Senate Standing Committee on Public Safety

Senate Committee on Public Safety will come to order. We will be starting as a Subcommitee, so I do just want to say good morning. The Senate continues to welcome the public in person and via the teleconference service. For individuals wishing to provide public comment, today's participant number is 877-226-8163 and the access code is 694-8930 we are holding our Committee hearings here in Room 2200 in the O Street building.

I ask all members of committee to be present in room 2200 so we can establish our quorum and begin our hearing. We have 19 bills on today's agenda. Four are on consent. Before we hear presentations on the bills, we're going to have to establish a quorum, but we're going to begin anyways as a Subcommitee. So I do just want to say, so we are going to ask for our first presentation of SB 94 by Senator Cortese. Senator, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair and, and senators, I'm pleased to present SB 94. Sponsored by the Alabaca center and a recidivism coalition, the California Coalition for Women Prisoners and others. SB 94 would allow judges the ability to review death penalty and life without parole sentences for individuals who have served at least 20 years of their sentence and were sentenced for offenses with special circumstances committed before June 5,1990. These cases represent a very narrow population that consists of the most elderly individuals behind bars.

Many of these individuals have shown decades of exemplary behavior, participated in extensive positive programming, and have devoted themselves to becoming positive members of society. Additionally, research shows that elderly individuals typically do not reoffend and do not end up back behind bars. For individuals previously sentenced to lifethought parole who were granted a commutation and released, the recidivism rate is actually 0%. To quote Robert Weisberg, co Director of the Stanford Criminal Justice center.

If I may, there aren't a lot of 72 year old linebackers in the NFL. There aren't a lot of 72 year old violent criminals because people age out. Wiseberg has also noted that by far the most expensive prisoners to keep in prison are the oldest ones because of the health care costs. It costs about $106,000 per year to keep the average person in prison, but older inmates cost two to three times that amount. Also, let me be clear.

This bill does not automatically let people out of prison. It does not guarantee resentencing. It is not a get out of jail free card. The bill simply creates a process for the judicial review of cases that have not been looked at in decades. Again, the bill simply creates a process for the judicial review of cases that have not been looked at in decades.

If we believe we have a rehabilitative system, I think the question is, why wouldn't we go back after multiple decades and see if any actual rehabilitation has occurred? And why wouldn't we trust a judge to make that assessment? Under SB 94, courts could consider old cases in light of changes in law and apply the law more fairly. Judges would have the discretion to leave the sentence unchanged or resentence a person to become eligible for parole.

This is a crucial bill when you consider that the Legislature has enacted several reforms in recent years that restore judicial discretion. One such reform is allowing judges to consider mitigating factors such as whether the person was a victim of intimate partner violence or human trafficking, or had experienced child trauma, exploitation, or sexual abuse. As a result of these changes, people who received extreme sentences decades ago would not be sentenced the same way today.

We want to extend those rights, that consideration that defendants receive today to elderly inmates who didn't have the opportunity to assert those rights or those considerations when they were sentenced decades ago. With us today is Judge Harlan Grossman with the California Judges Association. I understand he will be our first lead witness. And Chryl Lamar with the California Coalition for Women Prisoners, again, both here to speak in support. Thank you. And at the appropriate time, I'll respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Now let's hear from the lead witnesses. Please come to that mic and state your name, organization, and your testimony.

My name is. Good morning. I'm Harlan Grossman. I'm a retired judge from Contra Costa County. I have to make one correction. I'm not here as a member of CJA or on behalf of CJA. I don't speak for CJA. I retired 11 years ago after 21 years of judicial service. I was a prosecutor for nine years before becoming a judge and a special agent of the FBI for six and a half years before that. Since retiring, I've been active in criminal justice policy advocacy.

I'm here this morning to urge the committee to vote in favor of Senate Bill 94. This bill creates a process for judges to reconsider LWAP and death sentence cases where the crime occurred prior to June 5, 1990 and the defendant has served a minimum of 20 years in custody for the crime. LWAP went into effect in California in 1978 as part of the Briggs initiative. It was enacted in conjunction with California's reinstatement of the death penalty.

LWAP is basically a lock them up and throw away the key approach to sentencing LWAP's enactment marks the beginning of the tough on crime era, where over the years, legislators and ballot initiatives outdid themselves in proliferating tougher and stricter sentencing laws. California's tough on crime approach has led to mass incarceration, prison overcrowding, and the warehousing of prisoners. It has exacerbated the disparate treatment of people of color and their overrepresentation in custodial populations.

Since 1994, there have been many true reforms that have evidenced a more enlightened approach to criminal justice. These include the Drug Court Movement, the restorative justice movement, and the recognition of youthful offender status. These reforms give meaning to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr's quote, the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice. However, the arc has not bent enough. The arc needs to bend to include those sentenced to LWAP and death. Senate Bill 94 is a step in the right direction.

The bill offers such prisoners a chance for redemption. Senate Bill 94 affords all the parties, the defendant, the people, those enacted by the crime due process. Again, I urge this Committee to vote to enact Senate Bill 94. Thank you.

Thank you. Do you have any other lead witnesses? Thank you. State your name, your organization and your testimony. Thank you.

My name is Chryl Lamar. Excuse me. And I am working for a CCWP. After being commuted by Governor Newsom and I came home December 2020 after serving 34 years of a double LWAP sentence. Decades of self motivating rehabilitation allowed me to understand my childhood impact on my life. For example, being abandoned by my mother at one month old and being molested by family members by the age of nine. And so I took full responsibility for my healing.

Had I still been inside today, I would be eligible for SB 94, should it pass. SB 94, as Cortese said, would be restorative judicial discretion, allowing judges to review cases. And they were imposed, like in 1970 and does not guarantee a get out of jail free pass, but allows the judges decide the eligibility.

Realizing that there's no parole option available for me, I still exhibited decades of exemplary behavior, participated in self motivating self programming, working to understand the root cause of my behavior, to be truly accountable for my actions. It changed and transformed me, and I devoted myself to becoming a positive member of the community inside the justice system. My sins told me that I had no hope or chance, yet I maintained hope. Society had ridden me off as worse of the worst.

Yet I have proven that it is possible to re enter society and become a productive member dedicated to giving back. After spending in my entire adult lifehood inside, I know there are so many elderly LWAP people and death penalty people that are doing positive programs or too sick to even work. They deserve a second look. SB 94 would be beneficial for the public health and safety in our budget. I urge you to take this into consideration and pass this bill. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Now let's hear from other support witnesses here in room 2200. I want to be very clear that just state your name, your organization and whether or not you support. We have 19 bills, so we're going to ask that everybody moves quickly on this. Thank you.

Natasha Minsker, Smart Justice California and the Prosecutors Alliance of California in strong support.

Thank you.

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

Joanne Scheer, on behalf of Felony Murder Elimination Project, in strong support.

Good morning. Glenn Backes for Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, for efficiency, Rather than having people call in, I have a short list of groups that would like to be in support. Santa Cruz Barrios Unidos, Indivisible California, American Friends Service Committee, Families Over Everything Else. Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice, the Empowering Pacific Islander Communities showing up for racial justice, Bay Area and Solitary Santa Cruz County showing up for racial justice at Sacred Heart California Native Vote Project, the Transformative In Prison Work Group and Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights. Thank you.

Thank you.

Daniel Trowfield, on behalf of Felony Murder Elimination Project, along with registering support, along with Center for Employment Opportunities, Uncommon Law, Decarcerate Sacramento, Starting Over California, Coalition for Women Prisoners, Human Rights Watch, National Harm Reduction Coalition, Young Women's Freedom Center, Families United to End Life Without Parole or fuel the drop, LWOP Coalition and Jesse's place. Thank you.

Thank you.

Melanie Kim, San Francisco Public Defender's office in support.

Kelly Savage Rodriguez, I work for California Coalition for Women Prisoners and the National LWOP, National Life without the possibility of parole leadership council. I'm a former LWOP and I appreciate your time. I also want to add some names. The California Safety and Justice Drug Policy Alliance, California Alliance for Youth and Community Justice, Center for Juvenile and Criminal Justice, White People for Black Lives, ACLU California Action, Initiate Justice, Holy Cross Lutheran Church in Livermore, National Harm Reduction Coalition and Bent the Arc.

Thank you.

Daniel Andsman on behalf of FAM in strong suppor,t along with organizations that have asked me to register as support. Indivisible California State Strong, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, Asian Prisoner Support Committee, Restore Oakland Inc., Transitions Clinic Network, San Francisco Public Defender's office, Fair Chance Project, California Families Against Solitary Confinement, Root and Rebound, Friends Committee on Legislation of California.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Erin Catherine McCall, and I am here in strong support for Underground Scholars Initiative at UC Berkeley. Thank you.

Hi, my name is Elizabeth Brown, and I'm here in strong support with Underground Scholars Initiative for UC Berkeley.

Good morning. Andrea Amavisca, on behalf of the California Immigrant Policy center in support.

Good morning. April Grayson, Sister Warriors Freedom Coalition policy associate, proud co sponsor in strong support.

Good morning. Anthony Di Martino, Californians for Safety and justice and strong support. Michael Garcia, underground scholar initiative in strong support.

Michael Garcia, underground scholar initiative in strong support.

Jared Harper, Friends at Work in strong support.

Thank you. Are there any other support witnesses here in this room? Seeing none, we'll now move on to witnesses in opposition in this room. Please just state your name, your organization, and your testimony. 2 minutes.

Good morning. I'm Jason Anderson, the District Attorney for the County of San Bernardino. I'm here to express my opposition to SB 94. There are three foundations of our criminal justice system. Notice, separation of powers, and finality. Notice tells us what the consequences are for our legal conduct, including murderers who exhibit particular evil so that special circumstance punishment attaches to that criminal conduct. Separation of powers provides for our jury system. It's one of the most unique and purest forms of democracy that we have.

While DAs decide to seek either the death penalty or LWOP, only a jury can decide guilt and recommend a death or LWOP sentence, even after one of those sentences has been determined by a jury. Special circumstances cases undergo extraordinary appellate scrutiny for decades. Finality allows victims'families to rely upon the jury system and the appellate review in order to have some sense of justice and closure in a case, as does Marcy's law. SB 94 undermines all three foundations of our criminal justice system.

SB 94 does not promulgate justice. It actually dispenses. It ignores it. Kevin Cooper, a case in San Bernardino, county, was fleeing a charge of raping a young woman at knifepoint when he murdered Doug and Peggy Ryan, their young daughter, Jessica, a neighbor, Christopher Hughes, who was enjoying a sleepover at the house, and he also tried to murder young Josh Ryan. Even Governor Newsom's innocence investigation into Kevin Cooper declared that Cooper's guilt is conclusive and exhaustive. He's had never admitted what he did.

How could he be rehabilitated under SB 94? SB 94 could grant Kevin Cooper relief. Brian Mincy tortured and murdered a five year old son of his then girlfriend. Some of the victim's injuries included the shearing of the boy's anal tissue after Mincy forced a board into the boy's buttocks. SB 94 could grant Mincy relief. SB 94 should never make it out of this Committee. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any other lead opposition witnesses? 2 minutes only. Thank you.

Thank you, Committee chair and Members. My name is Linda Thompson, and I lost my sister in January my sister Sharon. In January of 1979, Sharon was moving out of the duplex she shared with three other girls. New Year's Day, New Year's Eve, someone entered her home, tied and bound Sharon up, raped and sodomized her, and then slit her throat. She was 20 years old. The torture and terror she felt and endured is unimaginable. I witnessed the crime scene and have had reoccurring nightmares since.

We waited 23 long years for justice. Authorities had finally caught up with Sharon's killer in 2002 after DNA evidence linked him to her murder. He was, at that time, in custody for another murder. At the time, my sister's case went to court. I agreed with the plea bargain as he was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. 30 years after Sharon was taken from us. We waited so long. Our dear mom passed away two months before we were told of the arrest.

The SB 94 would change what I believed and have taken comfort in all these years, that my sister's murderer would never be released from prison. SB 94 changes the goalposts in an unjust manner. People convicted of special circumstance murder are the worst of the worst, like the person who killed Sharon. My sister deserved to live her life. She did not get a second chance. Thank you.

Okay, before we move on to any other opposition witnesses, can we call for roll call?

[Roll Call]

A quorum has been established. Now we will hear from opposition. Please state your name, your organization, and that whether or not you support or oppose, in this fact, oppose. And we are going to move quickly through this. Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chairperson. My name is Matthew Greco, in strong opposition on behalf of the San Diego Deputy District Attorneys Association as well as the San Diegans Against Crime.

Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Thien Ho. I'm the elected District Attorney for Sacramento County. I'm also here on behalf of Morgan Geyer, who is the elected District Attorney of Placer County, and we are in opposition to SB 94. Thank you.

Good morning. Ivy Fitzpatrick, Managing Deputy District Attorney from Riverside County. I'm here representing the California District Attorneys Association as well as the Riverside County District Attorney's Office in strong opposition. Thank you.

Good morning. Randy Perry with Aaron Read and Associates on behalf of PORAC and the California Association of Highway Patrol in opposition. Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Matthew Siverling on behalf of the Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Morning, Madam Chair and Members. Ryan Sherman with the Riverside Sheriff Association also in opposition, as well as the Police Officer Associations Claremont, Corona, Pomona, Palos Verdes, Newport Beach, Upland, Santa Ana, Burbank, Murrieta, Arcadia, Riverside, Fullerton, Culver City, Deputy Sheriffs Association Monterey County and Placer County, and Los Angeles School Police, all in opposition to the bill. Thank you.

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

Okay. And if you'd like to speak in support or opposition of this bill, please press one and then zero. We'll go to the line number 14.

Good morning. Rebecca Gonzales with the National Association of Social Workers California Chapter in strong support of this bill.

Thank you. Next, we'll go to line 24.

Good morning. Jim Lindburg on behalf of the Friends Committee on Legislation of California and also on behalf of the California Catholic Conference, in strong support. Thank you.

We'll go next to line 23.

Good morning. Shervin Aazami with Initiate Justice Action in strong support.

We'll go next to line number 19.

Good morning. I am Elaine Bissett calling on behalf of San Diego County District Attorney Summer Stephan. We are in strong opposition. Thank you.

We'll go next to line number 8.

Yes, my name is Tamara Alexander, and I am calling on behalf of my husband, former NFL Defensive Back Kermit Alexander, in memory of his mother, Ebora, sister Dietra, and two young nephews, Damon and Damani, who were murdered execution style early morning hours of August 31 in 1984 for a murder for hire that had gone very badly. Maybe 72 year old linebackers don't play in the NFL, but 82 year old NFL defensive back never forget. We are vehemently. SB 94. Thank you.

We'll go next to line 12.

My name is Lauren Pettigrew. My brother is murder victim David Pettigrew in strong opposition.

We'll go next to line 25.

Good morning. My name is Sharita Morris calling on behalf of California Attorneys for Criminal Justice in strong support.

We have no further in queue.

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

Thank you, Senator Cortese, for being here this morning, and thank you to all the witnesses, both in support and opposition for you. And it's really interesting to hear the different arguments on both sides. And I think it's a really hard issue because we're dealing with humanity and whether or not there is hope on some of the issues that are here.

I do have a set of questions that I have been asked to ask for the record, and let's begin with the first one that states the definition of special circumstance. And what kinds of aggravated murder does this bill address?

Well, this special circumstances list that you're referring to is enumerated in statute, and that's what's addressed in the bill. This bill doesn't change that list whatsoever.

Okay. Are there any excluders for extremely horrific cases, question being, would Charles Manson and Richard Ramirez, if he were still alive, be able to pursue relief under this statute?

Yeah, I think that's a great question and important, especially after listening carefully to the lead opposition. Which I think all of us do as Senators, especially in first Committee hearing, in case there's amendments or modifications that we want to make. But one of the things I picked up on was that somehow SB 94, if signed into law, would, in effect, release people, would release inmates. SB 94 won't and can't release anybody the way it's written and the way it will stay written.

What it does is it creates a petition process so that, if eligible under those petition criteria, a person like those that you mentioned could, in effect, have a hearing. I can't imagine any judge releasing, as a result of an SB 94 hearing, Charles Manson. That's my opinion, but that's my opinion based on having been a criminal defense attorney at one time.

And it is a very difficult challenge to get a judge who is concerned about a reoffense in the future to consider any kind of a lesser sentence other than what's before him or her. So, again, this bill doesn't, as I said at the outset, does not release or automatically release anyone. It just creates a hearing process.

It's quite conceivable that through whatever hearings occur as a result of this bill, that nobody would achieve a resentencing based on a judge's concern during that hearing that there could be a reoffense. The real question is, do we trust the judge, after two decades of incarceration, to make that decision?

Thank you, Senator.

And I want to just acknowledge that Natasha Minsker, who introduced herself earlier from Smart Justice, is here, who's an attorney who is available to answer questions in more detail. So if you're unsatisfied with the detail of my responses, please pivot over to Natasha. Thank you.

We had the pleasure to meet earlier, and I often use the experience that we had visiting with the LWOP prisoners in Lancaster as basis of my understanding of furthering the criminal justice system and understanding it a little further. So thank you so much for that opportunity. I'm just taking that opportunity since you're here, but I appreciate the educational experience. So I'll open it up, Senator Cortese, I have about two or three more questions. This one's a little long, so bear with us.

Many of the eligible defendants received their death or LWOP sentences after a penalty phase trial held before jury. During these penalty phase trials, the jury considers much of the mitigating circumstances enumerated in your bill. The jury's sentencing verdicts for these defendants were then reviewed by the trial judge and thereafter upheld by the seven justices of the California Supreme Court and even the federal courts, including the US Supreme Court.

In the habeas corpus process, defendants usually present mitigation evidence that they believe should have been presented at their trial and argue it would have made a difference in the sentencing decision. Meaning, for the last 30 years, mitigation evidence has been considered by the courts and these defendants sentences have been upheld by multiple layers of judicial oversight. This bill would now allow a single judge to dispense with these 30 years of multiple judicial determinations. What is the reasoning behind this approach?

Thank you. Let me just say on this one, I'll answer it sort of at a higher level, and then ask Ms. Minsker to respond at a more detailed level in terms of the process that you just outlined. Nobody is contesting any of the decisions, the rulings, verdicts, judgments, et cetera, that have occurred in the process that you just outlined. What this bill says is one more thing.

After more than two decades in prison, there should be at least an opportunity to petition for a recall of that sentence at that time. It doesn't challenge the validity of anything that occurred prior. It simply says there has been a rehabilitation process that's been occurring. Ostensibly, that's what we as legislators believe we have in our prison system. And after two decades, this adds one more step after those decades, which is the opportunity to petition for a resentencing hearing. No guarantee how that's going to come out one way or the other. I want to make sure I'm not misstating. So I want to turn to.

That is all accurate, and it's a great question, Senator. The process we use in death penalty trials is, as you say, we have a special penalty phase where the defense presents mitigating evidence to the jury for consideration. Part of the challenge is that these cases are 30, 40 more years ago, and the standard of legal practice was very different. Part of the issue is that many of these people did not have quality representation.

They did not have lawyers who actually presented the mitigating evidence in their case. There are four people in this room here today who were sentenced to life without parole, and their attorneys did not present the mitigating stories and evidence in their case, things like the childhood sexual abuse that they experienced. Right.

And so part of the reason death penalty cases, why the litigation continues for decades is because we don't have quality attorneys, especially 30 and 40 years ago, we didn't have quality attorneys that presented this information to the jury. And when we see these cases unfold over decades of litigation and the habeas process, where new attorneys do present this evidence, then in two out of three cases, the sentence is actually reversed.

So in California, if you are sentenced to death, the most likely outcome is that your case will actually be reversed on appeal for exactly these reasons, because this kind of mitigating evidence wasn't considered. And many people, in fact, die while their cases are in the review process because the process is so cumbersome and takes so long.

So one of the key things about this bill is that it is about cases that happened decades ago, from before 1990, offenses that are occured before 1990, people who have served a minimum of 20 years. Some of them have served 40 years. And is it going back and giving the judge an opportunity to say, what did we fail to consider the first time that we should consider now. And how have circumstances changed in the last 30 years that we should consider now? And it's really just about giving the judge an opportunity to consider that information.

Thank you. And then we have the following question, which states, how does the Governor's clemency process intersect with this bill?

Well, it's a separate process, of course. We heard from one of the lead witnesses today who actually, I don't know if it's the right word to say, was the beneficiary after 34 years of prison, because it seems a little bit oxymoronic to say that, but after 34 years was commuted by the Governor.

She stated in her own testimony, of course, that had this SB 94 process been available, or if it were available in the future, people like her who might be commuted but haven't been yet, would have a judicial process to go through. So, yes, the Governor, we heard a lot about the different levels of government and the separation of powers and everything else, the checks and balances.

Our Governor, whoever that may be, Democrat, Republican, or otherwise, considers commutations and has the power as an individual to weigh all those circumstances that we're talking about here and commute a sentence. We're simply saying that somebody wearing the robes as a judge who's qualified to weigh the exact same evidence and circumstances after this 20 plus year period, should be allowed to weigh those circumstances.

So it's, again, as I said in the earlier question, not taking away from the existing framework that we have, but just adding another avenue or pathway for justice to be served in those cases where it's appropriate.

All right. And then I have one last question, and then I would like to hear a comment from one of the lead witnesses in response. As the author, are you envisioning any evidentiary hearing with witnesses and evidence being presented at each of these hearings? And what is the standard of proof required to establish a mitigating factor? Which party has the burden?

Let me turn that over to Ms. Minsker to answer that technical question. Thank you.

Absolutely. The bill provides for hearings where evidence could be presented. Evidence could also be presented in test documentary form or through declarations. The moving party bears the burden of proof whenever the motion is made. So here, the individual making the petition would bear the burden of persuading the judge that mitigating evidence existed. And then ultimately, it is up to the judge in their discretion whether to resentence or not.

And through the Chair, Madam Chair, would like to hear from the lead witnesses with regards to whether or not this information suffices.

In opposition, correct?

In support. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. In opposition, yes.

Yes. Okay. Yes.

I'm sorry. Yes, the lead witness in opposition.

30 seconds.

Go ahead, Rob.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. I am Robert Brown. I'm the Assistant District Attorney from San Bernardino County. I work for Mr. Anderson, and he brought me here to answer any questions. You're asking if the information that you put, if that was described just a moment ago, would suffice for what is being asked of the judge. It's difficult to tell because I've heard no standard of proof. We don't know what level that judge would have to find in order to grant relief or deny relief. So I don't know if that question could be answered under what's been described this morning.

Okay. Is there any other comments that you have with regards to, or thoughts on the responses that were given today, with regards to the questions that were presented?

As to those responses? No. I do have thoughts that there are two significant legal issues with this bill. I'm happy to describe those, if you would like.

Are those addressing any of the issues that we addressed today here?

Not so far.

Questions. Okay. Through the Chair?

Yeah. We're going to move on to any other Members who have questions or concerns. No Senators. Okay. So, Senator Wiener.

Just one question which you've answered, but I want to just make this crystal clear. Does this bill mandate any judge to release anyone from prison?

No.

It sets up a process considering different factors and providing a path that the judge can evaluate the evidence and the circumstances and how the person has done in prison and so on and so forth, and then can make a determination.

That's correct.

And these are people who were incarcerated as of 1990 or earlier?

That's correct. Okay.

So then we're talking about decades and decades in prison.

That's correct.

Okay. Thank you. And I moved the bill.

At least two decades anyway.

Thank you. I do just want to thank all the witnesses who testified. I'm personally of the mindset of sometimes, as a victim of myself, of my father was murdered, and it's a cold case. And so I often understand the feelings of victims, particularly wanting justice and wanting that individual to serve life without parole. I get it.

At the same time, I also think that with the purview of the judge and at their discretion, evaluating additional evidence over several decades of time being passed, potentially even more technology and support and understanding of what's happening. I think that it is sometimes a very good practice to revisit cases. And with nearly 40 years passing for some of these cases with this bill covers, I think it's only right to at least have that in place. So I do appreciate it, Senator, for you bringing this forward.

I appreciate everybody on both sides that have testified. I understand the emotional impact on families as well as those serving time, and I would like to have you close, Senator.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and appreciate that, your eloquent comments. I, too, am very moved by the concerns and testimony that we heard here today that we call opposition testimony. But I suppose for those families is really support testimony in their own mind for something that they consider to be a very valid and solid legal process that's occurred up to this point. We're not trying to change what occurred up to this point in any of these cases.

I suppose, again, having some lived experience in the courtroom that some of the attorneys would call fact patterns that we heard today, which are compelling and devastating fact patterns in terms of what happened, are the same fact patterns that would be compelling to a judge. This bill just simply allows a judge in the review process that we've been describing to make that decision if the criteria are met for a hearing. And with that, I'd respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. We have a motion by Senator Wiener to move this bill. Can we have a roll call?

SD 94, motion is do pass to Appropriations. [Roll Call]

Thank you. This bill will be placed on call. Really appreciate it. Thank you to everybody. We'll be moving on to the next presentation. Senator Cortese, you have SB 309. The floor is yours.

All right. Thank you again. Chair and Members of the Committee, I'm pleased to present SB 309, sponsored by the Council on American-Islamic Relations, otherwise known as CAIR, the Church State Council, the Chakara Movement, and the Tabah Foundation and others. SB 309 would create a statewide policy that ensures the right to wear religious clothing, grooming, and headwear in state and local correctional detention facilities. At its core, the common sense bill would simply ensure the preservation of dignity and civil rights.

When a member of a religious minority is serving time, they should always have the protection to observe their religion. The need for this bill is tremendous given the fact that civil rights complaints related to Islamophobia, for example, grew to record numbers in 2021, and those numbers continue to rise. Unfortunately, hate and bias incidents have gone up as the pandemic has receded, we all know that. We have an opportunity with this bill to stop incidents of religious persecution in prison.

Californians still maintain their basic civil rights when they become incarcerated. Unfortunately, people who belong to religious minority groups have had their religious headscarves, for example, forcibly removed by prison officials after being taken into custody. In five communities in California, correctional facilities have been sued over their policies related to religious practice, and those facilities were forced to change those policies. SB 309 would remedy this issue and restore equity for Muslims, Sikhs, Jews and other religious minorities.

Inmates who are allowed to freely exercise religious practice and dress are less likely to be involved in violent incidents while they are serving their sentence. They're also less likely to return to jail or prison after the term is completed. We ask you to support dignity, civil rights, and free expression in our correctional facilities. With us today is Masih Fouladi, Deputy Executive Director of CAIR LA, and Sajad Shakoor, Member of the Tayba Foundation, here to speak in support. Thank you again. And again, at the appropriate time, I would ask for your support.

Thank you. If witnesses can come and approach the mic, you have two minutes. We're going to time it. We're going to try to make this faster. Thank you.

Thank you Chair Wahab and Members of the Senate Public Safety Committee. My name is Masih Fouladi and I'm the Deputy Executive Director overseeing the Council on American Islamic Relation of California's Policy and Advocacy Initiatives, CAIR California is America's largest civil rights and liberties organization and we are the sponsor of SB 309. While representing Muslim clients in legal battles across the state, we found disturbing pattern of Muslims who were being deprived of their religious rights to accommodation and clothing while incarcerated. Muslims were not alone in this.

Religious communities across the state, including Sikhs and Jews, had their religious rights to free exercise infringe while in custody because of inconsistent policies across the state regarding religious clothing, headwear and grooming. We are advocating for this bill because ensuring a uniform statewide right to religious clothing, headwear and grooming is a common sense policy.

It aligns California with the US Constitution and Federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act that states that facilities cannot substantially burden the right to practice religion unless they can demonstrate that they have a compelling interest that cannot be achieved through any other less restrictive means. As a state with one of the largest sources of prison free exercise complaints, proactively adopting a clear accommodation policy will save the state local jurisdictions from costly litigation.

It also reemphasizes the rehabilitation process and incorporates solutions from studies that demonstrate addressing religious accommodations can increase morale, reduced violence, and other negative behaviors of prisoners and reduce recidivism. Lastly, SB 309 follows the precedent of policies locally adopted by police and sheriff departments across the state, and it continues California's legacy as a leader in civil rights legislation.

We commend the CDCR and local jurisdictions for working to address the right to religious clothing while incarcerated and have taken precautions to account for the safety and security of facility staff and others in custody by allowing certain exceptions. Every local jurisdiction that we have approached has adopted recommendations, but there are too many jurisdictions for advocates to individually approach. SB 309 closes the gap between current state and local laws and the federal standard required to protect civil liberties and dignity for those incarcerated.

Thank you.

Thank you for the opportunity.

Thank you. We are timing. It's a step up, right?

Two minute drill?

Yeah, two minutes. One hundred percent.

Chairwoman Wahab, Members, thank you for the opportunity. My name is Sajad Shakoor. I'm the founder of Falafel Corner and also an advocate for prisoners for Tayba Foundation and a doctoral candidate in Berkeley. I was in prison for over two decades, and during that time, suffered a whole lot of humiliation and discrimination because of the religion that I chose and because the religion, the practice of that religion conflicted with the grooming standards and the dress code. So we weren't allowed to have beards.

We couldn't have our headgear, and a lot of other restrictions that placed on us. We were forced to shave. And for a Muslim man to shave his beard, it's one of the most humiliating things that you can do. If you refused, you got what they call progressive disciplinary action. There's nothing progressive about disciplinary action. Okay? You got a verbal warning, then you got a written warning, and then you got what they call CDC 115, which is a formal write up.

And if you still didn't comply, they put you on C status, which is disciplinary detention. That's lockup, 23 hours a day. And they used to say, you're in prison, inside the prison. For most people, that was a deterrent from practicing their religion. Some of us endured that for years. And why did we endure that? We endure that because we understood the transformative value of a religion. Religion has the power to transform people. I've seen it with my own eyes.

I've seen people completely transform their lives because of religion. And then you have people come along and tell you, oh, you can't wear this, you can't wear this. You can't do that. And they discriminate against you for that. But that's not even the worst part.

Sir. Thank you. Your time's up. Sorry. So we are going to move on to witnesses in support. Please state your name, your organization and that you support.

Natasha Minsker, Prosecutors Alliance of California, in support.

Lesli Caldwell, Houston, for the California Public Defenders Association. In support.

Glenn Backes, Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, in support.

Anthony DiMartino, Californians for Safety and Justice, in support.

Thank you. Do we have any other support witnesses? Seeing none. We're going to move to lead opposition witnesses. Lead opposition witnesses have two minutes. Seeing none. We're going to move to opposition witnesses in general. Seeing none. We are going to move to those that are waiting on teleconference. The teleconference number, please just state your name, organization, and position. Moderator, if you'd please prompt the individuals waiting to testify in support or opposition, we will begin.

If you're in support or opposition of this, please press one and then zero. We'll go to the line number 31.

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

Next, we'll go to line number 10.

Hello, I'm Patty Lawrence. I'm calling on behalf of myself and in support of AB 309.

Next to line number 35.

Good morning. Jim Lindberg. On behalf of the Friends Committee on Legislation of California and on behalf of the California Catholic Conference, both in support. Thank you.

Next to line number 34.

George Prampthu. On behalf of ACLU California Action, in support. Thank you.

We'll go next to line number 25.

Sharita Moore. On behalf of California Attorneys for Criminal Justice. In support.

We'll go next to line number 30.

Lawrence Cox, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children in support.

Next to line number 32.

Dennis Seaton, government relations director for the Church State Council and in strong Support.

Roll next to line number 13.

Rabbi Seth Kaplan, Executive Director of Exodus Project of St. Vincent De Paul. We are in strong support.

Roll next to line number 37.

Shervin Aazami. Initiate Justice Action. Strong support.

Thank you. We have no further in queue.

Thank you and thank you to all our witnesses. We'll now bring the discussion back to Members. Members, do you guys have any questions, comments or thoughts? Senator Wiener? Okay, Senator would like to move the bill. Senator Cortese, would you have any closing comments?

Thank you. And I want to thank the Committee, Chair, and the staff of the Committee for all your hard work and help in analyzing both the bills I presented today, while I'm at it. Thank you. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. The motion has been moved by Senator Wiener. Assistant, please call the roll.

SB 309, the motion is due passed to appropriations. [Roll Call]

The Bill has been placed on call. We will now move to Senator Nguyen, who will be presenting SB 288. Senator, the floor is yours.

A little longer.

There you go. Okay.

Good morning, Madam Chair and senators. Today I'm presenting my bill, SB 28, in response to the rise of crimes across our state from convicted criminals who have been released early from their prison term sentencing. There are many ways convicted criminals may be granted early release long before their full sentence has been served. When media reports that someone has been convicted of a heinous crime and sent to a long prison term, most people would conclude that these individual will serve their full sentence term.

I expect the public will be surprised to learn that it is extremely rare for an individual to serve his or her full prison term just last year, this month, when a convicted felon named Smiley Martin was engaged in a gun battle just blocks away from our capital in which six were killed and another 12 were injured, the issue of early release was brought into full focus because in 2018, Mr. Martin was sentenced to 10 years in prison for beating up his girlfriend.

And even our Sacramento District Attorney opposed releasing Mr. Martin, for he is a danger to society. After just serving four of the 10 years he was released and two months after he was released, he was involved in a shootout in downtown Sacramento with an automatic weapon in his hand. This is what was filed against him in the past by Sacramento County District Attorney Anne Marie Schubert, depicted Martin as a dangerous, unrepentant, repenting gang member.

Prosecutor pointed to Martin's prior conviction, which include coercing a woman into prostitution and beating her with a belt, leaving a welt on her face, while he was sentenced to 10 years in prison for that crime. The prosecutor also stated he committed battery on other prisoners while in jail.

After the dust had settled, fingers began pointing in different directions with accusations against concerning Mr. Martin's early release after serving just less than half of his 10 years, it's not clear how his early release was accomplished because there is no complete accounting of the credits he received for his early release date.

Just this last Friday, February, a similar event occurred in Fresno county in which a police officer from Selma was killed and the public is still in the dark about the particulars of this criminal's early release. SB 28 will remedy that.

The measure declares that all department of corrections and rehab records pertain to an inmate's release date, including their early release credits, not including, of course, any protected privacy, including like health records, should be made public records and are subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act. I respectfully ask for your support in allowing the public to know how these individuals are earning their credits to be released early by just also having it a post and having it posted to the Department of Corrections website.

Posting these data and allowing the public this information, no different than the crime stats or other public information. This would just allow the public to be informed. I respectfully ask for your support.

Thank you. We'll now move to any witnesses in support. Seeing none, we'll move to witnesses in support of this bill. In General, in this room. Seeing none, we will ask for opposition witnesses. Seeing none, we will now ask for other opposition witnesses. Please state your name, your organization, and that you oppose.

Melanie Kim, San Francisco Public Defender's Office. In opposition.

Thank you.

Glenn Backes. Ella Baker Center for Human Rights. In opposition.

Michael Garcia, Underground Scholar Initiative at Berkeley. In opposition.

Erin McCall, with the Underground Scholars Initiative at UC Berkeley, in opposition.

Elizabeth Brown, Underground Scholars Initiative, UC Berkeley. In opposition.

Daniel Trautfield, Felony Murder Elimination Project. In opposition.

Thank you. Seeing no other witnesses in this room, we'll now move on to witnesses waiting to testify via the teleconference service. Please just state your name, organization, and position. Moderator, if you would, please prompt the individuals waiting to testify in support or opposition, we will begin.

And if you are in support or opposed to this, please press one and then zero. We'll go to line 30. Line 30. Your line is open. We'll move on. We have no further in queue.

Thank you to all our witnesses. We'll now bring the discussion back to members. Members, do you guys have any questions, thoughts or concerns? Seeing none. Senator, would you like to close?

I just respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Do we have a motion.

Put on hold?

Yeah, we're going to put it on call until Senator Ocha Bogh here.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm not supporting the bill, but as a courtesy, I'm happy to make the motion since Senator Ochoa Bogh is not here.

Definitely. Senator Wiener has moved the bill as a courtesy. Can we have a roll call?

Thank you.

SB 288. The motion is depassed to Judiciary Committee. [Roll Call]

Thank you. The Bill has been placed on call.

Thank you.

We will be moving on to the consent calendar. Four items have been placed on consent. You have item number four, SB 290, by Senator Min. Item number five, SB 448 by Senator Becker. Item number 10. SB 602, by Senator Archuleta. Item 19, SB 530, by Senator Bradford. Can I have a motion? Moved by Senator Skinner. Can we have a roll call?

[Roll Call]

The consent calendar is now on call. We will wait 1 second. All right, we will be moving on to Senate Bill 719 by Senator Becker. Senator Becker, you have the floor when you're ready.

Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair, Members. SB 719 protects the freedom of the press to report and the public's right to know what is happening in the community by granting communities options to maintain access to police communications while simultaneously protecting sensitive identifying information. For 80 years, news outlets, journalists and the public had access to police radio communications. This access has proven to be critically important for public safety, police transparency and overall accountability.

However, in the last year, last really few years, law enforcement agencies or LEAs, some have fully encrypted the radio communications, cutting off this vital access to the public and press. Particularly transparent communications provide the public with the opportunity to prepare for emergencies, including shootings, crashes, natural disasters, other public safety events. Recently, Monterey Park, where the local police department has fully encrypted the radio communications.

The public was not notified of an active shooter for 5 hours after a mass shooting took the lives of 11 people last January. Some LEAs have recognized the importance of police radio transparency already. In my own district in Palo Alto, the Police Department had fully encrypted their communications, but soon decrypted to maintain transparency with the community. SB 719 preserves public safety by allowing public assets to LEA radio communications regarding shootings, crashes, natural disasters and other public safety events, playing that layer of accountability for communities.

This Bill also allow LEAs to comply with legislation in multiple ways. And again, I appreciate the feedback from that community to make sure we really do put back in multiple ways of complying and include specific carve-outs for protected or sensitive information and covert operations, so we're not harming, not putting any police officers in harm's way at all as a result of this Bill. Now is certainly not the time to restrict access to police radio in our communities.

We have two witnesses today from the California News Publishers Association and from KCBS Radio. That's it.

Thank you. So each witness will have two minutes to speak. We do time. And will the other witness also get ready in line? And then afterwards we're going to have support witnesses line up and I'm hoping that you guys, line up now. You have the floor. Two minutes. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Brittney Barsotti. I'm the General Counsel at the California News Publishers Association here in strong support of SB 719. We represent over 800 publications throughout the State of California that depend on police radio transmissions to be able to cover breaking news as well as report on how those responses to breaking news events occur.

A survey of our members found last year that 79% of our members find monitoring these transmissions extremely effective to be able to report on ongoing issues. As the Senator mentioned, we found that there is a reasonable balance and alternatives to being able to go from fully de-encryption. There's the online streaming opportunity and other language that we've worked on in the Bill and feel that this does strike the appropriate balance between protecting privacy, the public safety, and the public's right to know. And with that, I'll respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Any other support witnesses? Lead support? All right, we'll move on to yourself. Name, organization, and you support?

Destiny McDonald, and I'm with the Citizen app, and we're in strong support.

Thank you.

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

Thank you. Do we have any other support witnesses? Seeing none, we'll move on to opposition witnesses. Lead opposition has two minutes. Seeing no opposition witnesses. Do we have any other opposition witnesses in the room? Seeing none, we'll move. Sorry, you have one? Okay. Name, organization, and.

Good morning. Elisa Arcidiacono with the League of California Cities in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Now we will move on to those waiting to testify via teleconference service. Please just state your name, organization, and position. Moderator, if you'd please prompt the individuals waiting to testify, we will begin.

And if you're in support or opposed of this, please press one and then zero. One moment, please. Once again, if you're in support or opposed, please press one and then zero. We do have one. One moment, please.

Not sure why the league of cities would oppose it, but I think this is important public policy for transparency and appreciate the author bringing it. And I move the Bill. Thank you. Senator, would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for my vote.

Thank you. We have a motion by Senator Skinner. It has been moved. Can we call a roll call? SB 719. The motion is do passed to appropriation. [Roll Call]. The Bill has been placed on call. Thank you. All right, we will now hear presentation on item number 14, SB 753, by Senator Caballero. Senator Wahab is presenting. Thank you. Senator Caballero is presenting Senate Bill 753. She's unable to attend, so I am here on her behalf.

This bill will enhance the penalty punishable as a misdemeanor or felony, also known as a wobbler, if an operator or an illegal cannabis grow site is found to have stolen water, tampered with water infrastructure, or dug an unpermitted well. California's arid climate means that every year, regardless of the year's rain output, our water resources are stretched thin. Climate change is exacerbating California's dry season, and as a result, the state is experiencing more frequent and longer lasting periods of severe, extreme, and exceptional drought.

According to a recent calm matters report, examples of water theft by illicit cannabis grows in the state are prolific. In 2020, the Brookings Institute estimated that upwards of 9.5 million gallons of water was diverted by illegal cannabis activities. That's drinking water for our communities, water for environmental habitat that support fish and wildlife, and water to help combat forest fires. Current law does not provide a deterrence or a resource to track and stop the illicit activities of a multibillion dollar criminal industry.

The State Water Resources Control Board has the authority to fine illegal cannabis operations up to $1,000 a day for stealing water. But for this level of criminal activity, a fine is simply not enough. In 2018, state officials charged over $1 million in fines to over 1000 water rights violators. Yet we continue to see a growing problem. For years, thousands of illicit cannabis growers, primarily in rural areas, have increased the risk of the health and safety of California's to wildlife and our groundwater supply.

Illicit cannabis cultivators frequently engage in water theft and environmental pollution as part of their operations. The extensive use of pesticides, nitrates, and other pollute groundwater supplies in rivers, making the water unfit for drinking and causing harm to wildlife. This legislation clarifies existing state law to penalize groundwater pollution and water theft in cases of illegal cannabis growing or farming.

The goal of this bill is to protect one of our most valuable resources, water, and punish the behavior of illicit cannabis cultivators that refuse to get licensed and undermine the work that we've done to promote the legal and safe consumption of cannabis products. For all these reasons, I ask that you consider adding criminal penalties.

I believe that punishing this activity as a criminal offense is not only warranted, but also absolutely critical to protect our natural resources and vulnerable communities who are dependent on dwindling water supplies and deliveries. With me today to testify in support of the bill and facilitate questions is Sid Nag, policy advocate with Rural County Representatives of California.

Thank you, chair Wahab. My name is Siddarth Nag and I am here with Rural County Representatives of California. We'd like to thank Senator Caballero for her continued leadership in this space and the chair for her subbing in for Senator Caballero. Today, illegal cannabis remains a serious threat in California. Illegal cultivators commit worker exploitation, water theft and environmental pollution is par for course with their illegal production. And because sites can go undetected for years, the environmental damage they cause can be truly devastating over time.

On top of these ordinary, extraordinary challenges, counties plagued with illicit cultivation have also been reckoning with historic drought and extreme water scarcity. Counties that rely on key waterways, like the Russian River and Mendocino County, are forced into greater challenge when their constrained supply is siphoned by illegal actors. In one Mendocino County Water district, for instance, theft from hydrants forced local authorities to lock those hydrants, greatly complicating, impeding their emergency response.

Another district, despite operating under a new hookup moratorium, suffered multiple, nearly a dozen incidents of water theft, greatly taxing their water supply. Our current penalties are not strong enough to deter individuals from engaging this activity, and they do not specifically recognize the harms from that. Illegal actions pose to our water resources, including unpermitted wells to our groundwater.

I need not go on, and I need not go on, especially for several of you, this committee today about how the illegal sector greatly impairs the ability of legal cultivators to survive the economic challenges they face in the market. SB 753 reflects amendments requested by this committee in a previous version of this bill. We thank the author for support. We thank the chair once again for subbing in, and I'm here to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you.

Excuse me.

We'll now see if there's any other witnesses in support. Just your name and affiliation.

Yes, Madam Chair and members. Amy Jenkins, on behalf of Cannabis Companies Canacraft and March and Ash, as well as the County of San Bernardino, in strong support.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And Members Aaron Avery with the California Special Districts Association, in support. Thank you.

Any other witnesses in support in the room? All right, then we'll hear from our lead witness in opposition. Do we have a lead witness in opposition? All right, do we have any opposition in the room? Who wants to come to the syndicate? Your name and affiliation?

Melanie Kim, San Francisco Public Defender's Office. In opposition.

Okay, thank you. Anybody else? All right, seeing no other in the room, then we'll go to the phone lines, and this can be either opposition or support and just your name and affiliation. Go ahead phone lines.

Thank you. And if you're in support or opposed, please press one, then zero at this time. We have no one in queue at this time. Please continue.

Okay, so any questions or comments by our committee members? I would just add that we voted on a bill very similar to this last year. I supported it, so I will be supporting it again. We can have the author close if there's a motion.

Thank you for the testimony today. I cannot overstate the importance of this measure to ensure our state's water is protected. And we continue to support the legal cannabis industry that operates within the parameters of the law. If we can deter criminal behavior by enhancing penalties, this bill will not only succeed in protecting valuable water resources, but will also help to strain the legal market. The state has an obligation to protect our natural resources, and that's what this bill will do.

I do also just personally want to add water is life, and we have a limited resources. Thank you. And I respectfully request your aye vote on behalf of Senator Caballero.

Do we have a motion? Okay, so, so moved. All right, so we have a motion, and we've gotten the close, so let's do a roll call.

SB 753. Motions do pass to natural resources. [Roll Call]

So the bill is on call, and now we will give the gavel back to the chair.

Thank you. Right, we have Senator Seyarto, who will be presenting SB 453. The floor is yours.

Thank you very much and thank you, chair and committee, for hearing this important bill. This is SB 453 and it is a good cause court extension bill. SB 453 would provide clearer guidelines as to what constitutes good cause for extending certain court deadlines. Current state and federal law bestows a criminal defendant with the right to a speedy and fair trial. Consequently, California Penal Code outlines various procedural deadlines that must be met relating to the timing of the defendant's trial date.

If those deadlines are not met as specified in statute, then the case may be dismissed. However, California Penal Code 1382 allows extensions to be made for these deadlines if there is good cause. Unfortunately, what constitutes good cause is not clarified in law. This legal ambiguity has led to release of defendants charged with violent and dangerous crimes with zero accountability. While defendant rights are a foundational value of our country and state, fairness and justice are equally essential to the welfare of the people.

The additional burdens persisting from the recent Covid-19 pandemic and California's perpetual judgeship shortage have yet to be accounted for in state policy. Explicit good cause guidelines for extending these statutory court deadlines will help to better address the increasingly overwhelming caseload while ensuring a fair trial for all parties involved.

SB 453 would clarify that the good cause term for the purpose of extending certain court deadlines shall include, but not be limited to, instances in which either party is subject to brief illness, quarantine, inability to accommodate witness availability despite diligence, or insufficient courtroom staff availability. With me today to testify, I have Deputy District Attorney Jesse Male and Assistant Director of Victim Services Division Patricia Cardenas from the Riverside County District Attorney's office lead witness.

You have two minutes. We will be timing. Thank you.

Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair and committee members. My name is Jesse Male. I am a prosecutor in Riverside County where 1782 cases have been dismissed following the expiration of emergency orders. This bill would adopt as a matter of law the legal consensus that individual and public health are good reasons for not meeting the statutory due date for trial. This bill is necessary because it is entirely up to the discretion of fallible human beings as to whether to apply case law that provides well reasoned analyses as to why both individual and public health meet the standard for good cause under Section 1382. I have seen individual illness used as a litigation strategy and it is demoralizing to see that be an issue in litigation. I have heard victims of domestic violence describe years of abuse before they gained the courage to report their abuser.

I have sat with a grandmother seeking justice for the grandchild she lost in a vehicular homicide. It is poor public policy to let widescale illness like a pandemic be leveraged for individual gain in litigation or as leverage to extract additional funding from the Legislature and to leave victims with no recourse and no justice. This bill would stop individual health Covid skepticism or frustration with public health orders from being weaponized into litigation. This bill would not infringe constitutional speedy trial rights, which could still be raised in appropriate motions. This bill would not permit indefinite continuances as a relevant question. Is always the duration of delay needed.

The use of the term following in subdivision d four leaves the issue open to judicial interpretation as to when congestion following pandemic is no longer attributable to the pandemic, but to the Legislature's failure to provide resources, and a single witness's unavailability would not permit repeat continuances in large multidefendant cases under subdivision d two because the length of time needed for such cases means that witness availability is easily addressed by scheduling within trial.

D two would be most applicable to smaller cases like domestic violence and DUI, where the short length of trial does not provide such flexibility. These misdemeanor DUI and domestic cases are most frequently dismissed in Riverside recently and would not have resulted in prison sentences, but most likely probation, providing rehabilitative services. Instead of adjudication on the merits, defendants go without rehabilitative services.

Your time's over. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Do we have any other support witnesses? Lead support. Two minutes. Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair and committee members. I am Patty Cardenas, Assistant Director with the division of victim services at Riverside County District Attorney's office. I'm here in support of SB 453 and to share concerns Riverside County residents have expressed to us as they've experienced the life altering impacts of crime and recent case dismissals under Section 1382. It is incredibly important for this Committee to be informed of the public safety crisis in Riverside County that is impacting our residents and revictimizing survivors. The dismissed cases include serious and violent felonies such as intimate partner violence, sexual assault, and hundreds of driving under the influence cases. Our victim services specialists are tasked with notifying victims of their rights, per Marcy's Law, and with supporting victims who are in crisis following the victimization. Recently, this has included relaying the devastating news that their case may be dismissed.

These victims are left understandably outraged and their faith in our justice system fractured. In people versus Cradock, the victim was riding a motorcycle and suffered serious bodily injuries after being struck by a vehicle and dragged across the asphalt by a drunk driver. When told the case would be dismissed because there was no courtroom available, our victim felt compelled to exercise his constitutional right to be heard and drive through the night from Idaho to Riverside to address the court in person and let the court know this crime had severely and irrevocably impacted his entire life. Unable to regain his balance as he struggled to recover from physical injuries, his mobility is now impaired. Due to the dismissal, he did not receive a restitution order, and he's been unable to recover financially for his medical bills and loss of property. In a dismissed sexual assault case, people versus Ortiz, the defendant was a senior pastor at a local community church. The dismissal caused extreme emotional distress to the minor victim and her family, who believe the community is left vulnerable for more victimization because the defendant was not made accountable.

These charges were registerable offenses and, if found true, would have given the public the opportunity to become aware of the pastor's abhorrent actions with minors. It is reasonable to make individual and public situations. Yes, ma'am. Thank you.

Thank you. I do appreciate your comments. We will move on to witnesses in support in this room. Please state your name, your organization that you support.

Ivy Fitzpatrick, managing deputy District Attorney at the Riverside County District Attorney's office, representing the California District Attorneys Association in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any other witnesses in support? Seeing none, we will move on to opposition. Lead witnesses. You have two minutes.

Good morning, members of the committee. My name is Oliver Kroll. I'm an attorney at the San Francisco public defender. We oppose Senate Bill 453 because it would severely undermine the right to a speedy trial, the most fundamental right that you have if you're accused of a crime. We know from recent experiences the injustices that result when the speedy trial right is disregarded. We represented a woman, a mother of a teenage daughter, who was wrongly accused of aiding and abetting a homicide. She spent two and a half years in jail without trial. When finally her case came before a jury, there was so little evidence that the judge actually dismissed the case before it even reached the jury. But her daughter had to grow up for two and a half years without her mother. We represented another man who was in jail for a year without trial. And finally, when we got his case to a jury, he was acquitted within 1 hour.

That's what happens when speedy trial rights are disregarded. And that's exactly the problem with Senate Bill 453. It would carve so many exceptions into the speedy trial writers to make it almost meaningless. It would allow delays whenever any witness is unavailable, doesn't have to be a material witness, doesn't matter if other witnesses could testify to the same facts. And it would allow delays following an emergency without any showing that those delays were caused by an emergency. And it puts no limit on the number of times that continuances could be granted. Now, this bill is unnecessary because Covid-19 already is good cause for a delay under long established California law. And of course, the harm that this bill would cause would not fall equally on all communities. In San Francisco, just 6% of the population is black, but if you look at people who are detained past their deadline in jail, 50% are black, and that drives inequities elsewhere in the system. So we would respectfully ask you to vote no on this measure.

Thank you. Next lead witness. You only have two minutes.

Good morning. Leslie Caldwell, Houston for the California Public Defenders Association. First, in regards to the Riverside situation, according to a Riverside presiding judge's press release not that long ago, 94% of dismissed cases are misdemeanors, likely all out of custody. The problems of Riverside's court congestion are due to decades of underfunding from the state. As far as back as the early 2000s, judges were sent from all over the state to Riverside to help them with their congestion. This bill is not necessary. This bill takes far too simple an approach to a very complex area of the law. In so doing, this bill attempts to undo many decades of consistent case law and to allow almost indefinite continuances, leading to endless incarceration. People detained without trial lose their housing, their jobs, custody of their children, contact with their families, and are further pushed to the margins of society. The lengthy and over lengthy pretrial detention is itself a public safety issue. Existing law already addresses the issues raised by this bill.

For instance, the failure of a properly subpoenaed witness is already good cause to continue. A prosecutor's inability to subpoena after a demonstration of good faith can lead to good cause for a continuance. A prosecutor's failure to subpoena due to inability to locate the witness can be considered excusable neglect and could be refiled charges for a third time. Courts have already held that medical quarantine is good cause to continue. Covid-19 good cause to continue, a delay caused by judicial emergency that led to.

Time, I appreciate it. Thank you.

We request your no vote.

We will now move on to opposition witnesses. Please state your name, your organization, and that you oppose.

Glenn Backes Ella Baker Center, opposed.

Thank you.

Anthony DI Martino, Californians for Safety and Justice, opposed.

Melanie Kim, San Francisco Public Defender's Office, opposed, and opposition on behalf of Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice. Thank you.

Daniel Trautfield, Felony Murder Elimination Project, opposed.

Michael Garcia, Underground Scholarly Initiative, UC Berkeley, in opposition.

Erin McCall, Underground Scholars Initiative at UC Berkeley, in opposition.

Elizabeth Brown, Underground Scholars Initiative, opposed.

All right, we'll move on to witnesses waiting to testify via the teleconference service. Please just state your name, organization and position. Moderator if you'd please prompt the individuals waiting to testify.

To provide public comment in support or opposition to SB 453, please press 1 and 0 at this time. And first, we'll hear from line 25.

Sharita Moore, on behalf of California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, in opposition.

And next, we'll hear from line 30

Lawrence Cox from legal services for prisoners with children and opposed.

And we have no further comments at this time.

Thank you. We'll now bring the discussion back to members. Members, do any of our members have any questions, comments or thoughts? Seeing none, we will move on. Senator, would you like to close?

Yes, I would. Please. Thank you. So, members, let me be clear. The decades long judgeship shortage across the state, and particularly in Riverside County, is nothing short of a public safety emergency. The bill, SB 453, does not create a new concept. The existing good cause provision, allowing the extension of trial dates, has never before been considered a violation of the right to a speedy trial. My bill simply provides legislative clarity for this long established practice. To eliminate proceedings for a case altogether is not an efficient solution. It's a failure of one of our most fundamental institutions. Access to a functioning judicial system is a basic right for anyone living in California. We need to do everything we can to provide the necessary guidance in statute to ensure that that right is protected.

My bill, SB 453, provides necessary common sense standards that will hold judges accountable to ensure trials are held for all cases of merit and not lazily dismissed on the grounds of strained capacity so that everybody, regardless of status or background, can be guaranteed their day in court. One of the comments concerned that the disproportionate effect on black and brown people, and this always disappoints me because the victims are disproportionately black and brown people and we never talk about them. We need to talk about them.

We need laws that protect our victims, and when laws aren't working, we need to rein those in so that we can protect all of our communities. Furthermore, my bill is nothing to enhance or modify sentencing, nor does it change anything from how a bail is done. The notion that this will lead to increased pretrial incarceration is absurd, considering most of the accused will be released on their own recognizance, just as they are now under existing law. Until the state steps up and provides the appropriate amount of judges to create a judiciary system that is fair both to the victims and the accused, we need to address the shortfalls. And this is a shortfall, make no mistake about it.

So, with that, I humbly ask for an aye vote, so that we can continue this conversation and we can continue to work towards making sure that the most vulnerable people, the most vulnerable populations are protected from predators who are just being released out there because we have a broken system, because there is a clause, it says, if California, if the government is part of the process of making it, a process that's not working, then that's not a cause for us to do this. However, I would offer that if that's the case, then the government is actually responsible for what happens when these people are released. So where do these people sign up to sue the government? I'm tired of this. We need to start protecting our citizens that are victims and not having all of our focus be on the people perpetrating crimes. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have a motion on this bill? The bill has been moved by Senator Ochoa Bogh. Can we have roll call.

SB 453, the motion is do passed to appropriation. [Roll Call]

The bill will be placed on call. Thank you. We are now going to move on to Senator Durazo. Senator Durazo will be presenting SB 763, followed by SB 749. Senator, you have the floor.

Thank you. Good morning, Chair Wahab and members, I'm proud to present SB 763 to extend automatic record relief for specified felony convictions that occurred on or after January 1, 1973. Current law provides that relief for these types of convictions that occurred on or after January 1, 2005. So it's the date that we're looking to change. When my bill, SB 730, was signed into law last year, California became a national leader towards providing post conviction relief to the tens of millions of people across America who need it. This bill, SB 763, changes the eligible conviction date for those convicted of a felony who have successfully completed their sentence to go on to, on or after January 1, 1973. There are 8 million people in California living with an arrest or conviction on their record. They are siblings, our parents, neighbors, and coworkers.

When an individual completes their sentence, they have paid their debt to society and accepted responsibility for their actions. Research shows that after approximately four to six years, their chance of committing another crime is the same as anyone else. However, without record relief, millions of Californians are not able to put their skills and education to use. They are hit with literally thousands of restrictions and limitations that keep them from building a new life. Past record denies a new family from moving into a new house, denies mothers the chance to pursue a career in healthcare, and denies fathers the opportunity to coach their children. This bill continues our important work to provide individuals the tools to turn the page on their past and the opportunity to build a new, better life. Speaking in support of the bill will be Anthony Di Martino from Californians for Safety and Justice. Thank you.

Thank you. You have the floor. Two minutes.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Senators. My name is Anthony DiMartino, and I'm here on behalf of the sponsors of this bill, Californians for Safety and Justice. First, I want to thank the Senator for carrying the bill last year. SB 731, Senator Bradford for also being a joint author, and then the committee's work on this bill the last two years. SB 763, would open doors to those facing employment and housing barriers by expanding California's automated expungement relief to those who were convicted dating back to 1973. 8 million California residents have criminal convictions that hamper their ability to find work and housing, secure public benefits, or even be accepted to college. 90% of employers, 80% of landlords, and 60% of college screen applicants criminal records. 76% of individuals with a criminal conviction report instability in finding a job or housing, obtaining a license, paying for fines or fees, and having health issues. Lack of access to employment and housing are primary factors driving recidivism.

Thank you. Do we have any other lead support witnesses? Seeing none, we will move on to support witnesses. Please state your name, your organization and that you support. We're hoping to move through this quickly. Thank you.

Criminal records are serious barriers to successful reentry and come at a great cost to California's economy. California loses roughly $20 billion per year in Gross Domestic Product due to employment losses among people with criminal records. Current law allows individuals to expunge arrests that did not result in a conviction and convictions that are eligible for dismissal by petitioning the court. This imposes a burden on affected individuals to be made aware of their eligibility and retain an attorney to proactively file the necessary petition. Under the current petition based record clearance model, each record costs the system roughly $4,000, whereas an automated system costs four cents per record. Less than 20% of eligible people have been convicted have been estimated to obtain record clearance. Even if the process could be made available to all those eligible, the volume of petitions would place enormous resource demands on courts and prosecutors and take years to process.

This is why over the last four years, we have worked closely with Senator Durazo, Assemblymember Ting, and several members of this committee to pass the country's most progressive automated expungement relief program. However, this automated expungement relief is not retroactive for all eligible individuals and severely limiting people's ability to have their records expunged. SB 763 expands this relief to records that date back to 1973, creating equity for all. For these reasons, we are proud to sponsor and respectfully request your aye vote.

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

Melanie Kim, San Francisco Public Defender's Office. In support.

Elizabeth Brown, Underground Scholars Initiative. In support.

Erin McCall, Underground Scholars Initiative. In support.

Michael Garcia, Underground Scholar Initiative, UC Berkeley. In support.

Thank you. Do we have any other support witnesses? Seeing none, we will move to lead opposition witnesses. Seeing none, we will move to opposition witnesses in general. Seeing none, we will now move on to those 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, we will begin to provide public comment.

In support or opposition to SB 763. Please press one and then zero at this time. And first we'll hear from line 31.

Good morning. Rebecca Gonzalez with the National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter, in support.

Line nine.

Morning Chair and members, Jerry Desmond, on behalf of the California Association of Licensed Investigators. CaLi supports efforts to provide a fresh start for those who paid their debts to society. But 763 is an overreach that would upset the balance of justice.

Thank you. It's either support or opposition. Appreciate it.

Next we'll hear from line 43.

Shrita Moore, on behalf of California attorney for criminal justice. In support.

Line 30.

Lawrence Cox, legal services for prisoners with children in support.

Line 36.

I'm President, current Governor Ferris, chair of the California Association of Licensed Investigators. Strong opposition. This Bill places the public. Thank you. Supporter. Opposition only. Thank you.

Thank you. Support or opposition only. Thank you.

In line 44.

Shervin Aazami, initiate justice action, strong support.

Line 45.

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

We have no further comments at this time.

Thank you. We'll now move on to the discussion amongst members. Members, do we have any questions, concerns, thoughts? Senator Ochoa Bogh

Thank you, Madam Chair. A couple of thoughts and questions for the author on the bill. So I have here in my notes, and one of the concerns that I have for this because I believe in honesty, and we have family members that own businesses that hire formerly incarcerated people, knowing what the crimes are, because the owners believe in giving people second chances. So I'm very much in the culture that people should be given second chances and be able to have an opportunity to move forward, especially if they have served their sentences.

But I do believe that the concern that I have, and I think it's expressed by many, is the fact that by expunging it or removing these records, that there's no means by which boards or employers or even just any general person would not be able to know whether or not they're hiring or they're accepting volunteers that may reflect or might be counterintuitive based on the crime that was committed to the space of work that they're going to be working on. I'm not sure if that makes, if I'm clear enough.

So I believe that there should be full disclosure and honesty if you're hiring someone, understanding what the background was with regards to the crime that was convicted, because I think people should have the right to see whether or not those inclinations for that crime would have an impact on the people or the programs, which the businesses or the boards or whatever new space they're trying to work with should be relevant and considered on whether or not they should be employed or volunteering in that particular space moving forward, and would love to hear your thoughts on that end. And then the other concern I have with the Bill is right now, I know that there is, I believe it says here that there are exceptions for this, and I believe it includes it.

I believe it's battery, domestic violence, stalking, human trafficking. In California, they're not considered violent or serious. But these would not be included within the exceptions for this Bill, right?

Someone who had human trafficked, someone had been convicted for that, would not necessarily be exempted from this consideration in this Bill because in California, human trafficking is not considered a serious, violent and serious crime. Is that correct?

Well, let me just talk about the other issue that you raised with regards to. There are agencies that will continue to have access to records even if they've been expunged, law enforcement agencies, security organizations, human services work involving the care of children, Commission on Teacher Credentialing. So there are agencies that will continue to have access to that information. Individual employers won't. With regards to, I'm sorry, your question on there are certain sexual offenses, what would make an individual ineligible?

It's got to be four years after the conviction, a new felony conviction, serving time for current offense, serving time on probation or parole. So there's a number of exceptions that would make an individual ineligible.

And I think that's where my question came into. You know, the definitions of different crimes, whether or not they're misdemeanors or felonies, have changed in California. And we're in a process where we're testing many of these decriminalization, and I say testing because we don't know what the ultimate outcome, the Legislature has hopes in these outcomes for the decriminalization, for many of these crimes from felonies and misdemeanors.

But ultimately, it's going to take several years for us to gather the data and see whether or not these are, what's the word I'm looking for, if they're effective in what they were aiming for. And so by expunging them and not having clear definitions as to what, or decriminalizing something that was a felony, perhaps, or even things such as human trafficking, that's not considered a serious. I always have a problem with that. I'm sorry.

Violent and serious crime, those could potentially be eligible to be hired and expunged, have their records expunged and be able to be hired without the knowledge of the employers. Correct?

Well, it's pretty clear which are the things that would make an individual ineligible for automatic relief. They're very clearly listed here. And so I don't know that there's any ambiguity who would be covered, who would be ineligible for this automated and automatic relief. So the main thing here is that with all of these exceptions in terms of who has access, who doesn't have access to the records. What would make an individual ineligible is pretty clear.

Again, the main issue here is that they have done their time. They have served their time, they have passed their probation, passed all the conditions that were put on them at some point, and four years after that, no new conviction. They would be able to go on with their lives. Otherwise, it's going to keep haunting them, and it's going to be used against them, and they need to move on with their lives.

Thank you, Senator. Senators, do we have any other comments or concerns? Thoughts? Seeing none. Senator, would you like to close?

I ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have a motion? Moved by Senator Bradford. Can we have a roll call?

SB 763, the motion is do pass to Appropriations. [Roll Call]

[Roll Call]

The motion's on call. I mean, the Bill is on call. Thank you. Now we will go to SB 655. Senator Durazo, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. SB 655 will address barriers to victims, compensation, remove unjust eligibility restrictions, and reduce red tape so that survivors can get the help that they need. Life becomes complicated, expensive and confusing for victims and family members after a crime. While California's Victim Compensation Program is in many ways a national leader, survivors entitled to compensation still face many hurdles accessing it, and thousands of claims are denied each year.

In fact, research has found that the types of eligibility restrictions California's program has contribute to inequitable rates of compensation denials, including disproportionate denials for Black victims and families. In addition, the survivors who do qualify must navigate overwhelming paperwork and restrictions that limit the kind of resources they are eligible for. This leaves many survivors so discouraged that they decide to opt out altogether.

This is why we need SB 655 to reduce processing timelines and streamline the claims process, allowing survivors more time to provide additional information or to appeal, making emergency awards more accessible and removing redundant documentation requirements that slow the process down. SB 655 would make access to compensation more equitable, allowing access to compensation regardless of perceived victim cooperativeness, and by limiting denials based on subjective assessments of victim behavior.

This Bill would expand existing policy, allow survivors of some types of crimes to use other forms of reliable documentation in addition to a police report as evidence. And this has served many California survivors for years. It should now apply to all survivors of violent crime. Today I have with me two of our co-sponsors as witnesses in support of this Bill. Anthony DiMartino, Director of Government Affairs, Californians for Safety and Justice, and Gabriel Garcia, Policy and Advocacy Director for Youth ALIVE!.

Two minutes.

Good morning again, Madam Chair and Senators. My name is Anthony DiMartino. I'm speaking on behalf of Crime Survivors for Safety and Justice and Californians for Safety and Justice, two of the Bill's co-sponsors. I will actually be reading the statement on behalf of our organization's Executive Director, Tinisch Hollins. Unfortunately, she had a last-minute engagement that she was not able to attend. Apologies, Committee. My name is Tinisch Hollins, and I'm the Executive Director of Californians for Safety and Justice.

I'm also the state Director of CSSJ, the state's largest network of victims and survivors. We have over 52,000 crime survivors in our network here in California. CSSJ is proud to sponsor SB 655. I am a surviving family member of two homicide victims. I've lost two brothers to gun violence, and the trauma of losing them caused irreversible damage to my immediate family. Some lost jobs, some lost homes, and some have literally lost their lives from self medicating, unable to cope with the pain.

Any barrier to getting help or support causes more transition and can place people in more danger. It is critical, especially in this moment, that we assess the needs of all victims. It's in the best interest of public safety. While California's Victim Compensation Program is in many ways a national leader, thousands of claims are denied each year. State spending on victim services represents about 1% of what the state spends on the prison system.

In other words, California spends nearly 80 times more on prisons than on services for crime victims. This legislation makes several model changes to improve access and to address restrictions which have, for too long, divided victims into categories of deserving or undeserving along racial lines. In 2021, Alameda County grand jury report found that compensation denials based on alleged lack of cooperation or victim blaming drive disparities in denials for Black survivors and are systematically racially biased. SB 655 would address these restrictions.

The Bill would expand access to support for survivors who do not immediately report to law enforcement and end denials based on perceived victim cooperativeness. In California, 6 in 10 violent crimes are not reported to police. That means that overwhelming majority of survivors are currently not eligible for help from CalVCB. We also hear from survivors who have been labeled. Time? Okay, thank you so much.

I'm going to be very strict about the time, guys. Okay? Our next speaker, two minutes.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair and Members, my name is Gabriel Garcia. I'm the Policy and Advocacy Director for Youth ALIVE!. We are Oakland's anchor organization for violence prevention, intervention, healing. And we serve victims of violent crime. That's why we know intimately what it looks like for victims and survivors when they get denied these resources.

Oftentimes our clients have nowhere else to turn, whether they want to bury their loved ones with dignity, seek mental health care to jumpstart the recovery, or get access to reimbursement for their medical bills after suddenly, tragically being impacted by violence. When our folks get accepted, we're very grateful. But when we get denied, we're equally heartbroken. And one of the reasons for that is the determinations of cooperation and involvement--that you heard about today--oftentimes are unfairly used against our clients and community members.

Some examples of this cooperation: One of our clients believes that his daughter was killed because she cooperated with law enforcement. Whether or not this perception is real, this is what our community members are dealing with on a regular basis. They're putting themselves at risk in order to cooperate with law enforcement without any idea that they will receive the protection they need to feel secure enough to come forward. When it comes to involvement, we've had instances that would be comical if it wasn't so tragic.

One instance where somebody was breaking up a fight, they said, if you're going to shoot anybody, shoot me. They were shot. That was included in the police report, and they were denied these vital services. This is the status quo. And that is why we are proud to support, co-sponsor SB 655 because victims and survivors need access to these healing resources. There is no system set up for these folks who fall through the cracks who again are denied and cut off from these vital supports. Thank you.

Thank you. Can we have support witnesses state their name, organization that they support.

Glenn Backes, Ella Baker Center in support.

Thank you.

Natasha Minsker, Prosecutors Alliance of California and Smart Justice California, in support.

Thank you. Seeing no other support witnesses, we'll move on to lead opposition witnesses. You have two minutes.

Good morning. Ivy Fitzpatrick, Riverside County District Attorney's Office, speaking on behalf of the California DA's Association. While the DA's Association obviously strongly supports victims of crime, this particular Bill is ill-advised, and I'll give you some reasons why here. So it would expand payments from the Restitution Fund to persons who were involved in the crime they seek payment for. It would also expand compensations to persons who fail to cooperate with law enforcement to apprehend or convict the offender or who fail to cooperate with the board.

The amendment to Government Code Section 13954 eliminates the requirement that an applicant for payment cooperate with board staff to verify information in the application, and it also eliminates the requirement that the failure to cooperate be reported to the board. It also deletes the board's discretion to deny compensation based on that failure to cooperate, discretion, so it would remove that.

The amendment to Government Code Section 13956 also repeals the board's ability to deny compensation if it finds that the denial is appropriate because of the nature of the applicant's involvement in the events leading to the crime. It also repeals provisions requiring the denial of compensation if the board finds that the applicant failed to cooperate reasonably with a law enforcement agency in the apprehension or conviction of the offender. Moreover, the amendment permits convicted offenders, including violent felons, to receive compensation while they are still incarcerated.

The Restitution Fund has been operating with a deficit for a number of years. It's bad policy to further deplete the resources for deserving crime victims who played no role in the crime against them and who cooperated with law enforcement and with the board. For this reason, CDA must oppose. Thank you.

Appreciate it. We will now move on to any other opposition witnesses. Seeing none. We will move on to those that are waiting via teleconference service. Please just state your name, organization and position. Moderator, if you'd please prompt the individuals waiting to testify.

To provide public comment in support or opposition to SB 655, please press one, then zero. At this time. We have no comments. Thank you. Thank you to all of the witnesses. We'll now bring the discussion back to members.

Members, do we have any questions, concerns or thoughts? Seeing none. Senator, would you like to close? Oh, Senator Ochoa Bogh, please. And we're going to have to call a break, too, so if we're going to.

Yes, I just had a question with regards to. My question has to do with the attorney Fitzpatrick and her comments that, just for clarification purposes, Senator Durazo, is your intent to have convicted felons while incarcerated have access to this?

If they're not involved in the crime, then they would have access.

But if they're convicted?

Right. But the key thing here is that they're not involved in the crime. If they are involved in the crime, they're not eligible.

So when we're talking about somebody that's being convicted, you're not referring to that specific crime that they're applying for, you're referring to something else, right?

Thank you. Senator, would you like to close?

Ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have a motion? We have a motion on this Bill by Senator Bradford. Can we call roll?

SB 655. Motion is. SB 655. The motion is do pass to Appropriations [Roll Call].

Thank you. This Bill has been placed on call. I appreciate your efforts.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

We will next have Senator Rubio. I believe that Senator Wiener will be presenting on her behalf. Senator Rubio is here, though. Right side. You can do it. Yes. Senator Wiener will be presenting SB 545 first. Senator, you have the floor.

I am playing the role of Susan Rubio today. You want to say something? Yes. Okay.

I am present, but my voice is gone. So Mr. Wiener is going to present on my behalf. Thank you.

Senator Rubio will tell me if I'm messing anything up. So we'll start with SB 545. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm happy to present this Bill on behalf of Senator Rubio. It's a simple but important Bill. The Safe Children act will stop child sex crime victims from being tried in adult court when they fight back against their abusers. Children who are trafficked sexually abused need to be recognized as victims who are preyed upon by adults.

Many of these children come from different backgrounds full of neglect or trauma, and this can make them easy targets for adults with sinister intentions. Too many of these children become trapped in an endless cycle of abuse. And unfortunately, when some of these children fight back against their abusers, they find themselves trapped in a new system of trauma, the criminal justice system. And that's because children who fight back against their abusers are often tried as adults in criminal court and sent to prison.

The Safe Children act recognizes that the right and moral thing to do is to treat these children as survivors who need healing and services, non incarceration. The Safe Children act accomplishes this by requiring the juvenile court to keep a child's sex crime victim within the juvenile system if it finds by clear and convincing evidence that the person they attacked had trafficked or sexually abused the child. The Safe Children act also declares the Legislature's intent that these children be provided treatment and services.

The Bill is sponsored by Human Rights for Kids and is supported by a diverse group of stakeholder organizations. Joining me today as witnesses in support are Jared Harper, who will share his lived experience as a survivor of abuse, whose life sentence was commuted by Governor Brown, and he was released from prison after serving 20 years. And also Emily Virgin from human rights for Kids.

Thank you. Each witness has two minutes. We will be timing. Please, the floor is yours.

How are you doing? Thank you all for allowing me to share space with you. A little less than four years ago, I was released from a California State prison after receiving a sentence of death as an abused foster child. From about six to thirteen, I was abused by multiple people. And at the age of sixteen, I lost control. I regrettably took the life of one of my abusers. I loved him. I cared about him. He tricked me into thinking that he loved me as well.

And it broke my heart after I took his life, because I felt like I didn't have anyone else. I had been in foster care since 17 months old. I felt like I didn't have anybody. After going to prison, after being tried as an adult, I went to prison with no one. But I transformed and I changed my life and I grew. I became someone that other men valued and looked up to.

After 20 years, I was committed by Governor Jerry Brown and then released by Governor Newsom. Today, I advocate on behalf of foster youth. I advocate to ensure that there's not another Jared Harper. Today, I'm 40 years old, have a 17 month old son. He's the same age I was when I went into foster care. I'm not sure if you all have children, but I see you all are adults. My hope is that you all protect children the way I'm going to protect my child.

Time.

Thank you.

Thank you. Next. You have two minutes.

Good morning, Madam Chair, Members. My name is Emily Virgin, and I serve as the Director of Advocacy and Government Relations at Human Rights for Kids. We're a national nonprofit dedicated to the promotion and protection of the human rights of children. I am testifying today in place of my colleague Sarah Cruzan, who's not able to be here today. Her case, which took place here in California, was the original inspiration for legislation like this.

Sarah is someone who would have been directly impacted by this Bill if it had been in place when she was a child. Sarah's life without parole sentence was commuted, and she received a full pardon from Governor Newsom last year. Sarah now works with us at Human Rights for Kids to ensure that child victims across the country are protected from lengthy sentences if they commit crimes against their traffickers or abusers.

We unfortunately, continue to see cases like Sarah and Jarrett's across the country, and that's why similar legislation hasn't been introduced in several other states. The reasons why sexually abused or trafficked children lash out against their offenders can be understood by examining psychological research, which tells us that grooming tactics lead to traumatic bonding. This phenomenon, coupled with the fact that children's brains are not fully developed, prevent them from understanding the consequences of their actions.

Children who suffer from repeated and brutal victimization often don't understand that they could be incarcerated for an action that they believe is self defense against their abusers. But the law does not always recognize this under the theory of self defense. Children who commit crimes against their abusers are especially deserving of our support and compassion. They are categorically different from other types of defendants in the criminal legal system.

And today we ask that you recognize these children as victims and survivors and keep them in the system that will best serve their needs so that they can be rehabilitated and healed. Thank you very much for your consideration, and we ask for your support.

Thank you. We will now move on to support witnesses. Those that would like to please come up to the mic. We're going to move pretty quickly. Name, organization, whether or not you support. Seeing none, we will now move on to lead opposition witnesses. You have two minutes. Seeing none, we will move on to opposition witnesses. Please state your name, organization, and that you oppose.

Ivy Fitzpatrick, Riverside County District Attorney's Office, representing CDAA, and we are opposed unless amended.

Thank you. Seeing no other opposition witnesses, we'll now move to those waiting to testify via teleconference service. Just please state your name, organization and position. Moderator.

To provide public comment in support or opposition to SB 545, please press one then zero at this time. And we'll hear from line 46.

Good morning. Sawait Seyoum, on behalf of Disability Rights California. And we are in support.

And we do have one more comment coming through. One moment, please, while we provide them with their line number.

One more moment, please. And line 33, please go ahead.

Hi, my name is Sarah Tufon, and I am in support of SB 545. Thank you.

We have no further comments at this time.

Thank you. We will now bring the discussion back to Members. I want to thank all the witnesses, especially you, sir. As a former foster youth myself, I think that a lot of people who haven't experienced the system really don't know the psychological and emotional effect it really does have on a person, even years and decades later. So thank you for your testimony. Do any of our Members have any questions, thoughts, concerns? Senator Ochoa Bogh?

Yes. I would like to speak to the conversations that are being had with the DA, the assistant DA from Riverside, with regards to the amendments that are being proposed, what they are for the record, and where we are in the process of having those conversations. I am in support of the Bill. So I'm just kind of curious about the amendments and where you're.

Yes, thank you for that question, Senator Ochoa Bogh. So we have had preliminary conversations with the DAs and also the public defenders about sort of the process that this Bill would put into place. The DAs, I think it's fair to say, do have concerns about the mandatory nature of keeping a child in the juvenile court jurisdiction. But beyond that, I think that we are in agreement that these are things that should be considered by the court. What we're working on is where exactly that fits in Section 707 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.

So that's where we're in agreement. The mandatory nature, I think, is not something that we would want to change. And then I think that the district attorneys in their support letter talked about how there is an affirmative defense in place for minors who are victims of trafficking. However, that does not apply to minors who commit violent crimes. And so that would not have affected cases like Sarah and Jarrett's that we're trying to address here today.

Senator, do you have any other?

No, I think I'm good.

Thank you. Other Senators, any comments? All right, well, I just want to highlight. Thank you, Senator Rubio, for bringing this forward. Again, thank you for your testimony as well. I personally feel that this is more complex than most people understand, especially as a child, when you are groomed to behave a certain way, to think a certain way, to be around certain people. We've also just seen recently in the last 48 hours what's happening in Sacramento County and what's happening to foster youth, and it's completely disgusting.

Right. So I'm proud to co-author this, Senator, if you would allow, and if I can ask for a motion. Senator Bradford, would you like to close Senator Wiener?

Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Can we call roll?

SB 545. The motion is do passed to appropriations. [Roll call]

Thank you. This Bill has been placed on call. Now we will have Senate Bill 558, another Senator Rubio Bill that Senator Wiener will be presenting. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I want to, on behalf of Senator Rubio, thank the Chair and committee staff, and we'll, on Senator Rubio's behalf, accept the committee amendments today to clarify the definition of distribution. SB 558 aims to strengthen protections for victims of child sexual abuse material and allow victims more time to seek justice after discovering their image.

This bill would also change the current provision to seek justice to 10 years after discovering child sexual abuse material, or until the victim turns 40 years of age, whichever comes later. In the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, online child sexual abuse material and grooming tripled as children were required to stay inside and had access to technology and social media platforms.

A study by the Australian Esafety Commissioner, which interviewed law enforcement officers and frontline responders around the world, found that the majority reported increases or increased cases of online sexual exploitation and abuse, including increased numbers of sexual abuse material. Many victims suffer in silence due to this traumatic experience, as they may feel ashamed or humiliated and fear their family, friends and classmates finding out. To effectively protect children from abuse. Statute of limitations must reflect this reality.

We need to ensure that these victims are provided this window to seek justice for this abusive and nonconsensual material that took place when they were children. Testifying today are Saanvi Arora, the Director of the Youth Power Project, and Shadi Amanzada, who will be testifying on behalf of Anastasia Chaglasian, a victim of this behavior. Of this criminal behavior who could not make it today.

Thank you. Witness, you will have two minutes. We will be timing you. Thank you. You have the floor.

Good morning. My name is Saanvi. I'm 18 years old and I'm a first year at UC Berkeley. I'm honored to represent the Youth Power Project in supporting SB 558. My family and I have never had a real conversation about sex. So when I was first harassed at a very young age by dangerous people, I had no idea what was going on.

And the sad reality is that thousands of boys and girls can relate to this because we don't actually have this kind of understanding at a young age, and we shouldn't have to. A few years ago, I met Ani, a child sexual abuse material survivor who's also my age.

We do a lot of casework with our peers who are survivors of sexual violence, who are survivors of child sexual abuse, and we have worked with them, and we've worked with hundreds of them on helping them file cases, helping them file reports, et cetera. And what we found was extremely disturbing. The current statute of limitations for cases regarding child sexual abuse material expires 10 years after the production of the material.

To further contextualize this, the average age for survivors depicted in child sexual abuse material is between six to eight years old, which means that these survivors will lose their ability to file cases against their abusers before they even turn 18. In other words, survivors can currently lose their ability to seek justice before they even finish high school, let alone discover that the abuse material exists. Child sexual abuse material not only tangibly and permanently documents violence.

Each file is also evidence of a crime scene, but we give it a very short shelf life. Current California law visibly discards child sexual abuse material when discussing matters of child abuse, which not only invalidates it as a source of trauma for survivors, but also disparages its ubiquitous effects on survivors lives.

Speaking of ubiquity, 322,000,000 files of child sexual abuse material were found on the Internet this year by the FBI, a number that's only believed to be, I think, 3% of the total number that's supposedly on the Internet. In California, we've seen child sexual abuse material triple throughout the pandemic.

But the number of cases that were filed dropped by 50% over the course of the pandemic, which shows that there's a huge divide between the number of cases being filed and the actual amount of child sexual abuse material being disseminated. Now more than ever, it's essential that as predators continue to adapt to the Internet, our laws do so as well. The display of obscene matter of an abused child should never be up for debate.

Time.

Thank you.

Thank you. Next witness, two minutes.

Good morning. My name is Sadi Ahmed-Zara. I'm a student at UC Berkeley and an LA native. I work with the Protect Kids, not Abusers Coalition with the Youth Power Project, which specializes in conducting casework with youth victims of sexual violence.

Senate Bill 558 was informed as a product of these students experiences, and I am honored to read testimony of these California high schoolers on their behalf, Boys in my middle school choir took and shared over 20 explicit, naked photos of me over a three year period taken unbeknownst to me while I was changing in a locker room during choir. These boys did not care for my privacy, and they felt comfortable casually disrespecting my body without hesitation or fear of repercussion.

Nevertheless, I mustered up the courage to tell my teacher, but my very valid concerns were dismissed. I was told, this is normal. It's not that bad. It's worse professionally. And nothing was done to protect my privacy. The boys kept, continued to take and share my photos while my pleas to my teacher were ignored. No matter how much I begged, time and time again, my experiences were minimized, forgotten, or ridiculed. And my life will never be the same. Today, I've quit choir.

I can't change in locker rooms. I see these boys every day at school. My fear of these photos can never be truly erased, and they stay with me every day. This student's testimony is one of hundreds we've collected through our outreach with victims of child sex abuse material, and they deserve to take recourse against their accusers. Their right shouldn't be taken away by a short, arbitrary deadline.

Oftentimes, these victims aren't aware that their materials are even out there until it's too late. For abusers looking to stay in this disgusting game for the long haul, there are so many loopholes that let them get away with lesser sentences. SC 558 closes some of these holes and puts survivors first. I strongly encourage an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. We'll now move on to support witnesses. Specifically state your name. Organization that you support.

Madam Chair Members. Randy Perry, on behalf of PORAC in support.

Anybody else? All right. Seeing none, we will move to lead opposition witnesses. Okay, sorry. Go ahead.

Jared Harper with Friends at Work. I urge your support.

Thank you. Any opposition witnesses? Lead opposition has two minutes. Seeing none, we will move on to 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 please prompt the individuals waiting to testify.

To provide public comment in support or opposition to SB 558, please press one, then zero at this time. And we have a comment from line 33.

Hi, yes, my name is Sara Kruzan. I'm with Human Rights for Kids. I am in support of SB 558.

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

So to the author would love to be added as a co author on this bill. Thank you very much for bringing it forth. For the witnesses and their bravery for being here today, kudos. You continue being strong advocates and may life treat you a little kinder moving forward.

Thank you. Any other Senators like to comment on this? Seeing none. Senator, would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Do we have a motion? Senator Bradford moves the bill. Can we ask for a roll call, please?

SB 558. Motion is due passed, as amended, to a Judiciary Committee. [Roll Call]

Thank you. This bill has been placed on call. Thank you, Senator Rubio. Thank you, Senator Wiener. We will move on. Senator Ochoa Bogh, do you feel that you would like to go next? Oh, sorry. Is Senator Jones here?

I'm here.

Zero, thank you. You were right in front of me. Senator Jones, would you like to present SB 832, please. The floor is yours.

Not the first time. Won't be the last, either. Good morning, chair and Members. Good job on getting the meetings fed up. We thought we were going to be here till five this afternoon, so I want to present a Senate Bill 832, which may look somewhat familiar to the Committee. It provides additional oversight to the process by which a sexually violent predator gets placed back into our communities.

A sexually violent predator, known as an SBP, is an individual convicted of a sexually violent offense and diagnosed with a specific mental disorder that causes them to be a danger to others with a high likelihood to reoffend. When an SBP is determined to be ready for release from civil commitment under the Department of State Hospitals, a process known as conrep begins. C-O-N-R-E-P conditional release. Currently, the Department uses a contractor to execute the entire conrep process, taking little to no responsibility for the oversight.

This Bill will make several important updates to the conrep process. First, Senate Bill 832 will require the highest priority for all potential SBP community placements to be public safety. Additionally, SB 832 requires the Department to take a bigger role in conrep by requiring the Department to approve any lease the vendor signs before it is signed. This will help curb the issue of the vendor being committed to a lease before a judge has approved the placement and thus being stuck with payment if the placement is denied.

This Bill will also provide additional transparency by requiring the Department to publish an annual public report about placements and requiring several state agencies to assess public lands in their control that may be adequate for use as SBP placements. Additionally, SB 832 requires svps to be placed more than 5 miles away from federal land, defined as Indian country, in order to respect the sovereign nature of tribal land throughout the state.

These small changes will afford more oversight to the placement process and help ensure more appropriate placements of svps. I have a couple of witnesses today, and there might be Senator Alvarado-Gil might come down to testify as well or to help with the close with me today, I have Rincon tribal Chairman Bo Mazzetti to testify in support, and our Senate colleague, Senator Ben Weisso, also here to testify in support.

Thank you. Your first lead witness has two minutes. Please approach the mic. And again, we are timing you.

Chair Members of the Committee, my name is Bo Mazzetti, Chairman of the Rincon band of Luiseno Indians in San Diego. county. I'm also President of the Southern California Tribal Chairman's Association and chair of the California Tribal Chairpersons Association. You all know that our reservations throughout the state, whatever county they're in, they're the most remote areas. We have the least amount of law enforcement. It's not anybody's fault. You just can't cover the area.

Our people were placed where they are in the counties throughout the state because the dominant society did not want the Indian people around them. Now what's happening? Some of the worst in society are being placed out by our homelands. We want to protect our women and children, too. So I ask you, if we talk about equality and justice, please support this Bill. Think of the any people throughout this state. I ask you humbly to support the Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Next support witness, two minutes.

Thank you very much. Ben Westo, former Senator representing San Diego and imperial counties. And formerly, I also worked as a City Council Member for the City of San Diego. And this was an issue that I've done quite a bit of work on over the years as a representative in government, I even worked with victims of sexual predators, also worked on some bills here on the Legislature that required monitoring of sexually violent predators, although it made it an optional process that the counties could follow.

Unfortunately, while we worked to adopt this program in San Diego, county, it was never fully adopted. So there are quite a bit of areas where we have holes in the process that lead to holding these individuals accountable and also ensuring that the victims of these predators are held safe. The process that we create often does not provide any safety to the predators. So this is a common sense Bill. I co authored it last year.

I hope that this year, this Bill could get further that the state government could work to create a process by which the victims of sexual predators could really live in safe communities. And I hope that you guys are willing to work with the author to make this Bill happen. Appreciate it very much. Thank you.

Thank you. We will now move on to support witnesses. Please state your name, organization and that you support, seeing none. We will move on to lead opposition witnesses. The lead opposition witness has two minutes. We will be timing. Thank you.

Good morning. Leslie Caldwell, Houston for the California Public Defenders Association in opposition to this Bill. Looking at the history of the SBPA shows us how misguided SB 832 is.

The SBPA is designed to ensure that the committed person does not remain confined any longer than they suffer from a mental abnormality. Sorry, I'm slipping. Rendering them unable to control their dangerousness. The statute recognizes that the need for custody and the need for treatment are two separate things. While we have deep respect for our indigenous peoples, banning placements within 5 miles of federal land, AK Indian country could cause considerable problems with placement.

There are between 100 and 109 separate reservations and rancherias, plus individual Indian trust allotments in California. A majority of these are in Riverside, San Diego and Mendocino counties. SBA 832's proposed ban, depending on the location of the reservations, could prohibit a conditionally released SBP patient from being placed anywhere in all of Riverside, Mendocino and San Diego counties. This Bill makes it even more difficult for SBP patients to obtain release than it already is, and this endangers the constitutionality of the SBP Act.

If there's any other opposition witnesses, you have two minutes.

SB 832 seeks to make a process releasing an individual who has been found to be safe under supervision in the community even more difficult to do by requiring the Director of state hospitals, a political appointee, to personally approve each placement before a lease is signed and to verify this with the county's politically appointed Executive officer in which their placement would take place. Finding a placement in any community now for a conditionally released SBP. Done.

Melanie Kim San Francisco Public defender's office opposed. Thank you.

Glenn Backes. Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, opposed.

Thank you. Seeing no other witnesses here in this room, we'll now move on to witnesses waiting to testify via teleconference service. Please just state your name, organization and position moderator please prompt the individuals waiting to testify and we'll begin to provide.

Public comment in support or opposition to SB 832. Please press one, then zero at this time. And we have a few comments queuing up. First we'll hear from line 51.

Hi, good morning, Madam Chair and Committee Members. This is Gail Stewart calling on behalf of San Diego County District Attorney Summer Stefan in strong support for SB 3832. Thank you.

Line 33.

Yes, this is Sarah Kuzan, and I am in support of SB 832. Thank you.

This is Andrew Langley from Nielsen Mercksmer on behalf of the County of San Diego, in support. Thank you.

Good morning. I am Elaine ... calling on behalf of San Diego County District Attorney Summer Stefan. We are in strong support.

Thank you, Madam Chair or Committee, Frank Molina, on behalf of the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, in strong support.

And we have no further comments at this time.

Thank you. We will now move the discussion to Committee Members. Do we have any questions, thoughts, concerns? Seeing none, we will ask for the Senator to close.

Thank you, Madam Chair. As you can see, we've put a lot of effort this year into making this Bill. Well, it started out nonpartisan. It continues to be nonpartisan. This isn't a partisan issue. The sexually violent predator program in California is negatively affecting neighborhoods throughout the state. I'll just give one recent example that kind of shows the tone deafness of this program.

And then the contractor, Liberty Health, in the process of using the current law as it is written, paradise, California, which we're all very familiar with, suffered a horrendous natural disaster a couple of years ago with a major forest fire that came through paradise and burned down most of the community. That community is currently in the process of rebuilding. Many of the residents of paradise have not even completed their settlements with their insurance companies or been able to rebuild their homes. But some have.

And Liberty took advantage of that situation and proposed a placement in Paradise, California, in a brand new home. And then the person being placed there was unsatisfied with the furnishings of the home, and Liberty was proposing to replace all the furnishings in the house to accommodate the SBP's preferences on that. All the while, residents of paradise that grew up there have not been able to move back to their home and place this sexually violent predator in a small community in a rural area away from services.

And the public defender's office did properly say that these sexually violent predators do require additional services after they're released. Many of them, or all of them, have therapy that they have to go to. Some of them require medications that they are prescribed as part of their release. And currently, Liberty continues to propose to put these placements miles, hundreds, in some cases hundreds of miles away from the closest services available.

I do want to address a couple of things that the public defender kind of used as a euphemism in this program, saying that the sexual violent predator suffers and that they're a patient. While those are accurately legal terms, it doesn't necessarily tell the story of the crimes that these sexually violent predators have committed.

In most cases, when the news media is covering the crimes that these sexually violent predators have committed, the news media will not even start to explain the crimes that they've committed because they are so heinous and so graphic that print media and reporting media will not describe the types of crimes that they've committed. One of these sexually violent predators, as, through a course of their treatment to the state hospitals, admitted to having over 500 victims under the age of 18, both boys and girls.

And if it would be okay, Madam Chair, I see that. Senator Alvarado. I'm almost done with my close. I have, like, two more lines. And if you would allow Senator Alvarado-Gil to give her quick comments on this, I'd appreciate it. Thank you.

Do you want to finish your lines first?

No, I'll close it.

Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair. I apologize for the delay I got upheld across the street. I wanted to present in conjunction with Senator Jones as co author of this Bill and to highlight the work that was done by this legislative body just last year with the pro Tems Bill that helped to close some of those loopholes and add accountability for SBP placements here in California. As of January 12023 that new Bill has now been enacted.

And I was able to witness firsthand the impact on the community by having that new Bill in place. This Bill is an extension of the work that's already been done by this Legislature, work that was identified by the pro Tem Atkins and her Bill for us to move forward to protect our communities and to allow further ways for local communities to have a voice.

So just last week, I presided over a town hall in Amador county with the sheriff and with the District Attorney and over 200 community Members of Amadore county. We were there to discuss the placement of an SBP person coming out of the Department of State Hospitals. This was a person that had zero ties to the Amador County community that had never worked there, had no family Members, but yet was being placed there as an opportunity for long term housing.

Now, during that hearing, we were able to get testimony from the public, and the public talked about the loopholes that still exist.

The cracks, if you will, in this law, which allows sexual violent predators to be placed close to a bus stop, for example, or a school bus stop in this particular case, family Members came forward and said that the state did not have conversations with the neighbors, those who lived to the right and those who lived to the left, which included housing for a grandmother that had grandchildren, including granddaughters that frequented her home in the summer and had several parties over in the swimming pool area.

There was also a family to the other side that had been victimized in the past and had that trauma that they were still living with. So what I was able to witness was fear, was care and a pleading from our community for us legislators to do more.

So I'm here today to support this Bill as co author and to remind us of the work that we've already done and ask this Committee to allow this Bill to move forward, to come out of this Committee so we can continue having the conversations of how to protect our women, children and families. This is a great Bill that allows us to continue to do the work that we already did last year, but allows us to look closer to ensuring that our communities are safe. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Alvardo-Gil.

And I will skip my last two comments because that very much summed it up. I will ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Thank you. Do we have a motion? Senator Ochoa Bogh has moved this Bill. Can we call roll?

SB 832, motion is do pass to appropriations. [Roll call].

This Bill has been placed on call. We will be taking a short recess and reconvening at 130. Thank you.

Madam Chair, in the event that this Bill does fail, may I ask for reconsideration?

Yes, 100%.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, so we will reconvene, and we are going to be starting with Senate Bill 749. Senator Smallwood-Cuevas is going to be presenting. Senator, you have the floor.

Good afternoon, Committee Members, Madam Chair. I am pleased to present SB 749, which will allow counties to use Proposition 47's original, more streamlined process for qualified individuals to file petitions to seek records, reclassification or re-sentencing that lapsed in November of last year. From 1980 to 2000, the California State Prison grew by 225%, increasing the amount of taxpayer dollars extracted to put into that system while destabilizing many of our communities. But in 2014, the voters of California said enough and enacted Proposition 47.

It took a long time for California to grow to be the largest prison system in the country, and it's going to take a long time for us to rebuild our lives and our state out of that process. And a big piece of that is making sure that those reentering our communities with conviction can do so smoothly.

As we all know, a felony conviction can follow an individual and hinder their ability to gain real employment, stable housing, and to create the life that we want every one of our residents to have. The inability of many formerly incarcerated people to establish a new livelihood after release has led to so many of our communities struggling to provide opportunities for those most vulnerable populations. And it also is adding to astronomical rates of recidivism.

But under Prop 47, more than a million Californians have had the opportunity to reduce old, low level, nonviolent felonies on their records to misdemeanors, allowing them to move on from their past and to build a brighter future for themselves and for their communities as returning citizens. However, while Prop 47 offered the most efficient and streamlined mechanism for providing this relief, that process is no longer available to California's formerly incarcerated population. Instead, our county courts will now be required to make the finding of good cause.

And this is a process that is a standard that we recognize, can be quite lengthy, require many hearings, and can differ from county to county, creating inequitable outcomes that don't serve our community. So while it is unclear what the full ramifications of this change will be, as county courts develop their new policies to provide relief, one thing is certain.

The extra steps needed to make this additional determination will add time, and it will add court costs to the process, and it will serve no benefit to the petitioners or the communities in which they reside, creating more barriers for these individuals. So SB 749 restores consistency. It creates the efficiency of process for all stakeholders, including courts and district attorneys and the individuals petitioning the court for relief.

This will lead to better outcomes for the formerly incarcerated individual and the communities that they live, as well as an easier process and more cost efficient process for our county systems. As the November deadline approached, hundreds of thousands of people in my district were eligible for Prop 47 reclassification.

But due to the impacts of COVID and backlogs, and of course, the stresses of what these formerly incarcerated individuals have to go through in terms of their own mental health, making sure that they have a roof over their head and some food on the table, many were left unable to take advantage of this reclassification. With me today is Anthony Di Martino with Californians for Safety and Justice, the sponsors of this Bill, and he will be followed by an additional speaker.

I'm going to go first.

Thank you. Thank you. Tell me your name again.

Joseph Williams.

Joseph. I knew it. Joseph Williams will go first and then Antonio will go after him.

Thank you. You have 2 minutes. You are timed.

Thank you. My name is Joey Williams. I'm the Director of Organizing with the California Native Vote Project, proud member of the Nuwa people of the Kern Valley Indian Community. It's important because Native Americans, we have the highest incarceration rates per capita. I'm here to speak today in support of SB 749, which will extend the filing petitions for folks to reclassify their felonies to misdemeanors.

in 2015, my felony drug possession from 1998, which should have been a misdemeanor, was reclassified by the Kern County Public Defenders Prop 47 unit. I know that's a miracle in itself that Kern County is doing that proactively. I was 21 years old in 1998 and I believe I should have been treated for my addiction, not punished for the rest of my life. After completing felony probation, a jail sentence, a drug program, I moved to Santa Barbara, California to go back to college. My first semester, I had a 4.0.

Upon getting a student job on campus as an EOPS peer advisor, I was informed by the HR Department that the felony on my record would need to come off if I wanted a better job at the college or in the future. The stress that was added to my life was enormous after that, but I always believed if I worked hard enough and had hope, it would change things. But that is not always the case.

But in 2014, after completing a bachelor's and master's at Cal State Bakersfield, I was able to run our Prop 47 campaign, after becoming a community member and organizer with Faith in the Valley, Kern County. And we won in November 2014. I believe that's why we're here. Sometimes we have to fight for our liberation, and that's what thousands of us did. Many were released from prison that very night, even getting off parole to take jobs outside the county of their residence. Prop 47 was a game changer.

I was no longer had to check a box that said I was a felon. So when my daughter came to live with me when she was 14 and I could provide a place for her, it restored my dignity to myself and thousands of others. This is why it's so important. It's going to take more than 10 years to reverse 40 years of the war on poor people and hundreds of years of institutional and structural racism. Thank you for your time.

Appreciate it. If we can have the next speaker. You have 2 minutes. Thank you.

Afternoon again, Madam Chair and Senators. My name is Anthony DiMartino and I'm with Californians for Safety and Justice, the sponsors of the Bill. Millions of Californians who have done their time and paid their debts are still being punished by the system that is preventing, not enhancing, public safety. As we all know, this is not the first legislative effort to recognize and address the disastrous lifelong implications a criminal conviction triggers on individual freedoms, community stability and public safety all across our state.

Our criminal justice system is built upon a number of core beliefs, one of which is the commitment that when an individual has been convicted of a crime and he or she serves whatever term of incarceration that court imposes, they have earned the right to once again fully participate in our society. Unfortunately, we all know this is very simply not the truth.

By all accounts, there are over 4000 legislatively imposed you-can't-do's levied against anyone with a felony conviction on his or her record. These restrictions impact virtually every one of the well-known critically important building blocks for long term stability when a person is released from custody. These restrictions all adversely impact public safety in every community in our state. Allowing people to reduce old, low level, nonviolent felony convictions to misdemeanors is in the best interest of both public safety and the California economy.

SB 749 is entirely consistent with the goal of achieving this outcome. So why severely limit individuals ability to benefit from this relief, especially after only allowing for this relief to be available for seven years, with many of those years negatively affected by declining judicial resources, court backlogs, and Covid impacts?

Further, this vulnerable population often lacks access to technology to contact the public defender's office in the courts to begin this process. SB 7049 would provide a permanent and less resource intensive mechanism for courts, district attorneys, defense attorneys, and, most importantly, eligible individuals to seek record redress. For these reasons and many others, we wholeheartedly support SB 749 and ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. We'll now move on to witnesses here in this room, 2200. State your name, your organization that you support.

Natasha Minsker, Smart Justice California and the Prosecutors Alliance of California, in support.

Thank you. Leslie Caldwell Houston, for the California Public Defenders Association and the San Francisco Public Defender's Office, in support.

Khalil Ferguson, United CORE Alliance. We do monthly non exposure clinics here in Sacramento for the past two years in strong support of this Bill.

Thank you. Seeing no other support comments, we're going to move on to lead opposition. If we have lead opposition, you have 2 minutes. Please come to the mic. State your testimony. Seeing none, we are going to move to regular opposition. If we have regular opposition in this room. Seeing none, we will move on to those waiting to testify via teleconference. Please just state your name, organization, and position. Moderator, if you would, please prompt the individuals waiting to testify, we will begin.

To provide public comment in support or opposition to SB 749. Please press one, then zero at this time. And we do have one person queuing up. One moment, please, while we provide them with their line number. And we'll go to line 60.

Sharita Moore, on behalf of California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, in support.

And we have no further comments at this time.

I would move the Bill. I think that the author made a good case for why this is needed. The Proposition was voted by voters. Certainly when it was passed. One couldn't have anticipated, for example, the pandemic and the delays that that caused on a whole variety of things.

Thank you to all our witnesses. We will now bring the discussion back to Members. Members, do we have any questions, thoughts, concerns? Senator Skinner?

So I think it's appropriate to give this process a little more time, and with that, I would move the Bill.

Thank you. Seeing no other desire to speak, Senator, would you like to close?

Thank you so much. And I ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. We have a motion by Senator Skinner. Can we call roll, please?

SB 749. The motion is do pass to appropriations. [Roll call]

Thank you. The bill's on call. Thank you. Our next presentation will be by Senator Umberg. Senator Umberg will be presenting SB 758. Senator, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for your efforts, and also Alex Barnett for his hard work on this bill. Today, I present SB 758 Gun Trafficking Prevention Act. It is sad that it's nearly a daily occurrence that we awake to yet another mass shooting here in the United States. As recently as yesterday in Louisville, I believe six people were killed and nine people were injured in another mass shooting. That's the 146th mass shooting in 2023.

We, as an institution, have an obligation, both, I think, legal as well as moral, to address this issue in the best ways we possibly can. While California has taken a number of steps to deal with gun violence, there's still yet more to be done. One of the challenges we have are guns that are illegal in California being purchased out of state and brought to California. In 2021, California had the highest total number of trace guns that originated outside the state, with 15,942.

We've, of course, had our own spate of mass shootings here in California not long ago. The shooting at the Garlic Festival, the Gilroy Garlic Festival, which was perpetrated by an individual with a weapon that was purchased out of state and brought here to California. What this bill does is this bill addresses this issue as best we can by doing several things. One, by posting notices at the border that you can't bring certain weapons into California because they're illegal.

To put people on notice that there are weapons that are maybe legal in Nevada, maybe legal in Utah, but they're illegal in California. You can't bring them to California. If you do, and you know, you bring that weapon into California and you sell that weapon, you and the purchaser, the purchaser the weapon, who knows or should know that that weapon was brought here to California to be resold illegally, may face criminal punishment.

So this does expands crimes for illegal transfer of handguns as well as other weapons, makes it a wobbler. We warn people coming into California they can't bring certain illegal fruits. We need to also warn people they can't come to California and bring illegal weapons. With that, I urge an aye vote. With me in the house here is Mr. Erwin Noek. He's here for response to any technical questions that you may have. And with that, I close. We have no witnesses other than little old me.

Leslie Caldwell. Houston, for the California Public Defenders Association. We did send in a letter, but I do want to make sure that everyone knows we are withdrawing our opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. If we have any other witnesses that are in this room that would like to speak in support of this bill, please rise. State your name and your organization and that you support. Seeing none, we will move to lead opposition witnesses. Seeing none, we will move to regular opposition witnesses. Please state your name, organization, and that you oppose.

Thank you.

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'd please prompt the individuals waiting to testify.

We will begin to provide public comment in support or opposition to SB 758. Please press one and then zero at this time, and we have no comment.

Thank you to our witness. We will now begin the discussion back to Members. Members, do you have any thoughts, questions, concerns, please. Senator Wiener.

Hi. Thank you. I'd like to be added as co-author. And I'm happy to move the bill.

Thank you, Senator Skinner. All right. I do appreciate it. I also just want to highlight that every time I've ever traveled to Nevada and in Vegas and all over Nevada, they have know glass cases with a lot of different types of weapons, including butterfly knives and things that know smaller that are illegal in the State of California. It's so easy to bring it forward. So this is long overdue. I do appreciate it. We have a motion, but would you like to close?

No. Thank you for your work and support.