing in the night in terms of what the opposition is saying the Bill will do and what you're saying, and I've read it as well, will you be meeting with the opposition?

I'll be happy to meet with the opposition within the next 24 hours.

Okay, thank you.

Actually, make that 36 hours.

Senator Wiener, do you have any other comments? Thank you. Senator Ochoa Bogh.

Both of my colleagues are the experts. I do have to say that in my short period here, in the Legislature, I have seen Senator Umberg work with the utmost integrity and transparency as a Senator working with his bills, and I'm confident that he will be able to address some of the concerns that were expressed today. I was also at the oversight hearing, and it was very informative.

I learned quite a bit on that aspect and heard the concerns as well as the in-support decisions on there. But one of the things that I really wanted to emphasize is the importance of having the ability for those whose rights are in question to have the opportunity to have the option and the choices of whether or not to appear in person or remotely just because of the many circumstances that they may be facing. That makes it difficult for them to appear in person.

So I appreciate that. I am confident that the author will be working with the opposition to make sure that some of these concerns will be able to be addressed. I did want to ask. I'm going to leave it at that. I think, Senator, my colleague from San Francisco addressed some of the questions and concerns.

I was just going to give you an opportunity to address some of the concerns that were expressed by the opposition, but I believe you addressed most of them, so I'm going to leave it at that. But I look forward to seeing how this Bill evolves as it goes through the committees and it gets to the floor. Thank you.

Thank you. Senator, Do you have any closing remarks?

Thank you, Senator Wahab. So we write the law. We don't necessarily enforce the law, although we do oversee the implementation of the law. And to the extent there are locations where judges are basically violating the law by requiring remote testimony, which is over the objection of the defendant, then I invite folks to let us know, to let us know about those instances. I don't doubt that in the State of California, with literally thousands of courts, that there are some instances where the law is not followed.

It is our job, though, to make the law crystal clear, and I will make the law crystal clear, that a defendant has a right to have whatever testimony is being adduced, has the right to confront the person who is providing that testimony. Also, as practicing lawyers know, having a court reporter in the courtroom is the best, simply the best.

That's why in SB 241, which was the original remote access Bill, I inserted a provision that said when testimony is being adduced, a court reporter has to be physically present in the courtroom. And that remains the case. That remains the case. Another subject is the shortage of court reporters.

We have some challenges on that front, but I am committed to make sure that the issues that have been raised concerning, for example, an abuse of defendants' rights, that it's crystal clear in law that the defendant has the right to be physically present, has the right to physically be present and confront witnesses. So thank you. With that, I urge an Aye vote.

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

I will move the Bill and, apologies, I was very interested in this Bill, but I understand that in the discussion, you are meeting with the opponents and you have agreed to work on the key concerns that they have, and I share those. And so I move the Bill with the understanding that there will be some motion on this, meaning amendments not taken in this Committee, of course, but before we, we meaning the collective Legislature, sees it again. So I really appreciate your commitment to do that.

And with that, I'll move it.

Thank you. The motion is made by Senator Skinner with a commitment to amendments. Assistant, please call roll.

Motion is do pass to Judiciary. [Roll call].

We will be placing this Bill on call. Thank you. Our next Bill is another Senator Umberg Bill. SB 255. Senator, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair, thanks again to you and Ms. Kennedy for your hard work on this Bill. This Bill simply requires that Judicial Council develop and make available to each county acourt reminder program allows the county to send a text message to notify defendants of scheduled court appearances. Failure to appear in court can result in immediate revocation of pre-trial release bail and triggers warrants for arrest. The lack of reminders for court hearings leads to an increase in missed court appearances. Many of them are unintentional.

The Public Policy Institute of California cited that the rate at which individuals at pretrial release fail to appear at mandatory court hearings is twice the U.S. average. So, in other words, in California, it's twice the U.S. average. These missed appearances lead to additional both costs in terms of the person who is required to appear, as well as the courts.

We are still making sure that this does not necessarily invade the privacy interests of those who are accused, but that we make sure that we do the best we can to avoid unintentional absences from court. With me today is Shayla Wilson, Policy Advisor with The Bail Project.

Thank you. We'll move on to the witnesses in support. You have the floor.

Thank you. Good morning. My name is Shayla Wilson. I'm a policy advisor with The Bail Project, and I appear in support of SB 255, a Bill which would create a statewide court notification program. The Bail Project is a national nonprofit. We provide free bail assistance and voluntary supportive services to thousands of low-income people every year. Our work across the country proves that there are more effective ways to improve our nation's pretrial systems.

In working with Californians, we know that there are many reasons why someone might not attend a court hearing, most of which are unintentional and not an attempt to willfully avoid prosecution. These include confusion about the date, time or location of a court hearing, among other barriers. Court reminders are a powerful tool that effectively increase court appearance rates and facilitates a more cost-effective pretrial process.

Jurisdictions that have implemented these systems have reduced their failure to appear rates by as much as 35% for individuals who receive a reminder. Court reminders also improve a court's operational efficiency and decrease various administrative costs. With fewer failures to appear, jurisdictions also see decreased rearrest rates, bench warrants, and rescheduled hearings. For example, Hennepin County, Minnesota's court notification system saves an estimated $3 million per year.

Many counties in California county do offer court notifications through county probation departments, but these systems vary widely and often only reach a portion of the population released pretrial. Unfortunately, without a statewide court notification system, approximately 25% of Californians with an open case will unintentionally miss a court appearance. SB 255 would bring this simple solution to all Californians accused of a crime. Critics are rightfully concerned about the government wrongfully invading privacy by collecting phone numbers.

Fortunately, SB 255 was intentionally drafted to address this concern. It mandates that all data collected maintain confidentiality and be used solely for the purpose of sending court date reminders. Thank you for your time and consideration. We urge you to pass SB 255, allowing our state to reduce court costs and failure to appear rates and ensure that all Californians released pretrial have equal access to a court notification system.

Thank you. Do we have our next witness?

Natasha Minskar, on behalf of Smart Justice California and the Prosecutors Alliance of California, in support.

Sharon Riley, on behalf of the Judicial Council. We actually don't have an official position at this time, but we have been working with the Senator's staff and look forward to continuing discussions.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in this room in support?

Thank you. Any other Members in the room seeking support for this Bill? All right, we will now move on to witnesses in opposition.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Ignacio Hernandez, on behalf of the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, Statewide Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys, Private Practice and Working Public Defender Offices. We are unfortunately opposed to the Bill in its current form, and we've had discussions with the author's office. There are a number of practical implications of this Bill and concerns of how it's drafted. One in particular is that this requires law enforcement to collect the cell phone number of any individual who's arrested or booked.

While we understand that's a way to bring in the information and that there's some data control and limits on how it's supposed to be used, that's of serious concern for us. We are happy to continue discussions to try to figure out a way to perhaps make it work. There may not be, besides the individuals themselves, there may not be another group that is as interested in preventing failures to appear in the attorneys for the individuals who fail to appear.

So we're certainly interested in trying to figure out ways to improve the ability of someone to be reminded. But as currently drafted, we cannot support it. We do oppose it, and we think it needs some work.

Thank you. Do we have any other opposition witnesses, any in this room? All right. We will now move on to witnesses waiting to testify via teleconference service. Please just state your name, organization, and position. Moderator if you would, please prompt individuals waiting to testify and support our opposition of this Bill, we will begin.

Thank you. And if they would like to make a comment, please press one, then zero at this time. It in one moment while we get their name or their line number. Excuse me. And we will go to line number 17. Please go ahead.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Judy Heiman for the Justice to Jobs Coalition. And we are in support of this Bill.

Thank you. Moderator do we have any other witnesses either in support or opposition?

And we have one more. We'll go to line number 15. 15, please go ahead.

Yes, hello, this is Alissa Fishbane with ideas42. And we are in support of this Bill.

Thank you.

And Madam Chair, no further comments in queue.

Thank you to all our witnesses. We will now bring the discussion back to our Members. Senators, do you guys have any questions? Senator Ochoa Bogh.

Of the witness that spoke in opposition with regards to the phone numbers, I have a question with regards to what is the concern by the law enforcements to gather or collect the phone numbers to have it on record? I'm sorry. I apologize. How is that any different than knowing where they live and having that sort of personal information on that on record?

Well, let me answer it this way. The way that this Bill is being proposed, as we understand it, is supposed to be a way in which the individual should have the option of having these reminders. The way this is drafted, it should be up to the individual, whether to provide that cell phone number or not. And the way it's drafted requires that anytime someone is cited or booked that they must provide that cell phone information.

And so just fundamentally, the way that we deal with police interaction with individuals and the information has to be provided to the court, we just think it should be up to the individual, not be required. So that's something that's just fundamental to the Bill and fundamental concern. At any time, you're not required to give certain information to law enforcement. There are limits on what you're required to give to law enforcement at any time. So it kind of violates that principle.

I don't know if that helps or not. So there's a lot of things that could be done with a cell phone number, not that we don't trust the, but as the author stated earlier, you guys write the laws, but how it's actually used and implemented, we have to be worried about that part of it. We don't know what's going to actually happen with those cell phone numbers.

So I think. Well, to your point, Senator, is that, yes, law enforcement collects information. They fingerprint folks. They ask their address, they ask for their phone number. The challenge with folks not appearing is not so much with those that have counsel, because counsel then is given notice and counsel can make sure that he or she reminds the defendant or those who are accused. Hey, you've got a court appearance tomorrow. The big challenge is where someone is arrested. They don't have counsel.

And so that's the most frequent occurrence of people missing their appearance. And so I understand the point with respect to protecting the privacy and making sure that there are adequate safeguards so that cell phone numbers aren't somehow provided to those who should not have them. But the challenge here that we're trying to address is the challenge of folks missing their appearance. They either forgot or maybe didn't know that they had an appearance, and then a warrant is issued for their arrest.

That is a situation that is detrimental to both the individual as well as the system.

Senator Skinner.

I'm willing to move the Bill. I completely appreciate the benefit to what you and the supporters are trying to address, because if a person doesn't show, then their bail can be forfeited. There's a lot of consequences, and it may be not intentional on their part, just really that, as we know, some of our indigent defendants, for example, they don't keep a calendar. Anyway, I appreciate what is the benefits that this Bill could bring.

I also can see the point of leaving it to the discretion of the person. In other words, if they are given the reason why we want to do this, but if they elected not to. So I'm not going to ask for an amendment right now, but I think it's worth considering allowing that ability for them to decline.

There exists an opt-out option right now. The question is whether we require an opt-in option.

Yeah. And since the idea is to opt-in, would you be willing to amend the Bill to require it at booking. To take it out specifically to be able to opt-in for that individual?

Right. Um, well, I'd. I'd certainly like to consider that. I mean, the, the challenge is that unless there's sort of an informed communication. Look it, here's the deal. You can opt-out. You can opt-in. If you fail to opt-in, the consequences, many people won't appreciate the consequences of failing to opt-in. But yes, we're concerned about the privacy interests. And the question is, what's better? I actually think that it's better to have that information.

The vast majority of folks who don't appear are those who don't have counsel, and we're basically giving them that opportunity. As Senator Skinner points out, the consequences of not appearing can be really dramatic on that individual. And so we want to make sure that the individual is as informed as is possible so that there's not inadvertent missing of appearances.

When this data is collected, and obviously personal information, is there any language that also restricts any entity that is collecting the information from sharing from a third party or another agency or anything like that?

I believe there is, but if there is not, we'll certainly include that.

Okay, perfect.

That language.

All right, we have a motion by. I'm so sorry. Please.

And thank you for that question, because as we look at the Bill, we don't see that in there. We also see that it says the contact information can be admissible in court and used for those purposes as evidence. So that's another issue to be looked at. And if I'm reading that incorrectly, then that's right. But there's subdivision, I think is E. So something else we want to look at.

Thank you. Senator, would you be willing to work with them?

I think Ms. Wilson wishes to comment also.

Hi. Thank you. I appreciate it. I want to also address the concern about opt-in versus opt-out. Systems that have an opt-in, such as Colorado's had a 1% usage rate. That's not going to get people back to court. I also want to address the concern he just brought up under Section E of the Bill.

Records generated by this program, including contact information, may not be used for any purpose other than for court date reminders without the defendant's consent, unless that information is relevant evidence that is admissible under the standards described in paragraph two, subdivision F of Section 28 of Article One of our Constitution. So that would only be under current law, would that information be admissible. This is not creating new.

Thank you. Yeah, I see it. I appreciate it. So again, we have a motion on the floor made by Senator Skinner. Assistant, would you be able to call roll?

Motion is do pass to Appropriations. [Roll call].

The vote is 5-0. The vote is out.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam.

Thank you. All right. Okay. We will move to the consent calendar. Do we have a motion to move consent item? Thank you. The motion is moved by Senator Ochoa Bog.

[Roll call].

Thank you.

All right, we are moving to our next Bill presentation by Senator McGuire. Senator McGuire, you have the floor. Sure.

Madam Chair, thank you so much for allowing me to be here today, and it is an honor to be in front of you and just want to say congratulations on your chairwomanship and for your dedication. It is so wonderful to have you in the Senate. Members, SB 281 extends the sunset of an aggravated arson law that's been in place in this state since the 1990s. And each time that this Bill is introduced and rolls through the Legislature, we see bipartisan support.

I think that we could all agree that the alarm couldn't be louder. California is facing unprecedented destructive wildfires. 14 of the largest 20 wildfires in our history have occurred in just the last decade. And these massive blazes are exasperated by climate change that is present in a real and lasting threat to the state with these fires. And unfortunately, we continue to see an increasing amount of arson-caused fires in this state. And this Bill is focused on the worst of the worst.

So there's a threshold for aggravated arson. That threshold are any prior arson convictions within the last 10 years, damage or destruction of five or more inhabited structures, and the third is property damage and or losses. Fire suppression would also be included in this in excess of 8.3 million. I'm going to give you some examples since the last time we were in front of this Committee on what we've seen with aggravated arson charges.

Number one, in San Jose, we had an individual who set an entire Home Depot on fire. Entire Home Depot. Worst of the worst, $17 million in damage. And that entire warehouse burned to the ground. In Clear Lake Oaks, in my neck of the woods, we had an arson fire that burned 11 businesses and homes. The Clayton Fire in Lake County burned 100 and 989 homes, 189 homes. And again, we're not talking about minor fires. That's bad.

But we're talking about the worst of the worst offenders in this state receive the aggravated arson charge. SB 281 will extend the sunset date on our state's aggravated arson statute until January 1 of 2029. And we need to ensure that this effective deterrent remains in place in order to protect our communities and first responders in this era of new normal.

Madam Chair, I have with me today Kimberly Stone with the California District Attorneys Association, who we're working with, as well as Terry McHale, representing the brave women and men of CAL FIRE Local 2881. And thank you again for allowing me to be here.

Thank you. We will now move on to witnesses in support. Please state your name, your organization, and your testimony. Thank you.

Madam Chairman. Terry McHale, from Aaron Read and associates representing CAL FIRE Local 2881, CAL FIRE Local 2881 strongly supports this Bill. Aggravated arson is a heinous crime that is not the result of socioeconomic hardship, childhood trauma, suppressed opportunities, or the historic undermining of any demographic. The major rationalization for aggravated arson is revenge or the covering up of another crime.

And even those who are resolving some deep-seated perversion understand the teaching, the Aristotelian idea that it is better to suffer than to hurt because they spend such an extraordinary amount of time covering up their crime that less than 30% of the arsons are resolved. The law itself is virtually poetic in the writing, so well done in the Committee statement that Senator McGuire's Bill deals specifically with criminals who are willful, malicious, deliberate, and premeditative.

And in behaving in that manner, they are causing damages that is lasting, profound, and visibly terrible to the individuals of California. CAL FIRE is extraordinarily professional at dealing with arsonists. Their captains and engineers, like most departments, upon witnessing and believing that arson is at risk, call law enforcement in immediately. And so, at a time of historic fires, we've had $30 billion in damage in the last couple of years. We spend thousands, thousands of hours dealing with arsonists.

We average 12 serial arsonists a year in California and hundreds of independent arsonists acting independently. In Riverside alone recently, someone covering a larceny burned down a burned down a building, $11 million in damage. The end result, of course, is that this personnel, which could be going to stopping fires, is used instead to deal with these coarse criminals. We need to continue this enforcement and send a message that punishment is at the ready. This is an excellent Bill and Califire 2881 strongly ask for your support.

Thank you.

Thank you. Our next witness.

Thank you. Kim Stone, Stone advocacy on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association. Thank you, Chair and Members. And thank you to the author for supporting this Bill extends the sunset on the crime of aggravated arson. The previous Bill, SB 896, passed the Senate 38 to zero in 2018. After passing the Senate Public Safety Committee seven to zero. Aggravated arson, although rare, is a significant and serious crime with serious consequences.

I want to tell you the story about criminal defendant Ivan Gomez, who was charged and convicted of 16 felony counts of arson for the Dolan Fire in Big Sur. That fire began on August 18 of 2020 and was not contained until January of that year, causing over 125,000 acres of damage, killing 12 California condors at a time when there were only 500 alive. Over $63 million in damages, including 10 homes. Wildfire arson is on the rise.

The Department of Forestry has indicated that there are more than double the arrests than there were in 2019 and 20 more in 2021 than there were in 2020. And the number of actual arsons, of arsons, whether aggravated or non-aggravated, has also gone up steadily over the years. At a time of climate change and increased risk of fires in general, this is a law whose sunset deserves to be extended. Urge your Aye vote.

Thank you. Now let's hear from any other support witnesses here in this room.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members Karen Lange, on behalf of the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors, in strong support of the Senator's Bill this morning. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else in this room willing to support? All right, we'll move on to witnesses in opposition. Seeing none. We'll move to witnesses in opposition here in this room. All right, thank you. We will now move on to witnesses waiting to testify via teleconference service.

Please just state your name, organization, and position. Moderator, if you would, please prompt the individuals waiting to testify in support or opposition of this Bill, we will begin. Thank you.

Thank you. And if they would like to speak in opposition or support, please press one, then zero at this time.

Doesn't look like there's any.

And, Madam Chair, no comments coming in.

Thank you. We will now bring the discussion back to Members. Members, do we have any questions or comments? Senator. Okay, so, Senator Skinner. I mean, sorry. Senator Wiener moves the item. May we call roll? Oh, sorry. Closing the item.

Respectfully ask for an Aye vote. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you to your team as well.

Thank you. Appreciate it.

SB 281 motion is do pass to Appropriations. [Roll call].

The vote is five to zero. The Bill is out. Congratulations. Thank you. We are moving on to our next Bill, presented by Senator Archuleta. Senator Archuleta, welcome. The floor is yours. SB 412.

Madam Chair, you want me here or over there?

Wherever you'd prefer.

Okay. Well, thank you, Madam Chair. And Members, good morning. Today I'm presenting Senate Bill 412 to ensure all crime victims are treated equally in how much time that must be provided to the Board of Parole Hearings in order to attend a hearing.

Current regulations require the direct victim of a crime to provide 15-day notice to the board of their intent to attend a hearing, but it is required that indirect victims, such as their family members and others, to provide 30-day notice if they also wish to attend the parole hearing. This Bill simply requires that all victims need to provide 15 days notice to the board equally. By aligning all notifications to 15 days, this Bill eliminates confusion and ensures that the families can be heard.

The current rules regarding victims notification are contrary to the definition of the victims under Marcy's Law and the State Constitution. Marcy's Law defines a victim as a person who suffers direct or threatened physical, psychological, or financial harm as a result of the commission or attempted commission of a crime. The term victim under Marcy's Law also includes the person's spouse, parents, children, siblings, or guardians and includes a lawful representative of a crime victim who is deceased, a minor, or physically or psychologically unable to participate.

Murder cases and others where the direct victims are deceased or unable to physically or mentally participate highlights the need for this Bill. In these cases, there is no direct victim that can testify. This means that there is effectively a tougher notification standard for homicide cases than for cases with a living victim. This is not right or fair for families that have lost their loved ones. California must not punish these families by letting confusion in the law cause them to miss a hearing date.

Notification requirements are extremely strict. Missing the deadline by even a day means that a victim will likely be unable to attend the hearing. All victims deserve to be heard. Senate Bill 412 provides equal opportunity for all victims in creating a uniform 15-day notification requirement. And with me today, I have to testify. Mike Fermin, Chief Deputy District Attorney for San Bernardino County and I respectfully ask your Aye vote.

Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Michael Fermin, Chief Assistant District Attorney for San Bernardino County on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association, we rise in support of SB 412. As the Senator has pointed out, under the Constitution, victims, under 28 E of Article One of the Constitution, victims include not just the actual person who has received or suffered a particular injury, but also the next of kin.

At present, a direct victim must provide 15 days notice to the Office of Victim Survivor Rights and Services to attend a parole hearing. And others, including the next akin, have to have 30 days. Now what's interesting is in the pre-pandemic context, when these parole hearings were live, if a next of kin family member would come to an actual prison, the CDCR would give them a gate pass so they wouldn't have to necessarily comply with the regulation.

But traditionally, for many years, they would be permitted to come on the day of the hearing and enter. Now, under this new provision, they are no longer permitted. I actually, four months ago had a murder case in which that occurred. It was a 1998 murder in which the granddaughter wanted to testify. She did not fill out the required form on CDC 1707. Because at the time, no such form was required in 2000. It is now required.

And she was not able to attend the parole hearing related to the killing of her grandfather. And that is why we seek to have this equity, so that they would follow under the same 15-day rule as a regular victim. With that, we'd request your support or your Aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any other witnesses in support of this Bill? Do we have any witnesses in this room? All right, we'll move on to witnesses in opposition. Any opponents in this room? All right, we will now move on to the witnesses waiting to testify via teleconference service. Please just state your name, organization, and position. Moderator, if you please prompt the individuals waiting to testify in support or opposition, we will begin.

Thank you. And for those participants, if you would like to speak in opposition or support, press one, then zero.

Do we have anybody on the line?

And, Madam Chair, we do have one line coming in. One moment. And we will go to line number 18. Please go ahead. Line 18, your line is open.

Okay. Good morning, Madam Chair and all the Members. I am Elaine Bissett, calling on behalf of San Diego County District Attorney Summer Stephan. We are in support of SB 412. Thank you.

Thank you. Moderator, do we have any other speakers?

No further speakers in queue.

Thank you. We'll now bring the discussion back to Members. Members, do we have any questions or comments? Thank you. Senator, would you like to close?

Thank you for your vote, and thank you all. I appreciate it.

Thank you. The Bill has been moved by Senator Wiener. Can we call the roll?

SB 412. Motion is do pass to Appropriations. [Roll call]. 5-0, bill is out.

Thank you. The Bill is out 5-0.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. We will now move on to Senator Wiener if you are prepared. We are reviewing Senator Wiener's bill, SB 58. Senator, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Also, I just want to express how happy I am about this tall microphone. Definite improvement over the last iteration. Colleagues, today I'm here presenting Senate Bill 58, which will decriminalize possession and use of certain naturally derived psychedelic substances, plant-based and mushroom-based. You may recall this bill from last year, which was Senate Bill 519. This is a narrower version, and synthetic psychedelics are no longer included. I want to be very, very clear what this bill does and what it doesn't bill.

What this bill does and what it doesn't do. This bill means that people will no longer be arrested and prosecuted simply for possessing or using these drugs. This Bill does not decriminalize sale of drugs. This bill does not decriminalize anything in terms of under the age of 21. This is about simple possession and use of these psychedelic substances.

The sponsor of this legislation is the Heroic Hearts Project, which is a veteran service organization that works with combat veterans to make sure that they have effective access to treatment for mental health conditions. Many of these veterans who have served our country come home, and they are struggling with mental health and substance use disorders. They try traditional medicine, it doesn't work. And psychedelic therapy turns their lives around, literally saves their lives. And you will hear from them today.

But right now, they have to leave the country to get that therapy. They fight for our country, and we criminalize them for seeking effective treatment here in the US. We know that criminalizing drug use doesn't work. If criminalizing drug use stopped people from using drugs, we would have zero drug use in this country because we've tried this for the last 100 years. It doesn't work. What it does do is fill up our jails with drug users.

I also just want to stress that these particular drugs are not addictive. These are not addictive drugs, and these are drugs that have significant potential in helping people to navigate and to become healthy who are experiencing mental health challenges, substance use challenges. Voters in Oregon and Colorado have voted to decriminalize these substances. We know that psilocybin in particular has been deemed by the FDA to be a potential breakthrough drug in terms of mental health treatment.

We know that cities in California and elsewhere have passed resolutions to categorized enforcement of these particular criminal laws as the lowest law enforcement responsibility or priority. And colleagues, this is an important step for California. This is about making sure that people have access to substances that they need that are not addictive.

And I respectfully ask for an aye vote. With me today to testify are Jason Moore-Brown, a United States Army veteran with Heroic Hearts Project, one of the sponsors of the bill, and Dr. Nathaniel Mills, a licensed clinical psychologist and clinical director for the Sacramento Institute for Psychotherapy. Thank you.

Thank you. Witness, you have the floor.

Madam Chair, members, and staff, good morning. My name is Jason Moore-Brown. I'm testifying on behalf of Heroic Hearts. I live in Placer County with my beautiful wife and my five children. I'm a veteran. I'm a successful entrepreneur. I have a master's degree in an obscure area of study. I think I present well and look decent in a suit.

In spite of all my accomplishments, I am still stuck fighting a war that began for me and hundreds of thousands of other service members with the invasion of Iraq in the spring of 2003, almost 20 years ago this month. I served with distinction as an army officer from 2000 to 2008, deploying three times fighting the global war on terror. I have successfully conducted over 350 combat missions in some of the most heavily contested parts of the world. Statistically, I should have been killed 15 times.

I gave orders that some of my soldiers followed to their deaths. I have held the family members of my fallen soldiers. I have self-medicated. I have been in and out of therapy. I have tortured myself and my loved ones. Recently, Heroic Hearts, a nonprofit and a sponsor of SB 58, sent me and six other veterans to a retreat center in Latin America where we had access to plant medicines not readily available nor legal in the US.

They have been sending veterans on retreats like this since 2017. It took me four days of travel, a grant from heroic hearts, and thousands of dollars of my own to find a healing I've been in search of for almost half of my life. No other treatment has come close to providing the relief that I found in Latin America. I have resolved some of my guilt. I've become a more compassionate husband and a more present father, all thanks to plant medicine. It has truly changed my life.

I am fortunate not all veterans are. The veteran suicide epidemic is still very real. According to the VA's most recent report, 6146 veterans committed suicide in 2020. How many of those over 6000 lives might have been saved if veterans had access to plant medicine here in the US without fear of prosecution? Please consider my story when you vote today. But more importantly, consider the stories of the veterans of the veterans in California that do not have access to the life-saving plant medicine that I was granted. Thank you, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Next witness.

Hi, Madam Chair and committee members. My name is Dr. Nathaniel Mills. I am a licensed clinical psychologist, clinical researcher, and I'm here today to tell you that psychedelic medicines represent the single most profound and important breakthrough in the treatment of mental health in our lifetimes. As a society, we are hurting. Almost one in five of us have experienced diagnosable anxiety disorder. This year, 21 million adults in the United States have experienced major depression. 47,646 people in the United States intentionally ended their lives this past year.

We need help. But sadly, most of the help that's available to us isn't helpful. Our best evidence suggests that SSRIs, the mainstay treatment for depression and anxiety account for only 2% of variance in symptoms. Just 2%. That sounds shockingly low, but it's pretty consistent with my experience that I hear from my patients. Never in my 19 years of clinic has somebody said to me, Dr. Mills, an SSRI changed my life.

But I've lost count of the number of times that people have come into my office and said, Dr. Mills, I recently had an experience with a psychedelic, and I think that I'm cured. I've heard patients say, my experience with this plant medicine has been the most profound moment of my entire life, on par with the birth of my first child. I don't want to drink anymore. I'm ready to get back to work. I'm not sad. I'm not depressed. I am cured.

I've heard that many times about psilocybin, ayahuasca, DMT. I have never heard that about an SSRI. These anecdotal experiences are consistent with the science and the scientific research. Psychedelic therapies have been shown to account for 52% of remission of symptoms with PTSD and 63% of remission of symptoms with depression. 63% compared to 2%. That's huge. That's a game changer. Not only are these medicines effective, but they're also safer than most antidepressants that are on the market.

The medicines outlined in this bill are naturally self limiting. Even in animal studies, subjects who take a psychedelic once are reluctant to try it again. These medicines have been shown to even be effective at treating substance dependence to other substances. These are not recreational. These are plant medicines. And decriminalizing them will create opportunities for healing for people who need it the most and who need it now. I urge you to pass this landmark piece of legislation. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Let's hear from other support witnesses here in this room.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Dan Seeman. On behalf of New Approach Advocacy, as well as the Law Enforcement Action Partnership, which is a coalition of law enforcement seeking to advocate for sound drug policy.

Natasha Minsker on behalf of Smart Justice California, in strong support.

Margo George on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association, in strong support. Thank you.

My name is Dr. Kwasia Doucet. I'm a nurse practitioner here because I'm facing the risk of losing my permanent residency and deportation because of possession of plant medicines, plant medicines that have changed so much of my life. It's clear that the harms that come from plant medicines aren't from the medicines themselves, but the laws that are regulating them. And something really needs to change. Here in support. Thank you.

Hello, I'm Christopher Van Leuven. I'm a veteran diagnosed with PTSD, and I'm a strong supporter of this bill. Thank you.

Michael Young, outreach ambassador with the Heroic Hearts Project. Native San Franciscan. 10 years as a US foreign service officer, including assignments in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Also 10 years as a US Army Reserve officer in the war on terror. I urge your vote for aye today. Thank you.

My name is Neil Gehani. I'm representing MINDLUMEN. It's a harm-reduction navigation service. I completely rise in support of this. I'm a first-generation Indian American. My parents suffered through it. My sister suffers through tremendous amount of depression, and these medicines saved me. And I had to travel outside the country to get the help that I needed. So I hope you support it. Thank you.

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

Thank you. Do we have any other witnesses in support? All right, we'll move on to opposition witnesses here in this room.

Hi. So, my name is Joseph Holcomb Adams. I'm an ethicist in the psychedelic space. I'm also a community health commissioner, City of Berkeley. We work on psychedelic policy there. So, first of all, there's been quite a lot of talk here of mental health disorders and psychedelic medicines. But this bill isn't going to the Health Committee, which is very strange. And I think it's really important to recognize in order to have a real transparent discussion about what we're actually talking about here.

We're hearing this is just about simple possession, not putting people in jail. This bill goes far beyond decriminalizing possession for personal use, and it's really important we recognize that. This bill would legalize psychedelic service provision, that is guided dosing sessions. That's why everybody's talking about accessing treatment for mental health disorders because this bill would make it legal for anyone to open up shop in their basement, charge hundreds of dollars an hour for psilocybin assisted healing sessions.

No regulations such as licensing requirements for facilitators or requirements that clients be screened for mental health contraindications. This is just a Wild West kind of situation here. And psychedelics have been hyped up a lot in recent years, particularly as a revolutionary magic bullet solution for severe mental health struggles. All of this hyping up is generating significant and unique demand for receiving these services, as we've heard from a lot of people. And people who are in vulnerable positions are very interested in this.

And SB 58 would open the door for individuals and groups to provide an unregulated supply of psychedelic dosing sessions to meet this demand. And some of these individuals and groups, even those with entirely good intentions, who are deeply passionate about providing healing to suffering people, could end up without the right training, messing up some people, and also presenting or marketing their services in ways that are not accurate or evidence-based, make misleading or unfounded claims about the safety and efficacy of what's going on. And this situation would be risky, particularly for individuals contraindications and for vulnerable populations.

Thank you.

We need guardrails and safety measures. We need education so that people actually can know what they're signing up for, can know what is known in the science and whatnot. We can't just set people out without any sort of math.

Thank you. Next.

Hi. Thank you so much. My name is Kristin Nash. I'm a public health professional, and I run a foundation dedicated in part to harm reduction and psychedelic safety. I have reached out. I was actually able to work with Senator Wiener's office on SB 519 to add safety measures and guardrails in that bill. I reached out to your office in December, and unfortunately, I didn't hear back.

I also have a background working in clinical trials, and I just want to quickly address something that I think is very confusing in the space because we tend to refer to these substances which have different mechanisms in the brain all at once. So in this bill we have psilocybin, okay, and psilocybin is in phase two trials in the FDA process. Those are small trials to determine preliminary safety and efficacy. And, yes, they look good. They look promising. We need, and the FDA hopefully will fast-track that.

That is great news. Okay. The agent that is farthest along for PTSD is called MDMA. That agent was taken out of this bill. We need to get MDMA to veterans as soon as possible. I am an advocate and I'm an ally. I want to share two statistics. According to.

Ma'am, can you state, are you in support of this bill or not?

Sorry, unfortunately, I'm opposing unless amended.

Okay.

I'm sorry.

Thank you.

I would like to support, but we have to have amendments to this bill. So according to the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development, between 2016 and 2021, emergency room visits in the State of California due to psychedelic use have increased by 84%. Use has more than doubled in the last decade, according to the National Institute on Drug Abuse. We know we have pent-up demand for these substances. We need information, education, and communication. Why do I care about this topic?

I lost my 21 year old son three years ago in an accident due to psychedelic use. He and his friends were in their own home, moderate dosing. He went into a psychosis and he's gone. They were thinking what popular culture is telling us, that these are safe enough. And I support the healing benefits of these. I do. But along with the power and the potential, there are also harms. Okay, we need three things.

We're talking about medicines, yet there's no regulated therapy model like the State of Oregon. Let's decriminalize possession and get rid of the loophole for a regulated and unregulated service economy. And let's add safeguards, information, harm reduction, first responder training. That's what this bill needs. So I'm respectfully asking for amendments to this bill.

Thank you.

And I'm all in favor of getting everyone the healing they need.

Thank you, ma'am. Next witness.

Good morning, Madam Chair, members. Thank you for your time. My name is Zach Wallace. I'm a deputy district attorney in the San Diego County DA's office. I'm here on behalf of the San Diegans Against Crime as well as the San Diego Deputy District Attorney's Office. And we respectfully are here in opposition as we've heard from some of the testimony today, the initial ongoing trial.

Thank you. Appreciate it.

Thank you.

We're going to move on to.

Madam Chair, Michael Furman on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association, respectfully opposed the bill.

Thank you. We want to move on to witnesses waiting to testify via teleconference service. Please just state your name, organization, and position.

And please press one zero at this time. Again, it's one zero. We can first go to line 21, please go ahead. Give me a second here. And 21, you're open. 21.

Judith, Sausalito, California. I respectfully oppose this bill.

Thank you.

And next we've got line 29. Please go ahead. 29. And we'll move on to line nine. Just go ahead.

Hi, this is Elizabeth O'Donnell from Mill Valley. I represent Marin Residents for Public Health Cannabis Policies, and we oppose SB 58.

Thank you.

Next, we have line 23.

Hi, I'm Michelle Leopold from Greenbrae, California. I have a forever 18-year-old son and I am an activist around harms to youth. And this is definitely a no because of harms to youth. Thank you.

Thank you.

Next we have line eight. Please go ahead, line 8. We can move on to line number 13. Please go ahead.

Hi, Nara Dahlbacka calling in from the Alameda County Democratic Party and Dr. Bronner's soap.

Thank you.

Next we've got line 22. Your line is open.

Hi, my name is Isaiah Madison calling as an individual from South Los Angeles in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

And next is line 25. Please go ahead.

This is Debra Roth with Disability Rights California. We want to thank Senator Wiener for this bill. We're in strong support. Thank you.

And next, we have line 26.

Hi, my name is Kelsey Fernandez from San Anselmo, California. I'm the executive director of Marin Healthy Youth Partnerships. And I oppose SB 58 as written. Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we have line 10. Please go ahead.

Hi, this is Lily Kotanky with the National Association of Social Workers, California chapter. And we support this bill.

Thank you.

And currently, none further in queue.

Thank you.

We have one queuing up here. Give us just a moment.

Hi, this is Ellie Cassin, and I'm calling in support of SB 58.

Thank you.

And currently none further in queue.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair. I had an opportunity to speak to the author last year and to many of the patients.

When I say patients, many of the officers who have been under this therapy. And it was very encouraging to see. I also watched a documentary. I don't know if it was on prime or Netflix, but I watched a documentary with regards to this space, and. It was very interesting to see the immense hope that it gives many of the individuals suffering from PTSD, and depression, anxiety, and so forth.

The concerns I have here were expressed. By the witness in opposition, the mother who lost her child, with regards to not just decriminalizing, but really having the structure, the infrastructure in place to have the safeguards that we need to have in order to address the side effects that may happen in the case of use of these systems, which is one of the reasons why I'm in great support of the medicinal, under-regulated supervision of this substance, to be able to help the patients.

I know it takes time, and I would be willing to work with you in trying to write a letter of support so that we can do what we need to do at the federal level, so that we can start these. Do more research, and do work with this within the medical field if we need to, on that end. But with regards to just decriminalizing without having a framework in which we have those safety nets around. The consequences, the unintended consequences of having the decriminalization of certain natural elements and components, I'm reserved to do that.

I've been in support of medicinal cannabis in the past, but in this case, just. I like the term that was expressed earlier. It becomes the Wild West when we don't have that infrastructure in place. And with that, I'm going to abstain on this Bill, because I think there needs to be more work in order to be able to help those individuals in our communities.

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

I don't recall all of the history of the criminalization of a number of these substances, but they have not always been criminalized. So it's kind of analogous to cannabis, where there were years in the U.S. where cannabis was not criminalized, and the psychedelic substances are very powerful. They should. They need to be used with people's full understanding of when they engage, whether they are using them for a therapeutic purpose or for a different purpose.

I guess I appreciate the author bringing it forward because I do think that the criminalization has not benefited us and when I think about alcohol, for example, and I'm not trying to, you know. Too often we make these kind of comparisons. But I think this is legitimate in that I am not aware of any therapeutic use of alcohol.

While many of us like it and enjoy a glass of wine or more, I've not seen medical evidence of it, for example, helping to address anxiety or depression or any number of these other things, where I have seen a great deal of research where a number of. these psychedelic substances, and plant-based ones specifically, have been extremely useful for PTSD, for severe depression.

I have a personal friend who was crippled with grief after a very tragic loss of someone close to her and really was not functional for multiple years. And someone close to her read about this use, and that there were people who were guiding people through the use of some of these substances, and she ended up choosing to go that route. And after a number of sessions, she was able to function.

Now, whether that alone was sufficient, but I think that both that personal experience and the research that I've read, and there, of course, was the military itself, was doing a good deal of this research prior to the criminalization. There is now some research going on federally, but it's mostly private now. So I really appreciate the authors bringing it forward. I would like to see a Bill that dealt with this in a therapeutic setting and provided some appropriate guidelines or whatever in a health context.

But I think what the author is trying to do right now is deal with the fact that it's criminalized. And I think there has not been a benefit to its criminalization. So I am supportive of the Bill.

I will move it. But I also think that more work isn't necessarily need to be done on this Bill, but more work needs to be done for us to move as we move forward with the acceptance of these substances as very good therapeutically, that we also provide some guidelines around that and from a health context. But of course, that's not the penal code, and this Committee deals with the penal code.

So with that, I'll move the Bill.

Thank you. Do we have any further comments? All right. I personally have had multiple conversations with. Our Senator who has presented this Bill. I understand what is being done. I have my own reservations, specifically coming from my district and specifically about the implications that individuals under the age of 26 whose brain is not fully developed, and the fact that psychedelics can trigger a number of different things.

I'm also concerned with the fact that to some of the speakers in opposition, that there has not been a significant amount of framework around the mental health component of it and the guided therapy sessions and much more. I do believe that the war on drugs has been detrimental, but at the same time, I think that this is much more significant in regards to anybody under the age of 26 potentially utilizing this.

And a lot of the research actually states that. And as promising as this is, there is a significant amount of concern. So I will ask all Members of the Committee to be voting the way. That their district and their heart feels. Other than that, I will allow the Senator to make his closing remarks.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I want to thank everyone, including opposition, for apparently advocating of peers for some sort of legalization model of psychedelics, where we legalize it and put all that infrastructure in place. I'm happy to work with you on that, and I look forward to folks like the California District Attorneys Association to supporting that effort. They won't. We'll have a lot of the same opposition.

And I think to say in response to a Bill saying we don't want to arrest you for possessing anymore, that we can't support that because we have to have full legalization. Honestly, it's a little bit of a red herring, I'm going to be honest. We, in 1996, the voters in California adopted basically decriminalization of cannabis. It was medical Marijuana, which has a lot of bipartisan support that was effectively decriminalization.

It was 20 more years before we did the very complicated thing of setting up a legalization model. And today, 27 years later, federal law still prohibits cannabis. And so we have never waited for the Federal Government, and it's usually a mistake to wait for the Federal Government. It doesn't move very quickly, but we did that with cannabis and we led the way. California started it, and now it has bipartisan support in a lot of parts of the country.

I want to just say something about the war on drugs. If we want drug use to be as dangerous as it can possibly be. If someone had that goal, I hope no one has that goal, but if someone happened to have that horrible goal of saying, let's make drug use as dangerous as possible, the most effective way to do that is to criminalize it, is to push it into the shadows to have a situation.

And we've heard this on an unrelated Bill that we're going to hear in a few weeks where you have kids that were using drugs together and one of them overdosed. Not psychedelics, different drug. One of them overdosed and the other kids did not call the police because they didn't want to get arrested. That kid died. Had they called for help, that kid may be alive today.

And the reason why that kid is dead, according to the kid's mother, is because of criminalization, because we push it into the shadows and we make people less safe. They don't want to ask questions or get information or talk to experts because they are committing a crime by simply possessing that drug. And so they don't talk to anyone and they are less safe and more likely to be harmed.

For the witness whose son died, who you heard from today, what a horrific tragedy, and no parent should ever have to go through that child died under a criminalization model. It's not like rejecting this Bill somehow makes it safer to use psychedelics. It makes it less safe to do that. And I think we need to be very, very clear on that. As one of the side effects of the war on drugs, more people die.

So in terms of the Wild West, I think we have the Wild West now. That's what criminalization does. It creates a Wild West because everything is in the shadows. We're trying to move away from the Wild West model and say that if you are possessing or using psychedelics, you can talk to someone, you can be open about it, and not think that you're going to get arrested. That's how we make it safer. I'm not saying this is the last step.

There are all sorts of other things we need to do, but this is an important first step to say we're not going to arrest you because you possess or use these psychedelic drugs. And I respectfully ask for an Aye vote.

Thank you. We do have a motion on the floor from Senator Skinner. Can we call the roll?

SB 58, motion is due pass to Appropriations. [Roll call].

Thank you. The motion is passed.

Three to one.

Sorry, three to one.

Moving.

Yeah, it's passed.

Moving to Appropriations. Thank you. We have Senator Eggman presenting her bill, SB 492. Senator Eggman, you have the floor.

Thank you very much. Caught me a little bit off guard. I thought Senator Limon was going before me, but I am glad to go. So thank you very much, Madam Chair and Member, for allowing me to present SB 492 today. It's a simple bill, just kind of expanding eligibility for veterans. So we have veteran diversion courts, which have been very effective.

We know oftentimes veterans who have, heard some sitting in this Committee, heard from some vets who have had some massive problems related to their substance abuse, related to their time in service. They come out. It is hard to recalibrate sometimes. So we have a diversion court specifically for veterans.

At this time, though, only misdemeanors can be referred through that court, whereas our mental health diversion court also allows for felonies to go through that. Veterans are eligible to go through that felony, with a felony, through the mental health diversion court.

This bill would simply allow veterans the options of being able to go through the veterans diversion court with felonies. And they are listed out ones that are not included, which is, again, the kind of the guidelines that we already have In place, what state law already is.

And so this just expands the amount of people that we know for the most effective treatment for veterans to go to the appropriate court. And with me today, I have the legendary Stephen Manley, Judge.

Judge Manley.

Yes.

You have the floor.

I'm sorry. I thought I'd go first.

Please go ahead.

Madam Chair and Members, Mike Belote speaking on behalf of the California Judges Association. Just briefly, we have a large number of mental health judges around the state who are experts in helping veterans and currently serving military personnel who are suffering from PTSD, anxiety, depression, et cetera. The gentleman who spoke in favor of Senator Wiener's bill eloquently stated problems veterans are having.

The fact that approximately 20 veterans commit suicide every day in the United States is both a national disgrace and a call to action to do better in helping veterans. This bill expands veterans treatment and allows access to VA services and that sort of thing. We understand that mental health diversion and veterans diversion are not exactly coterminous, but it moves them closer, and so we appreciate the analysis. We are in discussions with the district attorneys about which crimes ought to be excluded. We've also committed to the Republican Caucus to continue those discussions. I'd like to introduce an internationally renowned judge in mental health, Judge Stephen Manley, to talk more.

Thank you, Judge Manley.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. Military diversion has brought in California an incredibly strong support from our judges. We have 48 veterans treatment courts in California serving 91% of the individuals who are eligible for military diversion or post-sentencing diversion.

What I'd like to point out is that what has really happened in California is in the courts, we've seen that this program is not only needed because in the past, we did not pay sufficient attention to those who have served this country. But we also have discovered that it's very effective. In a report that was submitted to the Legislature under a previous bill, the Judicial Council reported that, not only do we have a large number of veterans treatment courts, but we have research that demonstrates that these individuals who participate in veterans treatment court do much better.

Recidivism is reduced, substance abuse is reduced, and they are helped with mental health treatment. These courts are very unique, and that is why it's so important to me, and I hope to you, that we expand military diversion to include felonies. Because the research shows that when judges and treatment courts work with the highest risk, the most likely individual to be a recidivist and an individual who has the greatest need in terms of mental health or substance abuse, we as court, as a court program, are the most effective, and that when we work with the low level offenders, we are not as effective.

So this bill would give veterans the chance to participate in this unique opportunity where we have a partnership with the federal government, with the Veterans Administration, we have the strongest peer support program of any court program in the country, and it will give them an opportunity to participate even though they are charged with a felony. Thank you.

Thank you. We'll move to any other speakers in support.

Natasha Minsker on behalf of the Prosecutors Alliance of California and Californians for Safety and Justice in strong support.

Thank you.

Margo George on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association in strong support. Thank you.

Any other speakers in the room in support? We'll move on to lead opposition witnesses here in this room. Seeing none, we will move on to witnesses waiting to testify via teleconference service. Please just state your name, organization, and position. Moderator, if you would, please prompt Individuals waiting to testify in support or opposition of this bill, we will begin.

Thank you. Please press 1-0 at this time. Again, it's 1-0.

Seeing none. Thank you to our witnesses. We will now bring the discussion back to the Members. Do any of our Members have questions or comments? Senator Skinner. Senator Bradford.

He did move the bill, so I'll speak to his motion.

Okay, so Senator Bradford moves the bill. Senator Skinner.

Thank you. This is a very good bill. Appreciate you bringing it, Senator Eggman, and appreciate, Judge Manley, you joining the Committee today. Haven't seen you in a while, so good to see you. And just this, not only a good bill, but builds on work that you have been doing for some time, which is going to be both well received and is well needed by Californians. So thank you.

Thank you, Senator.

Thank you. Senator Eggman, would you like to close?

I thank you all for your time, and I thank Judge Manley for making the trip up here to speak in support of this bill. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote

Thank you. We do have a motion on the floor from Senator Bradford. Can we call roll?

SB 492, motion is do pass to Appropriation. [Roll Call]

The vote is four to zero. The bill is out. Congrats.

Congrats, thank you. Our next presenter is Senator Limon. Thank you for being patient. Senator Limon, you will be presenting Bill SB 442.

You have the floor.

Thank you, Chair and Senators. SB 442 closes a loophole in the definition of a misdemeanor sexual battery. Currently, the definition only includes situations where a perpetrator touches intimate parts of the victim and not in situations where the perpetrator forces the victim to touch intimate parts of the perpetrator. Victims feel no less violated when their hands are forced to touch another person than when another person touches them. It is essential that we close this loop so obvious sexual batteries are included under the definition.

With me today, I have Ventura County District Attorney Eric Nasarenko to speak in support of the bill.

We'll move to our lead witness.

Thank you very much, Senator Limon, and good morning, State Senate Public Safety Committee. This proposal rectifies an omission, an inequity, and a fundamental unfairness in the existing statute. Namely, if a perpetrator takes his or her hand and places it on the intimate part of another for the purpose of sexual arousal, gratification, or abuse, and it is against the other person's will, that's a sexual battery.

However, if the perpetrator takes the victim's hand and causes that hand to go on his or her intimate part, it is only a simple battery. This doesn't properly capture the conduct, it doesn't properly acknowledge the wrongdoing, and it also doesn't call the conduct for what it is: sexual in nature. By rectifying this omission, by correcting this inequity, and by rectifying this unfairness, you will bring voice to victims.

The conduct of the perpetrators will be properly characterized as sexual in nature, and it will also correct the omission in the original statute. I want to thank Senator Limon, and I encourage an aye vote, and I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any other lead witnesses seeing none. Let's hear from witnesses in support of this bill.

Good morning. Michael Forman, California District Attorneys Association, in support of the bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any other witnesses in this room in support of this bill? Seeing none. We'll move on to witnesses in opposition. Do we have any lead opponents of this bill? Seeing none, we're going to ask for opposition witnesses in this room. Seeing none. Thank you. We'll move on to witnesses waiting to. Testify via teleconference service. Please just state your name, organization and position.

Moderator, if you will, please be prompt. The individuals waiting to testify in support or opposition of the bill, we will begin. Thank you.

Certainly. Thank you. And again, it is 1, 0. At this time, please press 1, 0. And currently not in queue.

Thank you to all our witnesses. We'll now bring the discussion back to the members. Do we have any comments or questions? Senator, would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. The bill has been moved by Senator Wiener. Can we call roll?

SB 442. Motion is due pass to appropriation. [Roll Call]

The bill has passed, five to zero. The bill is out. Congratulations. Thank you. And we have one bill on call, SB 22. Can we lift it and call roll, please?

Motion is due, passed to Judiciary Committee. Bradford, four to zero? Bradford, aye. The bill is out. Five to zero.

Thank you. We're adjourning this meeting, thank you.