Assembly Standing Committee on Public Safety

Good morning. Welcome to the Assembly Public Safety Committee. Before I begin, all witness testimony will be in person. There will be no phone testimony option for this hearing. You can find information on the Committee's website. Assembly CA govcommittees I guess we don't have a quorum yet, so we'll begin as a Subcommitee and the first one up is item number 10. James Ramos,

Thank you Mr. Chair and members, AB 462 is a follow up to AB 1628.

That last session we successfully got in front of the Governor for signature dealing with social media platforms selling fentanyl over the Internet. Today in front of you is AB 462 and this would create a pilot program in the State of California allowing for counties and their sheriff's Department to tap into grants to form fentanyl overdose response teams. Fentanyl has become a scourge in our communities, taking lives universally, often leaving families in pain.

Too often we lose our loved ones to addiction and overdoses without realizing they are suffering from addiction and mental illness. AB 462 would give law enforcement the ability to create overdose response teams whose sole purpose is to investigate those deaths and find the cause, especially the cause that includes juveniles and multiple victims. Our goal is to get fentanyl out of our communities and to save the lives of those who are most vulnerable. With me today is Steve Filson from victims of illicit drugs.

Steve is a retired San Bernardino police officer, but most importantly, Steve lost a child to fentanyl. Also with me is San Bernardino County Sheriff Shannon Dicus who has been a critical partner in San Bernardino county combating fentanyl through their existing overdose response team. Mr. Chair, you have five minutes to invite it up any way you like, two minutes apiece or one can use four and only leave.

Mr. Chair, we'll make it quick. Good morning.

Okay, good morning.

I appreciate the opportunity to address the Public Safety Committee and show my support for Assembly Bill 462. My name is Shannon Dicus and I'm honored to be the sheriff of San Bernardino County which encompasses approximately 4000 law enforcement professionals and 2 million residents. San Bernardino County is one of the largest counties in the nation that covers 2100 sqm. and land ranging from urban areas like Ontario to the mountains like Lake Arrowhead and rural desert areas like Joshua Tree.

AB 462 would create a grant program for sheriff's Department to implement an overdose response team to investigate deaths and nonfatal overdoses involving juveniles and multiple victims in these participating counties. We would send annual reports to the Assembly Select Committee on Fentanyl, opiate Addiction and Overdose prevention. In February of 2021, our Department created an overdose response team, which consists of two rotating teams of narcotics investigators. The team is on call 24/7 to respond to fentanyl related overdose deaths.

This legislation would give us additional financial resources to grow the overdose response team. As the sheriff, I'm constantly in communication with my peers in Southern California. We are all seeing significant spikes in overdoses, specifically with fentanyl, and I think this Bill can potentially help our communities.

Thank you.

The end user does not know that they are ingesting the concentration of the substance, causing a massive spike in overdose and overdose deaths throughout California. In 2022, we seized 2,300 pounds of cocaine, 4,800 pounds of methamphetamine, 250 pounds of heroin, and 723 pounds of fentanyls in the form of 3.2 million pills. We seized over 8,000 pounds of incredibly harmful drugs in one year alone. Since 2020, in San Bernardino County, we've seen 862 deaths due to fentanyl.

Fentanyl is highly potent, and a deadly dose can be as little as two milligrams. That's 50 times more powerful than heroin. Sadly, the proliferation of fentanyl in my county and throughout the country has been heartbreaking. In 2021, our overdose response team came in contact with a 17 year old girl named Serenity, who ultimately succumbed to fentanyl overdose. In 2022, our investigators found journals about her struggles with addiction and recovery with those families and friends that she lost to other substances.

Cartel run criminal enterprises are trying to profit off the addictive nature of fentanyl, and the need to utilize additional resources like AB 426 will help us continue to crack down on those criminal organizations. To conclude, I want to thank the Committee and Assembly Member Ramos for allowing me to come up and testify on behalf of AB 426. And I would urge the Committee to pass this critical measure. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Thank you. Chair and Members of the Committee, this past Sunday marked what would have been Jessica's 33rd birthday. Since her death in January of 2020, my family and thousands of others have sadly been put into the position of being educated to the grim reality of illicit fentanyl. Our country and its lawmakers are finally beginning to digest the fact that fentanyl changes everything.

It is an illicit drug, more appropriately, a poison that has forever changed the landscape of what we once understood the black market drug trade to be. In understanding this, we must realize the need to develop alternative strategies in dealing with it. Fentanyl is its own evil animal, necessitating a targeted investigative approach.

Doing so would provide the ability to establish the manufacturing and distribution methods employed by criminal organizations, and most importantly, gather important data to assist in identifying who and how this poison is impacting Californians in particularly the most vulnerable segment of our population, our youth. Until we are fully knowledgeable of its impact through thorough investigative data collection and analysis, we will not be able to move forward with effective societal strategies to address the solution. AB 462 accomplishes that goal.

We look forward in working together and addressing the solicit fentanyl scourge endangering our communities, my family, and thousands of others thank you for providing us the opportunity to speak to you, Assemblyman Ramos, for his efforts and the Legislature in its totality. We urge your, aye vote on this important legislation, and thank you for listening.

Thank you. We'll now hear from witnesses in support. Are there any witnesses in support? Then we'll hear from witnesses in opposition. Any witnesses in opposition? Well, this may be a really good day when I'll bring it back to Committee Members for any comments or questions. I'm going to look to the right because there's no one to my left.

Yes, I had one question. Can you describe the difference in sort of response times that this side of funding would give you compared to sort of other health based approaches? My assumption is in all of this is that you've got sort of a fentanyl overdose. And really, one of the things that we need to be focusing on is how do we get the prevention drug to the person who's used that as quickly as possible?

And I assume that this would allow you to have very quick response times. Is that part of what's behind this?

That is part of it, but really is the complexity of the investigation. So overdoses could traditionally just be handled as an overdose, that somebody willingly used something that caused their death. Fentanyl is a completely different, as spoken earlier, it's a poison. And so we are actually investigate these. It's equivalent on the level of like, a homicide investigation, backtracking where they got it from and things of that nature. In terms of speed of response.

Our first responders do have Narcan and those things available not only in our jails but also out there on the streets to be able to do that administrative response immediately. This response that we're talking about as it relates to this Bill is really funding and handling these very complex investigations. As you can imagine, we mentioned as part of the testimony, social media plays into this, backtracking search warrants, and a number of those things are very complex in terms of the time.

Thank you. Yes, Ms. Ortega?

I want to thank the author for bringing this forward and addressing it as a poisoning, as opposed to what we keep hearing, which is overdosing. And this is a drug that's in our community that's killing 200 people a day. And it's not overdoses. It is literally poisoning our babies. So I want to thank you for bringing this forward, and I will be supporting.

Thank you. You may close. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you to the testimony. Thank you for the questions. This is a chance to be more proactive to this situation. Certainly the drugs of fentanyl in them are poisoning a mental health, however you want to deem it. But it needs to have some type of reaction from the State of California to ensure that people and families understand that this is something that's on the top of our radar here in the state capitol. I ask for your.

I vote we don't have a quorum yet. As soon as we do, we'll take it up. I'm going to let you know that one of the changes that we made which got me to a support, is that whatever findings you have, whatever, you will come back to this Committee. Because this Committee, I believe the majority Members especially, believe that this is the public health, not necessarily criminalizing people, but a public health problem.

And this information we would like to use to address it in a public health solution. And hopefully the information you give us will help us narrow and focus like a laser on how we can help stop this. Because at some point, we're going to have to join together to get rid of it instead of like this. Okay. Thank you. As soon as we have a quorum, we'll take it up. Thank you, Mr. Ramos.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Members.

Item number eight, Mr. Jackson. AB 443. Good morning. Good morning.

Good morning, sir.

Good morning, sir. Nice tie. You begin whenever you're ready.

Well, good morning, Chair, Members of the Committee. I am excited to be able to present this bill, AB 443. In April of 2022, the State Auditor completed a report finding substantial evidence that some of our California peace officers had engaged in biased conduct, either in their on duty interactions with individuals or online through their social media posts.

The audit sample was quite large, involving five law enforcement agencies, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, the San Bernardino Police Department, the San Jose Police Department, and the Stockton Police Department.

Among other things, the State Auditor advised the State Legislature to address bias by adopting a statewide and uniform definition of biased officer conduct, and for statewide protocols be developed to screen officer applicants for any bias shown in online posts. AB 443 adopts both of these suggestions and requires posts to establish a definition of biased conduct and set statewide protocols for officer applicant screenings for online posts.

AB 443 will require law enforcement agencies to apply this definition to any investigation into a bias related complaint or an incident that involves possible indications of officer bias. Importantly, AB 443 further strengthens and complements the important work this Committee and Legislature has already done to bring equity and accountability to peace officer interactions.

I want to thank the State Auditor for their important work on this issue and for providing the data and narrative to the unfortunate truths that many of us have known and suffered for generations. And I'm happy to have here Bob Harris from the State Auditor's office as well.

Yes, sir, you have five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Bob Harris with the State Auditor's office where I'm an acting deputy State Auditor. As a matter of practice, our office doesn't take a formal position either for or against bills, but this morning I'll outline for the Committee how AB 443 addresses two of the recommendations we made in a recent audit report related to how well law enforcement agencies were safeguarding against biased conduct by their officers.

As the Assembly Member already indicated, the first recommendation this bill would address relates to the adoption of a standardized, uniform, statewide definition for what it means for an officer to act in a biased manner. We reviewed four local law enforcement agencies during this audit and found that none of them had a common standardized definition or understanding of what it meant for an officer's behavior to have been influenced by bias.

We also took a look at a selection of misconduct investigations during which there were reasonable questions about the influence of bias on an officer's behavior, and we found several weaknesses with the way that those departments approached investigating or not investigating those potential signs of bias. For instance, we found that the departments were overly reliant on officers explanations for their behavior. They overlooked signs of possible implicit biases and focused instead on more overt or explicit signs of bias.

And they failed to consider the reasonable appearance of an officer's conduct, instead relying on the officer's explanations for why they behaved in the manner they did. So our recommendation in this area was for the state to adopt a common definition that would be required to be used by law enforcement departments when they conduct such investigations, and also felt it important that that definition addressed the weaknesses we saw and the approaches being taken by the departments we reviewed.

The second recommendation this bill would address relates to social media screenings during the peace officer candidate hiring process. These screenings could be potentially beneficial to law enforcement departments as they try to identify candidates that are suitable for the role of a peace officer. Individual social media activities can sometimes reveal biases that they potentially hold, such as through the promotion of negative stereotypes or the promotion of those stereotypes online.

We in fact did our own social media review of a selection of officers and found that some officers had in fact been promoting negative stereotypes or hateful speech online. So it revealed the potential value of such a screening. And although all the departments we reviewed were conducting some measure of social media screening during their application process, the span and scope of those were varied, and it wasn't always clear to us from reviewing the records that they maintained what exactly it was that they were looking for.

So we felt it beneficial that post be tasked with developing guidance for law enforcement departments for how to conduct an effective social media screening during the applicant hiring process so that they can be assured that they are taking the best possible approach to identifying potential biases before a candidate is hired as a peace officer. With that, I'd be happy to take any of the Committee's questions.

Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in support?

Good morning, Margot George on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association, in support.

Jim Lindbergh on behalf of the Friends Committee on Legislation of California and the National Association of Social Workers, California chapter, in support.

Thank you. Now, are there any witnesses in opposition? Any witnesses on opposition? Going twice. Any witness opposition three times. Now we'll bring it back to the Committee Members for any comments or questions. Seeing none. I didn't see your hands, so can I do some housekeeping real quick? Let's establish a quorum and then approve the consent calendar. Madam Secretary, call the roll.

[Roll Call]

A quorum is here, present. We have the following proposed consent calendar items: item number six, AB, 423, Maienschein, Department of Justice missing persons. Item number seven, AB 442, Villapudua, State summary criminal history information. Item number 12, AB 479, Blanca Rubio, alternative domestic violence program with an urgency clause. And item number 14, AB 508, Petrie-Norris, probation environmental crimes. That's it. Call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Consent counters are adopted, and I'm just going to go Ms. Bonta first.

I want to just thank the author for bringing forward this very common sense piece of legislation. I think we were struck by the fact that there hadn't been a definition of bias previously offered. And so just to be able to have that kind of baseline that can be unilaterally and uniformly applied is incredibly critical.

In addition to the opportunity for additional training and support, which I think, as you shared, promotes stronger commitment and transparency and relationship and trust between our law enforcement officers and the public. So thank you for bringing this forward based on a very strong auditor's report. So good governance and I will be moving the bill.

Thank you. Mr. Zbur.

So thank you so much for bringing this bill forward. I was also surprised that there wasn't a statewide standard and think that this is really important. I did have one question which I couldn't tell from the bill analysis, and that's whether immigration status is one of the criterion that extends protected status in the bill. And if it isn't, whether that be something you'd be willing to sort of look at.

Although we just making sure that we are just dealing with the definition as a whole, I did not look at particular groups that it might warrant to also look at. But I'm more than happy to making sure that your concerns are included.

Thank you. And I'm strongly supportive of the bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. You may close.

Thank you all very much. Obviously, this is one of those bills that whenever we see an issue that arises, we want to make sure that we address it as quickly as possible. And so happy to be here to introduce this bill and respectfully ask for an aye vote.

And I also want to thank you for bringing this forward to someone from Los Angeles County, where there's a special investigator now that's looking into LA Sheriff gangs and ferreting out that we know there is some bias among hopefully a very small sector of law enforcement. And so it's really good that we're stopping at the beginning instead of waiting till it festers and metastasize itself throughout the Department. I would also suggest Riverside County is now being looked at by the Attorney General for civil rights violations.

And there may be some methodology or some things that they're using that maybe help you to do it on the front end to ferret it out. They may come up with some things that say, hey, if we had done this earlier, we wouldn't have found problems later. So I would suggest look at Attorney General Bonta's investigation of the Riverside County Sheriff. With that, I'll second. Madam Secretary, call to roll.

On AB 443 by Assembly Member Jackson. Excuse me. The motion is do pass to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

That measure passes. Thank you.

Thank you.

We have two items: item number 2 and 4, Holden, AB 280 AB 304.

Whenever you're ready. Okay.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee for the Opportunity to present Assembly Bill 280, a California Mandela Act on solitary confinement years of research continue to confirm that solitary confinement causes deep and psychological and physical harm, but it remains common in jails, prisons, and detention facilities across California. The consensus among mental health experts, human rights organizations, and the United nations is that prolonged solitary confinement amounts to torture.

In 2016, the National Commission on Correctional Health Care stated that a period of confinement beyond 15 consecutive days is inhumane, degrading treatment, and harmful to an individual's health. A lack of human contact and endless monotony causes deep depression, paranoia, and some even suffer hallucinations. Others experience large fluctuations in weight and chronic pain. And due to its extremely restrictive conditions, chronic health conditions either go untreated or mistreated.

AB 280 provides definition of what constitutes solitary confinement across all facilities in California, in alignment with the UN Mandela rules and imposes limits on how it can be used. Additionally, this bill will prohibit the use of solitary confinement for vulnerable populations, such as pregnant women and those with serious mental and physical disabilities. To state the obvious, people who need specialized care should not be locked up in a room the size of a king sized bed and without access to services that they need.

Although the Mandela Act is clear, some continue to misunderstand what it actually does. So I want to take a moment to be very clear on what it does and does not do. This bill does set a defined limit on how long an individual can be subjected to prolonged isolation without human contact and confined inside of a cell.

This bill does not eliminate the ability of a facility to hold someone in an individual cell, either because they need protection or because they may pose a threat to others. And finally, this bill provides distinct alternatives to 23 hours lockdowns, which only serve to perpetuate cycles of violence. In 2015, California agreed to abide by the Ashker agreement, a historic settlement that limited how CDCR could use solitary confinement and prohibited the department from using it on incarcerated people indefinitely.

The monitoring of this agreement has been extended repeatedly because the federal court found that CDCR was effectively frustrating the purpose of the settlement by using inaccurate and fabricated confidential information to continue sending individuals to solitary confinement. The Federal Government has been clear over the past eight years that the failure to live up to the Ashker agreement is just unacceptable. Many times we like to boast that as California goes, so goes the nation, but we are behind in setting clear standards on the use of solitary confinement.

Several states, including New York and Colorado, have already taken this critical step. California must join these states and the international community set well defined standards and limits on the use of solitary confinement. This begins by recognizing that prolonged solitary confinement is torture and setting uniform, consistent limits on how solitary confinement is used. Here to testify in support of AB 280 is Jason Toro, who will speak on the impact solitary confinement has had on his life. And Margot Mendelson with Prison Law Office to testify as well.

Good morning.

Good morning.

My name is Jason Toro. I'm the chief program officer for a nonprofit in the East Bay. I'm responsible for our community support and advocacy branch, which is five departments, 18 different programs, over 100 different staff. I'm a former school board Member. In fact, I was the first Latino school board member in a district that was 48% Latino at the time. But the fact of the matter is that I'm probably not supposed to be here.

As a youngster, I went from foster care to juvenile hall to the boys ranch to county jail to state prison at the age of 19. And at the age of 20, I was given an indeterminate security housing unit term. So an indeterminate shoe term, which basically means that I would always be in the shoe anytime that I was in prison. And this wasn't done for committing any act of violence.

This was done because I was identified by someone else as a gang member, as a prison gang member. And for me, at the time, the only way out of the shoe was for me to tell on another inmate, which would basically replace them. I would be replacing my bed in the shoe with them, or dying or paroling. Luckily, I paroled.

So here I was, 20 years old, a couple of years from adolescence, a couple of years from being a teenager, and I had already been in the shoe for almost two years. To say I was depressed is an understatement. I'm sure that everybody's familiar with the term transitional age youth, and that's what I was at that time.

And I'm not a specialist on the TAY brain by any sense of the matter, but I know absolutely and positively in my life that being in the shoe for two years as a transitional age youth had extreme long term negative effects in my life, in my mental health, in my depression. And this was because of ongoing isolation and sensory deprivation.

I don't know if anybody can imagine being in a place the size of a king size bed for years upon years at a time, which is what happens. And again, to say I was depressed is an understatement. I had constant suicidal ideation. I felt hopeless. I was in a constant State of paranoia. This deep depression followed me for years and years and years. It didn't stop once I left the shoe. I paroled from Pelican Bay State prison for the last time on September 14 and 98.

So it's been 25 years, and I think about the shoe every single day. It's a part of my identity, right? Like, when I talk to people, inevitably it comes up that I was in the shoe, that I was in prison, and here it is 25 years later, and it's a constant sort of backdrop to my life on a daily basis. And I'm glad to be here in support of this Bill to stop this inhumane treatment of human beings. Thank you.

Thank you. Yes.

Good morning, chair and Members. My name is Margo Mendelson, and I am the legal Director of the Prison Law Office, a nonprofit law firm that advocates on behalf of incarcerated people. We are part of a coalition of cosponsors supporting AB 280. Our decades of advocacy on this issue have led us to conclude that a comprehensive legislative solution is needed to limit the use of solitary confinement in California's jails, prisons, and immigration detention centers. Our organization represents over 100,000 people in jails and prisons across the state.

Our lawsuits ensure that people have access to adequate medical and mental health care and humane conditions of confinement and that people with disabilities have access, equal access to prison and jail programs. We fight to curb abuses of incarcerated people and to reduce rates of incarceration across the state. As part of our work, my colleagues and I spend a great deal of time inside California jails and prisons. We have extensive contact with our clients, and we conduct regular site visits and facilities throughout the state.

Solitary confinement is an issue of major concern to our office and to our clients. Throughout the state, we see unprincipled, excessive, and harmful use of solitary confinement. People across the state routinely spend upwards of 23 hours a day locked in concrete cells with little to occupy their minds. Many of our clients get out as little as 15 minutes a day, during which they have to choose between taking a shower or calling a loved one before they return to their locked cells.

As Mr. Toro described, our clients in solitary confinement experience racing thoughts, paranoia, depression, uncontrollable weeping. They tell us they have bouts of anger, difficulty with mood control, and profound disorientation as a result of the sensory deprivation. These harms of solitary confinement are well established. Incidents of suicide and self harm are vastly higher in solitary confinement units.

Many of the mental health impacts of solitary confinement are permanent, impacting not only a person's experience while in solitary confinement, but upon release to the general population and then to the community, many people in solitary confinement in this state are there because they break minor disciplinary rules. In the state prison system, somebody can be in solitary confinement for two years for the offense of spitting. And in county jails, people are routinely there because without notice of why they're there or how long they will remain.

We have worked with correctional systems to reform the use of solitary confinement.

Could you begin to wrap up five minutes.

Just to emphasize that this bill does not prevent anyone from being held in a single cell or apart from the general population. It simply prohibits the use of a practice known to constitute torture which has no place in the state. Thanks for your time.

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

Good morning. Chair and Members Eric Harris, Disability Rights California, in strong support.

Good morning Chair and Members. Ed Little with Californians for Safety and Justice and support.

Thank you.

Danica Rodarmel, on behalf of lawyers, Committee for Civil Rights, the Transformative in Prison workgroup and the Grip Training Institute.

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

Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Alexa Cottrell, and I'm an intern with the League of Women Voters of California, and we are in support.

Thank you.

Jim Lindberg for the Friends Committee on Legislation of California, National Association of Social Workers, California chapter, and the California Catholic Conference, all in support.

Good morning. Glenn Backes for the Ella Baker Center For Human Rights in support.

Natasha Minsker, Smart Justice California, in support.

Jackie Gonzalez, on behalf of co sponsors, immigrant defense advocates, California Collaborative for Immigrant Justice, California Families Against Solitary Confinement and Underground Scholars in strong support.

Thank you. Now, are there any witnesses in opposition? I guess we have two seats. Bring the mic over or share it. Okay. Thank you.

Morning, Mr. Chairman. Members Cory Salzillo, on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association, respectfully opposed to the bill as we were last year. This would severely restrict the use of segregated confinement. As a general matter, we're concerned about imposing these significant mandates in statute. We feel it's the role of the board of state and community corrections to set minimum standards. That's their statutory charge for custodial facilities.

And adopting and revising these minimum standards is an ongoing process that the board undertakes with stakeholders from all perspectives, custodial professionals, advocates, and it allows for evolution and refinement of the requirements without the burden of having to amend statute every time a change is needed. The BSCC practitioners who are responsible for supervision and the advocates who participate in this process are best situated to make these decisions about best practices and facility standards.

Also, and more specifically, the restrictions in the Bill itself preclude many offenders from being confined in a way that meets the bill's definitions, the designated population term, which is the trigger for many of the restrictions. Anyone under 26 years of age or older than 59, pregnant, or in the first eight weeks of postpartum recovery. It will also very likely eliminate the use of segregated confinement in a lot of situations, including when placement is necessary for the safety of the facility or individual incarcerated persons themselves.

I would point to a Cal Matters article from last year on the previous version of the bill, AB 2632 where a former incarcerated person spoke to the need to be able to separate certain incarcerated persons from others in the facility and the likely outcomes if that option were unavailable. So for all these reasons, we're opposed to the bill and respectfully ask for your no vote.

Thank you, sir.

Morning, Mr. Chair Members. Ryan Sherman with the Riverside Sheriff Association, also with the Monterey County Deputy Sheriff's Association, Placer County Deputy Sheriff's Association, all in opposition to the bill. Line our thoughts and perspectives with Mr. Salzillo's comments, and just wanted to highlight a couple of things here briefly. Nobody under the age of 26, regardless of behavior or risk of harm to themselves or others, can be put in solitary.

Nobody over the age of 59, regardless of behavior or risk of harm to self or others, can be put in solitary. What are we going to do with these people? Temporary inmate segregated confinement is banned. There's no exceptions, even for their own safety. That doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to us. We need that flexibility.

We can look at time lengths, but the mandate in this bill, with the 15 days, say an inmate stabs the cellmate and he gets solitary for 15 days and says, hey, when you let me out, I'm going to stab somebody else. There's nothing in this bill that permits us to lock them up away from other folks. After that.

We have to let them out after 15 days, and they can keep doing that over and over, theoretically under this bill, until they hit that 45 day cap, and then there's nothing we can do to isolate them from the rest of the inmates in the prisons or the jails. So these are among many of our concerns we have with the bill defining solitary as torture, but we're only defining it as torture for some inmates, not others.

So for some inmates, it's not okay to torture under this bill, but for others it is. We find that a bit challenging as well, so for these and many other reasons, we're remaining opposed to the bill.

Thank you. Thank you. Those who oppose the bill, name and organization.

Chair and Members Danielle Sanchez, on behalf of the Chief Probation Officers of California, opposed unless amended specifically due to existing regulations and statute pertaining to juvenile facilities. We look forward to more conversations and appreciate the conversation thus far. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman and Members. Gavin Mchugh, on behalf of the California Correctional Peace Officers Association, we're also opposed. Thank you.

Mr. Chair and Members. Brendan Up, on behalf of Sheriff Robert Luna, Los Angeles County. Open to the dialogue, a deeper study, but unfortunately, we have to oppose this bill. Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee. Alberto Torrico, on behalf of the state coalition, probation organizations have conversations with the author's office. We believe that the existing statute and regulations for juveniles and county facilities are actually more are better for the juveniles than what's in the bill now. Thank you.

Good morning. Chair and Committee. Julio De Leon for the Riverside County Sheriff's Department and Sheriff Chad Bianca. We are also open to discussions, but, unfortunately, we have to oppose the bill at this time. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else in opposition? We'll bring it back to Committee Members for questions or. Oh, Mr. Bryan is here. How you doing, Mr. Bryan?

Good morning. Trying to lay low. First, I want to thank the author for bringing this bill forward again. It shouldn't have had to have been brought forward again because it should have been signed into law last year. But I appreciate your push, your effort. I want to thank the witness for being here and sharing your true, honest, thoughtful testimony and the life that you've lived of service these last 25 years and beyond. I just heard a bunch of interesting things. Torture for some, not torture for others. Yeah.

The 15 days for children. We can't use children. We can't do our elders. We can do 15 days for folks in the middle. I think we shouldn't use solitary at all. I think all of it is torture. But this matches the UN recommendations, right? Recommendations that have been named after Nelson Mandela. It's the Mandela Act.

It's interesting that we heard that the board of state and community corrections should be setting these guidelines from the same people who oppose two public health and mental health experts on the Board of State and Community Corrections. There's a lot of work that we need to do in this space, but it's work that the author has been doing for many years. This is an important Bill. We moved it out of Committee last year. We got it to the governor's desk last year.

We should send it right back there and hope that it becomes law this time. Thank you to the author for bringing it back.

Thank you. Mr. Lackey.

Yeah, I think I have, the obvious question is, how have you addressed the governor's previously expressed video concerns in this iteration?

Well, I appreciate the question. Let me just preface my comment by saying that a lot of the testimony that says how challenging this is going to be and no change is absent some level of adjustment and making it work. But when you look across the country, I'd love to be able to sit here and say that this is the first time, this is the first in the nation bill that is going to do something that's very important and aligns with international standards and that California is the first state in the union to impose these type of standards. But it's not.

So whatever our concerns about implementation, we have New York, New Jersey, Colorado, and a host of other states to look at to say, how did you do it? How were you able to then transition to the very same standards that we're proposing in this legislation now? Also having said that, we are operating under an agreement from 2015 that basically said, do the very same thing.

And what was represented in the presentation, I respectfully acknowledge that, is that under the Asker agreement, if CDCR and others had implemented what the court said to do, which is no different than what we are proposing here in specific terms, then we wouldn't be here with the bill. This bill would not be necessary. That's eight years ago, where not only the state court of the federal court has intervened and said, get it done as recently as what, 2021?

So it suggests that there is a now need, as your analysis and your report states, for legislative guidelines and an intervention, if you will. And so the focus, I think this time is really just a paradigm shift for this Committee, for the Legislature that actually moved the bill to the Governor, but also for all of the stakeholders involved that we are not putting forward something brand new, number one.

And number two, the courts eight years ago told us to start moving in this direction, and there was plenty of opportunity for those standards to be established by CDCR, which they were not, to the extent that it addressed the kind of concerns that the court identified and supporting the agreement. So that's my best answer to you, that it is not brand new. Other states have implemented, and I think that California can certainly do the same.

I want to thank the author for bringing forward this bill, and I'm proud to co author this bill alongside with you. And I really appreciate your framing around the paradigm shift that we need to happen within our carceral system.

It belied that we need such a paradigm shift when we have witnesses coming up here and using terms like these people to talk about this man right here, who has been somebody who clearly talked about the PTSD that he has had to overcome while he was incarcerated in our state system, these people are the ones who end up coming out and making sure that we have an opportunity to actually address, our opportunity to have our communities thrive.

So I just want to put that out there, that 95% of these people actually come out. What kind of condition do we want them to come out in, and how are we contributing to their overall mental health while they are in our system? Move the bill.

You may close it.

I'd like to thank the committee for giving, again, serious consideration to this legislation. This is not a Chris Holden bill. This is a bill that's designed to do something that should have been in place a long time ago.

We're just meeting the moment based on what we have been brought by our sponsors, and I think the courage of every person who has sat in this chair last year and this year, Mr. Torres, this year at this moment, to be truthful, to be honest, to be able to speak about things that he continues to deal with because of an environment in which he was put in to have to survive.

And so, without further comments about it, I just think it's an important bill, it's an important time, and I do appreciate the Committee's consideration. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

I also want to thank you for bringing this forward. It's an important discussion, and I know you are just for the opposition. I know you're more willing to work with them on coming up with something that can meet both requirements, obviously, safety of the officers, but also safety of people who are incarcerated. I know that because I had a similar bill which was held in appropriations, not held, but was changed in appropriations to increase solitary confinement from what I wanted it to be.

And so I know you have an open mind. We disagree. I do know you have an open mind about this, and I know you're very serious about getting this done, and it's very important to you. And so, obviously, I'm going to recommend that we move forward with this.

But the most important thing, we need to understand that, as Assemblymember Bonta is saying, we've got to look at people who are incarcerated as human beings, not as things, not as animals, not as encourageable, not as never being able to be rehabilitated, because that's what solitary confinement kind of says it's not even time out. It is we just going to throw you away and just lock you up. And sometimes that is used as a punishment, not necessarily as safety. Safety.

I get safety, and it's a real thing now. I'm hearing a lot about safety, but also when my bill was going through, it was about locking them up and making sure they don't cause problems. And so when I asked, when you have them in solitary confinement, what kind of mental health professionals come from the law enforcement? I got nothing. They just want to put them in a cell and hope the problem will go away.

And that's not an appropriate way to handle rehabilitation in any way, shape or form. So I would suggest the people who oppose to come to you with, what do you do when you have somebody in solitary confinement? I think you have a better argument if you say while they're in solitary confinement, we're going to provide mental health, substance abuse, we're going to fight this, that they're not just in a cell by themselves.

To increase the number of people that ultimately become part of the mental health facility of not only CDCR, but the jails, which in LA County, our county is the largest mental health facility probably in the country, because we're not addressing the problems of mental health. In fact, we're increasing it. So again, I thank you for doing this. Go ahead.

On AB 280 by Assemblymember Holden. The motion is do passed to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

That measure passes. Now your next item, item number four. AB 304. Holden.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee for the Opportunity to present AB 304 today. I'm here to talk about domestic violence, a serious and terrifying reality many live with every day. California has a system in place to address domestic violence with our batteries, intervention programs, which are overseen by county probation departments. However, according to the State Auditor, nearly half of offenders do not even complete these programs.

More alarmingly, it was revealed that some probation departments did not report probation violations to the court, including when offenders violated protective orders. We're talking about a system falling short in delivering what it was meant to, rehabilitation and accountability. Our system needs restructuring, and I'm here to propose legislation that will do just that. AB 304 addresses these shortcomings by establishing better oversight standards in effort to reduce recidivism and increase overall education within our system.

Under AB 304, the approval and renewal responsibilities of the batters intervention programs will be transferred to the Department of Justice. Oversight will provide consistency in curriculum and at the local level. In addition to this, a broader picture of an offender's background will be taken into consideration when determining the most effective program for them. Crucially, AB 304 will require all probation violations to be reported to the court within seven business days. Additionally, this Bill sets training guidelines for all parties involved in domestic violence incidents, including judges.

Together, these provisions will make for a newly bolstered and more educated system for domestic violence intervention and prevention. With this said, I have heard the concerns raised by the opposition and stakeholders and look forward to continued conversation to determine the most effective ways to implement a higher standard of domestic violence prevention. Here with me to testify in support of AB 304 is Tunisia Offray, President of the Shepherd's door Domestic Violence Resource and Education center, as well as Ethan Rarick, Executive Director of the Little Hoover Commission. Respectfully, last for your aye vote.

You have five minutes total for both speakers.

Thank you. Good morning. Thank you all for allowing me to come before you today to express the importance of passing AB 304. My name is Tunisia Offray. I am a domestic violence survivor and I'm also the President at Shepherd Store Domestic Violence Resource and Education Center in Pasadena, California. Leaving an abuser is the most dangerous time for a victim of domestic violence. After years of suffering in a domestic violence relationship, I finally built up the nerve to flee my abuser.

But little did I know that would be the beginning of continued abuse. My perpetrator was ordered to complete a 52 week batterer's program. Later, it was revealed that he had never actually attended a 52 weeks battery's class. Instead, he paid a program provider to give him a letter of completion, which helped to explain why his behavior persisted. My experience as a victim led to the implementation of Shepherd's door 52 weeks batteries intervention program.

From 2017 to date, we have successfully graduated 549 participants, with less than 10 individuals returning to jail for domestic abuse. That leaves us with a 2% recidivism rate. This proves that batterers intervention can be effective if programs are compliant and batteries participate.

Oversight and restructuring will decrease the chances of perpetrators finding loopholes that allow them to bypass the system by paying noncompliant program providers to give them letters of completion without attending the program, and it will help to ensure perpetrators are held accountable in all judicial sectors, which will overall decrease repeated acts of domestic violence. I strongly believe that if my abuser had properly attended a battery's intervention program and successfully completed that battery's program, myself and my daughter would not have been revictimized.

Domestic violence is a serious public health issue that impacts survivors on a physical and mental scale. While the effects of violence can be devastating, they are preventable. By implementing AB 304, we will be taking a giant step in the right direction to offer proper education and reform to batterers. With proper oversight and restructuring for the batterers program, we can help decrease the amount of violence in our communities. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Chairman and Members, my name is Ethan Rarick. I'm the Executive Director of the Little Hoover Commission. I will be brief cognizant of the time limit. In 2020 and 2021, the Commission conducted an extensive series of hearings on intimate partner violence and the state's response to it. We issued two reports to recommend changes in state policy and programming.

We looked at, among many other topics, batterer intervention programs, and we found that there is a substantial variation in program quality which can present significant challenges for participants and for the program in ensuring rehabilitation. For example, the programs often fail to take into account the availability of classes for the batterers. Geographic distance participants work schedules are often not taken into account. The program fee can present a difficult challenge for some people. No taxpayer funds go to these programs. Participants pay for the program themselves.

Unfortunately, in some cases, they may pay for a letter which suggests they completed it when they did not, but they pay for the program themselves. If they cannot pay, they can be returned to jail for violating probation. When they are released from jail, they go right back to paying those fees.

The Commission made several recommendations with regard to batterer interventions programs, among them that the state should review these programs to evaluate whether they actually facilitate rehabilitation that the state should begin a process to determine how to create a suite of trauma informed services and finally, that the state take steps to ensure that all batterers have access, all offenders have access to rehabilitative services, regardless of the ability to pay. We believe this Bill advances many of those goals and therefore respectfully request your aye vote.

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

Margot George on the California Public Defenders Association in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, chair Members Joshua Dubai, on behalf of the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, in support.

Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Aviva Simon, on behalf of the Judicial Council. We have no position at this time, but have been engaged in productive discussions with the author's office and look forward to continuing those. Thank you.

Next, any witnesses in opposition?

Thank you. Welcome.

We don't have an opposition at this time in between here on behalf of California Partnerships and the Alliance for Boys and Men of Color. We do appreciate the author's intent behind the bill. I think where we disagree is that while we do agree that there needs to be statewide oversight, we disagree on the type of entity. We don't think it should fall under the DOJ, but rather under the jurisdiction of the Department of Public Health. Again, we look forward to continued conversations with the author's office. Thank you.

Thank you.

Chair and Members, Danielle Sanchez, on behalf of the Chief Probation Officers of California, opposed unless amended to AB 304, is currently written. And I do want to acknowledge and thank the Assembly Member and his office for the productive conversations we've had. Thank you for the other speakers' testimony today. I think it's important to just note at the start that our opposition is not reflective of the fact that we do not think that changes are not needed as it pertains to these programs.

We very much share the same desire, the same goals around how do we make sure that the core root causes of interpersonal violence are addressed in a way that protects victims and mitigating unintended impacts by kind of how some of these programs and the approaches are structured.

It's for these reasons that in 2018, CPOC, along with the counties, had co-sponsored AB 372 by Assembly Member Stone at the time that set up the pilot program to look at how we more effectively establish curriculum and engagement in these programs, again with the goal of reducing victims and violence. And as evidenced by the conversation earlier today, there is a bill today, AB 479, on calendar, that would extend that pilot program.

So this has been an issue that CPOC has worked on for a number of years, cares very deeply about, and we're certainly committed to the conversations on this bill about how to best approach, again, some of these root causes. But we are concerned about the change of certifying and approving these programs and specifically on potential negative impacts that may result in the local delivery of services, bifurcating that from the implementation and delivery of those programs.

We do think there are very important conversations taking place around how do we get to the shared values and what programmatic changes are really needed in these programs to address I think the goals underlying this bill. Again, the question I think before us is what is the best approach to address what is underlying the goals of this bill.

So things, for example, such as how to strengthen processes on program accountability, reporting violations, program completion, enhancing evidence based curriculum, those are all key pieces that we think are referenced in this bill, and certainly we hope to spend more time in how can we address those and potentially looking at doing that within some of the current local infrastructure in place.

So for a number of reasons, we're opposed unless amended to some of the specific provisions in the bill and the specific approach, but certainly look forward to more conversations on this bill and how best to, again, make sure that we are strengthening and enhancing both the programs, the program delivery, and ultimately with the goal of protecting victims and reducing recidivism. Thank you for the time.

Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Bring it back to Committee Members. Any comments or questions?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate your concerns on the opposition, and I, too have those also. Those are my questions that I have also, as a prior domestic violence detective, I had many victims that I worked with and unfortunately had files over and over again. And I also see the value in making sure and assuring that the victim doesn't become a victim again and making sure that the programs are there and in place.

My concerns are with the Department of Justice having that responsibility when other responsibilities that I have, I don't see how they're able to handle that and have the staffing on it. So I'm hoping the author also will be working with that as well, and I'll be in favor of that. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Lackey?

Yeah. I just wanted to say, first of all, I think that although not perfect, I do believe that DOJ is not ideal, but it seems like the best option out there. And the State Auditor has indicated some very important circumstances that clearly supporting the fact that the status quo is currently unacceptable for victims. We have to do something better, and I believe this does that. So I'm proud to co-author this.

Thank you. Any other? With that, you may close.

Thank you. I would say that conversations will continue. I think we all are sharing the same baseline goal of trying to make sure that victims are not revictimized and that the system works. And we looked at Department of Health initially, but we paused because coming out of the pandemic, we weren't sure exactly how best they would be able to move forward in this area. But we certainly are open to continuing to have some thoughts around what that might represent as an alternative. I appreciate the Vice Chair's support and the Committee's support, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you for bringing this forward. I'm going to recommend that the Committee approve it. This seems to be a reoccurring theme. Whether or not law enforcement or public health professionals should be in charge of kind of the social ills that we're going through right now, I think it's going to be ongoing. You happen to be right in the middle of it right now. The irony of it is you even have law enforcement professionals saying it should go to public health.

So I think we're struggling with it on both sides. Maybe we need to amp up or give more resources to the Department of Public Health so they are able to handle this, because it seems like there is a push towards that. And I understand your reticence, but maybe part of this discussion is how do we give them the resources to handle not only this, but homelessness? I mean, we're talking about mental health, drug addiction, all the things that we're talking about problematic. Now we kind of want to put it on public health. So maybe we do need to have. That's not for you and your bill, but I'm just saying it's coming. Okay. Thank you.

On AB 304 by Assembly Member Holden, the motion is do pass to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

That measure passes. Thank you.

Thank you.

We now have item 9 and 15, Mr. Ting. AB 449, and AB 600. Thank you, Mr. Ting. That's a sharp tie you got on.

I got the memo on purple. If it's okay with the chair, I'd like to start with AB 449.

Yes, whenever you're ready.

Let me just thank the chair and the Committee for all the work they did on helping us with this Bill last year. We're bringing it back. AB 449 requires law enforcement agencies to adopt a hate crimes policy and follow specific guidelines. We're working with posts to ensure that every law enforcement agency has a policy on hate crimes. Unfortunately, you see hate crimes not being reported in certain jurisdictions, like, for example, San Bernardino and Riverside. It's not because hate crimes aren't committed in those counties.

For whatever reason, they're either not being reported or not being taken down in the counties that they are being reported. We saw a surge in hate crimes in San Francisco, especially around AAPI communities. They went up 56% in 2021. In LA, they increased 173%. Unfortunately, while there wasn't as big a jump, the largest community facing hate crimes still in the state is still African Americans.

So we do believe that this makes complete sense, that every single law enforcement agency working with post should have a uniform hate crimes policy. With that, turn over to my witness.

Greg, here representing the ARC of California and United Circle of Waltz. First of all, we are one of the sponsors of the Bill and want to thank for his continuing leadership on hate crimes. There's a large body of academic research going back decades now that shows that these kinds of policies, sometimes called guidelines, sometimes called protocols, sometimes called general orders, make a significant difference in how law enforcement officers carry out their jobs here in California.

There was a University of California study that looked at hate crimes policies in particular and found that agencies with policies tended to report hate crimes about 25% more than comparable size agencies in other jurisdictions. And that's true whether or not, no matter how adequate or inadequate the policy was.

As the policies have become more adequate, and as this Bill and other bills that Legislature has passed recently, expand and strengthen the policies, we can expect that this Bill will have a significant effect protecting people with hate crimes from all the various communities. And we very much support the Bill. Thank you.

And any other witnesses in support. Here she goes. Here we go.

Good morning, Mr. Chair, Members. Elizabeth Espinosa, on behalf of the California community Living Network, also in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr. Chairman and Members. Thank you very much. I'm Keith Umemoto with the California Alliance for Retired Americans and actually son of a whole family that were interned during World War II. So you can imagine the evolution of hate crimes, and this is that giant step forward that we so dearly need. Ask for your I support.

Thank you, Mr. Umemoto, any witnesses in opposition? Welcome. Have a seat.

I just want to note that our opposition is narrowly tailored here. I'm Alicia Berry. I'm here on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association. The CDAA opposes this just a little. What we're hoping for is a narrower definition of a state and local law enforcement agency. As currently written, AB 449 would apply to many specialized state law enforcement agencies, including things like the Alcoholic Beverage Control Agency, Contractor, State Licensing Board, horse racing board investigations, and that type of thing.

We believe that it would put an unnecessary burden, operational burden, on these agencies and potentially do a disservice to victims by causing duplication of investigative steps and confusion around the process of reporting hate crimes. If AB 449 were amended to narrow the definition to apply to your first response agencies, we would obviously withdraw our opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in opposition? Seeing none, we'll bring it back to Committee Members. Any? Mr. Zbur?

Assembly Tang, thank you so much for bringing this. I know you have been a leader in focusing on hate crimes for your entire tenure in the Legislature and want to applaud you for doing this. I just had one question, which I assume is included in here, but I couldn't find it in the Bill analysis or the text of the Bill, and that I assume that gender identity is included within the definition of hate crime.

It's not listed specifically in the Bill analysis or in the text, from what I can tell.

I'll have to go back and double check that I don't think we changed the definition of hate crimes. I think we were just trying to figure out how to properly report it. So if it's in the current definition, it would be in there. But we did not add or change the definition. Our goal was really just around the proper reporting of. So I have to go back and double check.

Yeah, if it's not in the definition, I know gender looks like it's included.

Greg, was going to answer your question.

Yes. The current law definition of gender includes gender identity explicitly.

And would the reporting. I think, though it's important, though, that the reporting not include hate crimes based on gender and not disaggregate hate crimes based on gender identity. I think, you know, with the rise of hate crimes against transgender people, people that are non binary, it's important that we understand that. And so I know you support this, but I just would like to ask to make sure that it's included in the Bill.

Yeah. We've been working with posts to figure out what a best practice is. So as we go through our discussion, happy to make sure we highlight that particular issue. But what we've been doing is the standard we've been looking at, which is seen as a pretty good standard, was a standard in LA, and so to try to use that to work with post to see if we can get that adopted statewide, but we'll make sure we highlight that issue as well.

Yeah, I mean, I think data collection has been, like, one of the key challenges that the LGBTQ plus community has done, and I've seen a lot of standards that are out there that do not include that. I mean, we've been having problems with that in the healthcare field and others, so it would just ask that that be specifically included. Thank you.

Absolutely. I think appreciate you for bringing it up. And again, that's one of the reasons we're doing this build, because data collection in this area is not there. It's very difficult. It's hard to talk about hate or even hate crimes or hate incidents when we can't get any kind of information. So appreciate that.

Yes, Ms. Bonta.

Thank you for bringing forward this Bill. Do you believe that there should be any law enforcement agency that should be exempt from creating a hate crime policy?

I don't think there should be any law enforcement agency. Now, I appreciate what the Association brought up in terms of what the agency should be defined as, but no, I think every law enforcement agency should have a hate crimes policy.

I agree.

Yeah.

Thank you. I'll move the Bill.

No more questions. You may close, Mr. T.

Well, just respect ask for aye vote.

Thank you. Chair recommends an aye vote Madam secretary call the roll

Roll Call

That measure passes. It's now your AB 600.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. AB 600 is an update from a previous bill I did really allowing both DAs working with judges to look at opportunities for resentencing. It's been very successful. I was really proud to stand in San Diego a couple years ago with the San Diego DA and having a case be resentenced and have an individual be set free immediately, which was just wonderful to see occur. We noticed as our bill was implemented there are a couple of gaps around equity and due process.

And so just this AB 600 clarifies some of those. So one is expanding judicial authority to recall census at any time versus 120 days. Provides judicial discretion to impose judgments on lesser related or lesser included offenses without needing the DA to sign off. Expands the list of factors for judges to consider. Requires judges to notify petitioners of their right to appeal a denial. Ensures the standard applied reflects the parole hearing standard. The person poses a current unreasonable risk to public safety.

With that, I'll turn over to my two witnesses. We have Judge Lowenthal and we have Natasha Minsker with the Prosecutors Alliance.

Thank you very much. So essentially what we're talking about is what happens when CDCR works? What happens when rehabilitative programming works? Should a judge who imposed sentence have the discretion to be able to revisit his or her sentence? And the answer is yes. Incarcerating people for longer than necessary violates the basic tenets upon which this nation is founded, which is liberty and human dignity.

So, yes, when a person no longer poses a risk to public safety, a judge should be able to revisit his or her sentence. In general, courts are equipped to resolve backward looking events like trials with absolute precision. But sentencing determinations required a forward looking prediction of an offender's likelihood to recidivate, and those are much more difficult for judges to get right. The difficulty is compounded by the fact that sentences often don't age gracefully.

The passage of time can dramatically impact the appropriateness, or lack thereof, of a sentence, and that occurs for several reasons. One, predicting recidivism today might not be consistent with the state of prediction science at a later point in time. Second, societal perspectives on punishment evolve. Third, evidence often emerges after we sentence an offender of an inmate's rehabilitated character. And fourth, judges sometimes get it wrong at initial sentencing. And I have a case that was recently in my court that illustrates this phenomenon.

The case was of an inmate named David Coulson. The gentleman was born to an addicted sex worker who was 16 years old when she gave birth to him. He was born with fetal alcohol syndrome and schizophrenia. He was given up for adoption. His adoptive family physically and sexually abused him and left his mental illness untreated. Of course, as a teen, he self treated his trauma and mental illness with drugs and, not surprisingly, became homeless and engaged in theft related crimes to survive.

None of his offenses ever involved any kind of physical injury to anyone. His final offense was taking $14 in change from someone's garage. He was sentenced to 35 years to life. I became aware of his case after 20 years. At that point, CDCR had been providing him for decades with his medication. His mental illness stabilized, and he was in a fabulous place.

He completed his C file, reflected over 100 commendations for, among other things, serving as a facilitator for nonviolent conflict resolution classes, remodeling a guard shack, training inmates on shop safety, donating hygiene projects to homeless Bay Area children, installing a new floor in the prison chapel, serving as a teacher's assistant, et cetera, et cetera. It was abundantly clear, I think we would all agree, that continued incarceration was not in the interest of justice, but I lacked discretion to revisit his sentence.

This bill will change that, and it will correct that injustice. My belief is that the Legislature should confer judges with discretion to review all sentences. This bill, however, is far more modest. This bill solely confers judges with discretion to review past sentences in instances where sentencing laws have been changed by you subsequent to the original sentence being imposed. And lastly, I just wanted to point out that the court resources required to engage in a resentencing hearing are minimal. It takes a matter of minutes.

It takes minutes to review an original sentencing transcript, a probation department report and to hold a hearing, and the nominal cost is far offset by the moral and financial value to the state in correcting unjust sentences.

Natasha Minsker, on behalf of the Prosecutors Alliance of California, sponsor here for technical questions, urging your support. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any other in support?

Margot George, on behalf of California Public Defenders Association in support, thank you.

Thank you.

Ed Little, on behalf of California for Safety and Justice in support.

Thank you.

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

Good morning. Carmen-Nicole Cox, ACLU California Action in support.

Thank you.

Jim Lindbergh, Friends Committee on Legislation in California, in support.

Ignacio Hernandez, on behalf of California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, Statewide Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in support.

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

Thank you. Are there any witnesses in opposition? Seeing one.

Good morning. Alicia Berry, I'm here on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association.

Put the mic closer so we can.

ADAA respectfully opposes Assembly Bill 600. The bill modifies penal Code Section 1172.1, which requires DA or Attorney General assent for a court to resentence within 120 days of the commitment. The requirements of this bill would remove that, allowing a court on its own motion at any time, even after the time period, to recall and resentence if sentencing laws at the time have been changed.

We believe this may violate Marcy's Law because it explicitly indicates that victims are entitled to finality in their criminal case. That's Article one, Section 28 A 6. In this case, there would be no finality in judgments or for victims. And this would apply to cases that are long since final and when appeals are exhausted, it would allow the courts to impose an uncharged, lesser related offense without the consent of the prosecutor or AG.

Current California law does not permit an uncharged, lesser related offense unless agreed upon by both parties. And that's People v. Burks, a 1998 case. And we also believe that this violates the separation of powers. Thank you very much for hearing that.

And just to briefly respond.

I was going to ask if Judge Lowenthal could respond.

Yeah, since my former seatmate was a Lowenthal, I'll permit it. Go ahead.

Very briefly, it does implicate finality of judgment. It only implicates finality of sentence, and that's a very distinctive difference. That's all.

Thank you. Now, any other witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. We'll bring it back to Committee Members.

Yeah, this is a really great bill. I'm surprised it's taken us this long to do it. Like the judge, I would say this is modest. I think when we change the laws, we've changed the sentences here in the capital, they should be retroactive and applied to anyone who's ever been charged with it, just inherently. So taking this modest step to give the judges discretion to review their own sentences, it's smart. If you're looking for co-authors, I'm happy to join. Thank you for bringing it.

Thank you. Anyone else? With that, you may close. Or did you ask them? Okay, you may close.

Just respectfully ask for your aye vote.

The Chair is recommending an aye. And I'm also grateful you're doing this. And we do need to give judges more discretion. We've come a long way from 10 years ago to where we can actually say, let's give judges more discretion. So I'm happy that we're there now, Judge. Any motion? Second. Did we get a second?

We got it. On AB 600 by Assembly Member Ting. The motion is do pass to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll call].

Thank you.

That measure passes. Thank you. We now have item number three. Rebecca Bauer-Kahan. AB 301, body armor.

I didn't hear you, sir, but I think you're just saying go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. I actually want to start by thanking Committee staff. I know you have a lot of bills and you work very hard on them, and I want to thank you because this Committee does a lot. So thank you, Mr. Chair and staff. I'm here to present AB 301, which allows a court to consider acquisition of body armor when considering a gun violence restraining order.

Body armor has increasingly become the go-to accessory for mass shooters, enabling them to prolong their attacks against our communities and making it harder for law enforcement to de-escalate. With 21 mass shooters wearing body armor during their attacks, including the recent mass shooting in Buffalo, New York, as well as previous attacks such as San Bernardino and Aurora. It's clear that we need to place some guardrails around body armor.

Additionally, in May of 2022, the San Jose Police Department reported an individual having possession of tactical body armor, along with assault-style rifles and hundreds of rounds of ammunition after obtaining a gun violence restraining order. Body armor alone may not be indicative of violence and the need for a gun violence restraining order, but it's highly relevant if a person also purchased guns or ammunition within the six months of the GVRO request. With me today in support is Krystal Lopolito, I hope I pronounced your name right, counsel for Every Town for Gun Safety.

Thank you.

Hi. Good morning. Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Krystal LoPilato. Very close, very close. And I serve as policy counsel for every town for gun safety. Together with Moms Demand Action and Students Demand Action, we're the largest gun violence prevention organization in the nation, and we're grateful to Assembly Member Bauer-Kahan for bringing this Bill forward.

Our organization is sponsoring AB 301, a Bill which would update California's landmark Gun Violence Restraining Order law to include the acquisition of body armor on the list of factors the court may consider in determining whether grounds exist to issue an ex parte gun violence restraining order. As we saw in horrific tragedies like the Tops Supermarket shooting in Buffalo last year and the San Bernardino shooting right here in California in 2015, mass shooters are increasingly putting on body armor to prolong their deadly rampages.

Body armor is a special type of equipment that enables a shooter to inflict greater injury and death by making it more difficult for law enforcement to disarm them. It has become an increasingly common accessory worn by extremists and people intent on terrorizing communities. Body armor's primary purpose is to provide a defensive barrier to one's body while in the line of fire. By no means is the acquisition of body armor always reflective of intent to commit crimes or specifically mass shootings.

However, when a civilian purchases body armor, indicating they anticipate being in a circumstance requiring protection from bullets, and there is other evidence of violent behavior or threats leading to a gun violence restraining order petition, courts should be attuned to the full constellation of risk factors presented. By its nature, Penal Code Section 18155 asks courts to consider a holistic set of circumstances in determining whether to issue an ex parte gun violence restraining order.

This Bill merely seeks to draw the court's attention to another relevant risk factor, one which could tip the scales in favor of more accurately identifying individuals who may be planning deadly rampages or gun violence motivated by extremist ideology. We ask for your Aye vote on AB 301. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in support? Are there any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none, we'll bring it back to Committee Members. Any comments, Mr. Zbur and Mr. Lackey?

I'll move the Bill.

Thank you.

Second.

Second. Did you have something to say, Mr. Lackey?

I do. I do believe that the purchase of body armor for self-defense or protection is both completely justifiable, almost in every instance. Also entirely benign. To allow the mere purchase of this life-saving equipment to be the basis for an emergency gun violence restraining order I believe is wrong, unfair, and misguided. And I don't mean to sound pacifying.

I just really am frustrated by this proposal because I believe under this Bill, for example, if a person were to purchase body armor for an upcoming hunting trip, anyone from their spouse, their coworker could use that simple fact as a basis for their case and an ex parte hearing. And that person would have no choice but to give up their legal firearms and ammunition for the duration of that emergency gun violence restraining order or else be criminally liable.

I don't believe that that's justice, and it's certainly not the answer to stopping mass shootings. I don't believe that this makes our state any safer, and I believe it has the potential to criminalize legal gun owners. So I can't support this.

Thank you, Mr. Lackey. Anyone else?

I just wanted to ask the author to address that consideration. In my estimation, it's one of many factors that can be taken into account for the gun violence restraining order. And I just also want to thank the author for working on this Bill. I know that you have a desire to make sure that you bring forward bills that are meaningful and that have the opportunity to advance justice, and so want to thank you on your amendments to this.

May I, Mr. Chair? Okay. Thank you, Assembly Member Bonta. Yes. As you pointed out, there's a list of factors. This would be one of them. We just had a whole conversation in this Committee about judicial discretion. The same would obviously apply here. A judge needs to grant the ex parte gun violence restraining order. So I imagine if you had no other factors, it would be incredibly unlikely that a court would grant such an order.

Thank you. Any others? With that, you may close.

Thank you again to the Committee and Members. And I respectfully ask for your Aye vote.

And again, I want to thank you. I know it's been difficult. We went through several iterations of this, and hopefully, we've landed a place that we can move forward with this. So the chair is recommending an Aye.

On AB 301 by Assembly Member Bauer-Kahan. The motion is do pass to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll call].

That measure passes.

Thank you.

Now we have item number one. Joe Patterson, AB 229, Assemblymember, whenever you're ready.

All right, perfect. Morning, Mr. Chair. And Members. I'm here today to present AB 229. First, I want to start off by making clear my intentions in introducing this Bill, as those of us who've been around for a while in this region were familiar with the smiley Martin mass shooting that was in Sacramento, and it really rocked the Capitol community. If AB 229 was the law, then that shooting mass shooting would not have happened and we'd have six people still alive today.

When I initially introduced this Bill, I wanted to pick the most egregious crimes that I considered violent and propose a legislation to have them considered violent felonies. So this Bill includes domestic violence, sexual assault, and human trafficking of a sexual nature. I would like to emphasize that the Bill deals with human trafficking only of a sexual nature, because the analysis on page one seems to indicate that it is all human trafficking, which it is not.

And I know that this Committee has considered legislation like that in the past. And I listen to what Committee Members say and make my bills. According to that, after introduction, it was a piece in the San Francisco Chronicle that raised issues that I honestly had not thought of. I learned from the article how gun violence and mass shootings are connected to domestic violence. Since this time, I've become more educated on this topic.

People in this building on both sides of the aisle have reached out to me to express interest in my Bill, and when it passes out of Committee, I expect to add coauthors. My goal of AB 229 in its current form has evolved to tackling the problem of gun violence from a different angle by classifying domestic violence as a violent crime and increasing penalties for the worst and most dangerous offender.

I don't want to rehash statistics on domestic violence, which are scary to say the least, and we know it's prevalent in society. But let's talk about some of the information on how domestic violence is connected to mass shootings. Between 2014 and 2019, over two thirds of all mass shootings an event where four people died, not including the perpetrator, the shooter either had a history of domestic violence or killed at least one partner or family Member.

While mass shootings only count for 1% of firearm homicides, it is clear that the most likely people to commit mass shootings are those that commit domestic violence. So what my Bill does is make felony domestic violence a violent felony misdemeanor domestic violence, which is a crime such as domestic battery, such as pushing someone away, often with no signs of physical injury. Felony domestic violence is violence resulting in bodily injury.

There's also felony domestic violence with great bodily injury, which actually is a violent felony, broken bones, concussions, gunshot wounds or burns. But what you'll hear about in a little bit in the case of Smiley Martin is that was not felony domestic violence with great bodily injury. But what is unbelievable is that a partner can be a constant victim of abuse. And as long as there are no broken bones or gunshot wounds, our criminal justice system does not consider it a violent felony.

As I mentioned, my Bill also includes human trafficking of a sexual variety. And just within the last few days, there was a major sting here in Sacramento. You'll read a lot of convictions of this crime can lead to sentences up to or sentences, maybe, and usually they're long sentences that they can potentially be convicted under current law. But women can be trafficked into the sex trades, and there's an extremely wide latitude of penalties but not considered violent.

But why do these need to be considered violent felonies, you ask? Because under Proposition 57, since these crimes are considered nonviolent. Those who traffic others for sex and those who that inflict injury on their partners are eligible for presentencing credits and early release programs. So one of these 5, 10, 15 year sentences will be dramatically lower.

This all comes together in the case of Smiley Martin, who committed the mass shooting right down the street and six people died, had prior convictions of violent attacks on his girlfriend, and encouraged his girlfriend to work as a prostitute. But because neither of these crimes were considered violent, he spent less than half of his 10 year sentence and went on to kill six people. Let me read you an excerpt about him. This is from the Sacramento District Attorney.

Less than six months later, inmate Martin forcibly entered his girlfriend's residence. He located her hiding in her bedroom closet and hit her repeatedly with the closed fists on the face, head and body, causing visible injuries. He then dragged her out of the home by her hair to an awaiting car. After he put her in the car, he assaulted her with a belt. The victim had been working as a prostitute, and that inmate Martin, had been assisting and encouraging her to be a prostitute.

According to text messages from them. Martin pleaded guilty to two felony assault charges for a 10 year prison sentence. Had our laws considered this kind of violence to be a violent felony, at least six people would be alive right here in Sacramento. And this is just one case. Unfortunately, this case will go down as one of the statistics that the study referenced today. I have Alicia Berry from the Orange County District Attorney's office to testify in support of the Bill.

Good morning. Thank you, chair and distinguished community Members. My name is Alicia Barry and I'm here on behalf of the Orange County District Attorney's office and the California District Attorneys Association to urge a yes vote on AB 229. CDAA is pleased to support your measure. That would add several forms of sexual assault, as well as human trafficking and domestic violence, to California's list of violent offenses in penal code Section 667.5.

For too long, the law has minimized the violent nature of sexual assaults, rape, sodomy, oral copulation, and penetration in circumstances where the victim's resistance was overcome by any means other than brute force or threats of brute force. This has left victims who were drugged or attacked by a person's in a position of power to endure a lesser form of justice than victims who experienced physical force or a threat of physical force.

One example of this is Andrew Lester, who drugged multiple women into a State of unconsciousness before committing grievous rapes and other sexual assaults, often on videotape. Lester's victims were in grave peril due to the amount of potentially lethal drugs he administered, but because his victims were unconscious, his crimes were considered nonviolent. AB 229 would also include sexual trafficking of human beings and domestic violence causing injury to the list of violent offenses.

Both of these crimes disproportionately endanger women and children, and their addition to the list of violent felonies will help secure justice and ultimately safety for those vulnerable victims. And we believe this is a common sense measure that would recognize the violence perpetrated by means other than brutal force. For these reasons, CDAA supports AB 229 and appreciates very much your attention to this important issue.

Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in support?

Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Members Corey Salzillo, on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association, in support. Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Greg Burt with the California Family Council in support. Thank you.

Sophia Lori with the California Family Council in support.

Pastor Brandon Campbell with the Faith Baptist Church, Wheatland, California, and Northern California, Director of the California Capital Connection for Baptist Churches, in support.

Thank you, sir. Are there any witnesses in opposition?

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. My name is Carmen Nicole Cox, Director of government affairs at ACLU California Action, and we are respectfully opposed to AB 229, which intends to ratchet up the punishment for sexual assault, domestic violence, and human trafficking by relying on increased punishment rather than community investment. ACLU does not dispute that those who commit rape should be held accountable. As indicated in the Committee analysis of this Bill, all forms of rape are currently a serious felony, and sexual assault conviction is a felony.

Rape sexual assault seems to be more appropriate. Rape conviction is a felony punishable by up to eight years in prison. Punishment for human trafficking for the purpose of specified sexual conduct is up to 20 years, and criminal penalties for domestic violence, even that doesn't involve great bodily injury, are up to four years. Each of these penalties can be enhanced under current law to include significant additional time in prison.

And while more time in prison will respond to our rage, it will not have the effect of making survivors whole. Rape, human trafficking, and domestic violence survivors deserve to be believed to have their cases solved and to be treated with compassion and provided the services needed to address trauma and harm. Survivors should be empowered, not employed, as justification to undermine, for example, the will of the voters, most recently as expressed in November 2020 when they rejected Proposition 20.

We understand that adding the specified crimes to the list of strike offenses will have the impact will impact credit earning inside of prison, limiting the ability to earn release based on demonstrated commitment to self improvement and rehabilitation. However, rehabilitation is precisely the outcome we want from incarceration. Otherwise, we're simply warehousing individuals. Notably, California already locks up a higher percentage of its people than almost any democracy on Earth.

And while prison overcrowding has not made our communities safer, it does result in inhumane prison conditions cost taxpayers millions of dollars. Stymie's rehabilitation expands the budget and footprint of the prison industrial complex, monopolizes resources that would be better used to invest in our communities in ways that would improve holistic health and create community prosperity. Consequently, we ask for your no vote on AB 229.

Thank you.

Hi. My name is Marco George and I'm from the California Public Defenders Association. I would echo the comments of my colleague from the ACLU. We are in opposition to AB 229. And of course, although we are opposed to human trafficking of minors or adults and domestic violence, we believe that increasing penalties is a failed policy that has neither deterred crime nor prevented future victims. AB 229 does nothing to solve the underlying problems in our society which lead to sex trafficking or domestic violence.

And we have research now, and that tells us what we need to do. And I'm going to repeat some of what I said last year when this Bill was here. A similar version, you had last year, an informational hearing on sex trafficking.

And you had the USC Gould School of Law researchers at that informational hearing whose study found that the United States over relied on law enforcement and a retributive criminal justice approach to address complex societal issues that instead require nuance and understanding of trauma, race, and poverty. They said effective antitrafficking efforts are moving away from support for use of operations, focusing instead on community involvement, public health and harm reduction strategies, and investing in poverty relief, antidiscrimination initiatives, and opportunities for education and employment.

And those recommendations and that research also applies to domestic violence. Their recommendations, most notably, were support community and public health approaches to identify victims and traffickers outside of the criminal justice system redirect funding to evidencebased victim identification methods that are more effective and less harmful to victims and to the extent that law enforcement operations continue, implement strict policies and trainings that increase the efficacy of victim identification while minimizing trauma to victims increase the transparency to support more effective oversight strengthen prevention efforts that reduce the vulnerability of potential victims increase services available to victims and systemically offer comprehensive services to every suspected victim improve communication between nonprofit service providers, prosecutors and other law enforcement agencies, community organizations and sex workers.

And I would just say today to wrap it up. Thank you. Is that today is equal payday. Today is the day in which women finally make as much money as men do at the beginning of the year. And one of the issues is the equality. The equality of women will really help change this situation and lead to fewer victims. For those reasons, we respectfully ask for your no vote on AB 229.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in opposition, name and organization, please.

Brooke Huley, Los Angeles Dependency lawyers. In opposition.

Glenn Becca Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, strongly opposed.

Danica Rodarmel, initiate justice in the San Francisco public defender.

In opposition, Joshua Dubai, California Attorneys for Criminal justice in opposition.

Jim Lindbergh, Friends Committee on Legislation of California opposed.

Thank you. Bring it back to Committee Members for any comments. Yes, Mr. Lackey.

First of all, thank you for this. You know, sex offenders are uniquely threatening, and to deny that is to deny fact. And I don't care what study, I don't care what other kind of justification is expressed, that is a fact.

And what seems to be the prevalent trend in my observation the last several years is the victim consideration appears to becoming abandoned. And why in the world would offenses like rape another sexual assault of an unconscious victim or rape another sexual assault of a victim who is too drugged or intoxicated to give valid consent? Why in the world are those not considered violent? It defies logic to me. And so this is just a common sense plea for victims. So I'm clearly in support. If I'm not a co author, I need to be.

Thank you. Any other comments?

Yeah, hesitant waiting here. But one of the problems I have with this Bill is there's a lot of plays with use of words related to violence, and it leads to the impression that we don't have strong and harsh penalties for crimes related to sexual assault. I looked at the Bill analysis and there's, I think, three pages of very harsh penalties that are already in place.

And you would think from the Bill analysis that none of that is in place, including, and this was actually news to me, the one strike sex law, which provides 15 years to life imprisonment for basically rape with any aggravating, with a whole host of aggravating factors. So to me, the problem I have with this Bill is it leads to the incorrect impression that there are no penalties for what you described as being the most heinous crimes out there. There are extreme penalties out there.

Anything that I think is a violent act, not only are there the underlying penalties that I think the witnesses talked about, but in most of those cases, there's going to be aggravating penalties that are added on top of that, and most defendants are facing very high potential penalties. So I don't think this is needed.

I don't appreciate bringing these kinds of bills forward that lead to false impressions about the penalties that are out there and lead to the impression that folks that are committing violent acts and violent sexual acts are sort of getting off scot free. So I won't be supporting this Bill today.

Thank you. Mr. Alanis.

Yes. Would you have anything to come back on his answer or reply to those?

Yeah. Well, thank you for those comments, and thank you for asking that. Yeah, I think the reality is that, as I mentioned in my statement, is a lot of the three pages, first of all, a lot of the pages, not a lot. Some of them are not relevant because it's talking about if something is actually charged with a violent crime, for example, with the great bodily injury example.

But I just gave an example of a very heinous crime that occurred right here locally where that person might have been eligible for up to, but the fact is this person was convicted for 10 years, got out in less than five, and then just went out and committed a mass shooting right here in town. And the data does actually show that domestic violence, people convicted of domestic violence are the most likely people to commit mass shootings.

And so I think as we talk about ways that we're going to prevent mass shootings and things like that, the only thing, we're only talking about one side or the other side of the equation. It's been a constant fight in this building for as long as I've been around, which has been 20 years now. And it's the same argument. Nothing ever changes in the state level or the national level.

So I'm bringing a proposal here where, yes, it is possible that people are charged for a long time who commit violent domestic violence, but that is not what's happening. And I gave a very public example of that not occurring. And I think for somebody that's going to drag a woman out by her hair, beat her with a belt and punch her in the face, I do think that that is a violent crime and should be charged as such.

Yes, Mr. Bryan.

So what's appropriate, you get charged as a domestic violence. You get sentenced to 10 years, you serve five, you come on. If 10, there would have been no shooting. 15, no shooting. 20, no shooting, just life. Drag you out, hit you with a belt, life in prison forever. I'm just trying to understand what argument you're making here.

Sure. Well, you know, with Proposition 57, you get your release date from prison. The day you walk into prison. The day you walk into prison, you get your release date. Now, as of the new regulations from CDCR, rehabilitation is not a part of that-

Respectfully, I'm asking how much time should that person have had to not then commit a mass shooting? Since that's the crux of your argument, five years wasn't long enough. So I'm wondering, what is the appropriate amount of time?

Well, since we're talking about this specific case, I can guarantee you that this would not have been performed in Sacramento. These six lives would still be here.

If he had done 10 years?

Correct. Yeah, 100%.

I think that's absolutely ludicrous. And I'll be voting no as well.

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

Sure. Well, thank you. So know, I just want to address some of the statements that were made by the opposition here. In almost every public safety Bill and opposition I've seen comments about. This isn't going to deter crime. Well, surely this would deter crime. Surely. We know that Smiley Martin would not have been out of prison. We know that he would not have committed a mass shooting. And so, yeah, it doesn't bring the victims whole if this law were to pass.

If this law was the law two years ago, there would be no victims. And so I think this would have prevented the future crimes. And also, I want to correct. We don't currently have. Mr. Chairman, we sit in budget sub five. We've had now two days. Unfortunately, I had to miss yesterday's hearing, thanks to other hearings that were going on that day. And I'm sorry I missed it.

But we've heard the testimony from the Lao that we don't currently have prison overcrowding. And I think it's a misstatement. We're at 105% of the population. When I started working here, we were over 150% and people were on bunks. That is not the case anymore. We're talking about closing prisons. And I think we have to stop with the same old rhetoric. I am 100% in support of rehabilitation programs. Let's Fund them. Let's work together. Let's do it. I'm on that Committee.

I'd be happy to work with you. But also, if we can deter mass shootings, if we can deter somebody from grabbing their partner out from their car and punching her in the face and beating her with a belt and actually hold that person accountable so they don't subsequently commit a mass shooting, I'm all for it, and I hope you are, too. I asked for your aye vote.

You said something. And I just want you to just kind of understand what you're kind of proposing is a back to the future kind of thing where we did three strikes. That's how we got to overcrowding in the prisons. That's how we filled it with black and brown folk. And what you're proposing is a back to the future kind of thing. Like if we just lock people up for a very long period of time, then they won't commit. You're right, they won't commit.

As my colleague said, maybe for the five years. So is it 10 years? Is it 25? So if they come out after 10 years, you're going to be back here to say you need to keep them here for 15 years, for 20 years. That is not the solution. That's kind of what your Bill is saying. The longer you lock people up, it will eliminate it.

No, it may delay it, because inside the prison, if you don't give proper rehabilitation programs, which we agree on, then that person will just recommit that offense when they get out, or to be better criminals while they're in, and then get out because the system as CDCR is broken. And so that's the dilemma you have right now with your Bill. It's kind of, you're resubmitting in a different, which is what one of my colleagues said.

You're giving it a different look, or in a crasser way, you're putting lipstick on a pig. You're trying to say if we go back to three strikes, we will stop all crime. We've already proven that doesn't work. We're already proven that, and that's what we're trying to let you know. The reason we can celebrate the fact that we don't have overcrowding is because we've implemented strategies and policies that wasn't about over incarcerating but doing more with rehabilitation.

I will take you up on the challenge of how do we fix the rehabilitation, because, like I've said before, it's big C in corrections on CDCR and very small C in rehabilitation. And if you had been at that, you had to go to the other committees. But if you had been at that hearing yesterday where we found out that 0.07% of the budget for CDCR is spent on rehabilitation and 42% is spent on security.

Hey, don't get me started. We'll agree again.

I'm just letting you know why there's a feeling with the majority of the people on this Committee that three strikes is not the way to go. And so unfortunately, I'm going to have to recommend a no vote. But I do believe your heart's in the right place.

Well, I appreciate that. And I was going to say, I like your tie today. Normally it's red.

Is there a motion? I know there's a motion, and there's a second. Yes, Madam Secretary. Call the roll.

[Roll Call]

That measure fails.

Thank you.

Thank you for bringing it forward. Mr. Gabriel, items number 11 and 13. AB 467 and AB 484.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Whenever you're ready. We're ready. You're looking for your witness?

I am. Is that okay if we start in order with 467 to go first?

Sure.

All right, so thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. And I want to start by accepting the Committee amendments and want to thank you and your staff for your thoughtful feedback and assistance on the Bill. I am pleased today to present AB 467, which will clarify when judges can modify no-contact and peaceful contact orders in cases of domestic violence.

Current statute in California creates confusion as to when courts have jurisdiction to modify these orders, even when both the victim and the defendant have agreed to request a change. This is detrimental to all parties involved. AB 467 not only strengthens protections for victims of domestic violence who cannot change the order themselves, thereby endangering their safety, but also provides an opportunity to modify orders to support families and children when couples have reconciled and mutually agreed that an order should be changed.

This Bill is supported by a coalition of domestic violence and legal organizations. And with me today to testify in support is Tracy Tefertiller, a Deputy District Attorney in the Family Violence Unit at the Santa Clara County District Attorney's Office. Thank you, and respectfully request an Aye vote.

Thank you.

Good morning and thank you for your time. My name is Tracy Teferteller. I'm a deputy DA in Santa Clara County, and I supervise the Family Violence Unit for my office. I'd like to make three points in support of this Bill.

The first is that this is a simple, narrowly tailored, and specific change that simply makes it clear what many judges already believe and what is already possible at other points in the criminal justice process, that a restraining order can be modified by the sentencing court, whether from no contact to peaceful contact or from peaceful contact to no contact. These orders under Penal Code Section 136.2 are already modifiable by the court during the pendency of the case and if a defendant is placed on probation.

This Bill simply makes it clear that those orders may also be modified by the court. If a defendant is sentenced to a probation-denied sentence, or if a defendant is sentenced to prison and later released, it simply clarifies what many courts already believe and what is possible at other points in the process. My second point is that this Bill empowers survivors of domestic violence to make necessary changes to their protective orders when circumstances change

A criminal protective order under Penal Code Section 136.2 can last as long as 10 years after the pendency of the case. That's a long time. People's circumstances change over time. They may reconcile with the person who is restrained by the order, they may want to more actively co-parent with that person, they may have an amicable relationship with that person, and they may want to modify the terms of their order. This Bill empowers them to do so.

By the same token, if circumstances change negatively and the restrained person becomes a danger to the domestic violence survivors, they are able to return to court and ask for more protection. This Bill would empower them to do that. And finally, this Bill also protects those restrained by domestic violence restraining orders, the defendants in criminal cases. Right now, if an order cannot be modified from no contact to peaceful contact, a victim and an offender who want to reconcile and be together cannot do so under the law.

In fact, the explicit direction for law enforcement contained in the domestic violence restraining order today states that even if the victim initiates contact with the restrained party, the order must be enforced and that contact must be prohibited. This Bill would allow modifications to peaceful contact, which, by the way, are by far, in my experience, in my office's experience, are by far the majority of the requested modifications.

This Bill allows those modifications so that the restrained person and the protected person can have contact with each other without risking the restrained person being arrested. So, in sum, this is a simple, straightforward, and specific amendment that protects offenders, empowers victims, and clarifies the law for the court. I would ask for your support. Thank you.

Do we have any other witnesses in support?

Natasha Minskar, Prosecutors Alliance of California, in support.

Okay. Any others? How about opposition?

Marco George, on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association, I understand the bill is being amended, and I want to thank committee staff and the author. We're moving our opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Any others? All right, questions from committee members.

Mr. Gabriel, you may close. And may I just add, thank you for doing this. I would like to also be out as a co-author, if I could be.

Yeah. Thank you very much, Mr. Vice Chair. Yeah. I just want to thank committee staff for helping us to get to a good place on this. I think, as you heard, this is a bill that's going to benefit all involved in this process, and want to appreciate the opposition for working with us and would directly request an aye vote.

Thank you. And again, as a prior law enforcement officer, the examples that you gave; unfortunately, you do have those that reconcile, and unfortunately, the paperwork does say that we have or we shall. And so thank you for bringing that forward. I believe the chair has asked you for the aye vote and maybe take a vote.

On AB 467 by Assemblymember Gabriel. The motion is do pass as amended. [Roll Call]

The major passes. Congratulations.

Thank you.

We'll move to your next item. Second. Okay, go for it.

Oh, thank you very much. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Vice Chair and Members. I am pleased today to present Assembly Bill 484. And I want to start by accepting the Committee amendments. And I want to thank the Committee and the Chair, who's not here, but hopefully, we'll hear this at one point. I want to thank them for their help with this Bill and their assistance. And I also want to just maybe provide some comments to set some context for this.

I couldn't help but overhear some of the previous conversation that we had had. I am someone who has generally been very, very skeptical of sentence enhancements. I think that mass incarceration was a terrible failed experiment for the state, resulted in the warehousing of brown and Black men, and did irreversible damage to many of our communities. And I want to thank this Committee for preventing us from going backwards.

I know there are those that, who have urged us that we go backwards on some of those failed policies. And I appreciate the role that the Chair has played in dismantling mass incarceration and also the role that the staff has played in preventing us from moving back to a system that we know with certainty did not work. When I was approached with this Bill, what intrigued me about it were a number of things.

One was that this presents a very different fact pattern, I think, than many of the sentencing enhancements that we normally would think about or consider.

I noted that a version of this Bill had gone through the Legislature a few years ago with virtually unanimous bipartisan support, at the same time that we were dismantling other incentive enhancements, and that under the current system, as a result of some complications, penalties for the theft of property worth millions of dollars are the same as the theft of property worth a few $100,000.

And the fact pattern that presents itself in many of these white-collar crimes is that we have folks who are sophisticated, with a lot of power and a lot of resources that are preying on some of our most vulnerable communities, seniors, the disabled, those without English language skills, undocumented folks, immigrant communities. And often what happens in these situations is that perpetrators are able to steal significant sums of money that can fundamentally alter someone's life. They can take a house away from an elderly couple.

They can take away a life savings away from a low-wage worker. And these are things that are very, very challenging for the victims to overcome. And often, as I understand it from folks with experience in this space, the enhancement serves a very particular role in this case. It is an incentive for restitution. It is an incentive for the perpetrator of the crime to return those stolen funds.

And absent that incentive, there are a lot of perpetrators of these crimes that would rather hold on to the money that they've stolen from people, and they would rather keep that. And that will leave the victims of these crimes in a very, very damaged and unfortunate position. And I think you can see from the Committee analysis that this is a sentence enhancement that is discretionary. It's not mandatory.

When we had it, it was used extremely infrequently, actually applied a handful of cases a year in a State of 40 million people.

But I do think because it is targeted and because it is surgical and because it provides prosecutors with the opportunity to go in there and have the leverage to get money back for those who have been defrauded by very, very bad people who are targeting our most vulnerable communities, to me, this is something that is worth thinking about differently than a lot of the sentence enhancements that this Committee has thought about and done good work on.

And so because it is a crucial tool, I think it is important. The other two comments I would add here. One of my concerns with sentence enhancements has been the extreme racial disparities that we have seen with those. This is not a fact pattern where those typically present themselves.

And also that sentence enhancements can be used in a very coercive way against people who may not have adequate representation, against people who may not have options, against people who may not have, who have made a spontaneous decision. And what we have in this situation, because people have stolen such significant millions and millions of dollars, these are often sophisticated people who can afford to hire sophisticated defensive cousel. They're in a position to defend themselves. They're not likely to be coerced into accepting this.

And so, again, because this serves a very specific purpose of helping to return funds to those who have been devastated by white-collar fraud, I would respectfully ask for your support. And with me today to testify in support is Sherry Bellard, a deputy district attorney in the Elder Fraud Unit at the Santa Clara County District Attorney's office. Thank you very much.

Thank you. And thank you, Committee Members, for having me. I'm really delighted to be here again. My name is Sherry Bellard. I've been a deputy district attorney for 36 years, since 2007, and for the past 16 years, I've been prosecuting exclusively elder fraud cases. These elder fraud cases, they include all types of theft, Internet scams, and real estate fraud perpetrated against our senior citizens. This Bill addresses penalties applicable to the sophisticated thief, not your typical shoplifter.

Nor do we regularly see these types of huge dollar crimes committed by those suffering from drug addiction diseases. Most often, as to these high-dollar thefts, it pertains to the greedy, scheming, and controlling thief. Now, I've prosecuted countless cases involving elderly victims scammed out of their life savings during their golden years. This is at a time when they are less resilient to recover financially. Section 186.11, applies to the complex and sophisticated thief set on preying upon vulnerable victims in various sorts of ways.

Internet scams such as the "Hello, grandma?" scam, the advanced fee lotto scam, the business email compromise scam, and the romance scam, all of which involve victims being duped into sending large amounts of money over and over again to domestic money mules engaging in money laundering. I also see bankers stealing from their elderly customers, identity thieves gone wild, a case of a caregiver who opened up no less than 10 credit cards in the name of a single retired judge suffering from Alzheimer's disease.

In one of the many bogus fortune-telling cases I've handled, one elderly man lost $900,000 by trick and deceit. Distant family members helping themselves to grandma's savings, where she could instead benefit from heightened assistance with her money, friends taking advantage of those with onset dementia. Most often, law enforcement does not learn of these huge life-saving thefts until it's too late. Hundreds of thousands of dollars gone, and to a middle-class wage earner, a savings of just $100,000 is tremendous.

A primary goal in these cases is to make the victim whole. And here we are, Mr. Lackey. We are giving victim consideration. Most of the time the money is gone, not available for seizure. These two laws cleaning up the language in 186.11 A3 by untethering it from the sunsetted 12022.6 and bringing back 12022.6 with a higher threshold amount present the offender the prospect of actual prison time, but not necessarily its imposition. This presents the best method prosecutors have to obtain restitution for victims.

You may ask, why do we need 12022.6? Penal Code Section 186.11 requires two or more related felonies and addresses a pattern of related felony conduct. But nothing in the Penal Code currently addresses a single high-dollar theft amount, such as elder fraud that wipes out life savings or employee embezzlement that destroys a small business.

I think that if you were to ask people if they would rather be mugged in the street, a violent felony, or have their life savings or business destroyed, you might hear that most people will opt to be mugged in the street because they could recover from being robbed of their purse or wallet, but not from a devastating theft. Penal Code Section 12022.6 is needed so that judges are able to impose an appropriate sentence in significant theft cases that devastate the victims.

In closing, I would like to reiterate. One, the 186.1 A3 law, as it stands, is confusing to defendants, prosecutors, and judges because of the sunsetting of the law that determines its sentence. Thus, it's not evenly applied. Two, white-collar crime is something the public cares about solving. And three, the prospect of actual prison time, not necessarily its imposition, the prospect, is the best method prosecutors have to obtain restitution for victims. Thank you and I hope you support this Bill.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support? Seeing none, are there any witnesses in opposition?

I'm Margo George again from the California Public Defenders Association in respectful opposition to AB 484. I think it's safe to say, as a public defender, I never had a client who stole this amount of money. Emotionally, it may be more satisfying to imprison individuals who are motivated by greed rather than poverty or drug abuse, or mental illness.

But I want to say it's important to really just step back and look at the cost and benefits in order to make a decision about whether increasing sentences is an effective policy decision. In other words, does it deter harm and how much does it cost? So one of the things the proponent has pointed out is that this is a way to get resources from the person who's committed this offense.

And already, as you'll read in the analysis, there are a number of ways in which the assets of the person can be seized, not just their assets, but any recent transfer to a third party that's not a bona fide sale. So those methods of actually seizing assets are more likely, one, to be effective in trying to make the victim whole. And two, the provisions that for double the amount of whatever is stolen are more likely to deter than a prison study than a prison sentence.

In fact, the Department of Justice, which is highlighted in the analysis, found that law and policies designed to deter crime by focusing mainly on increasing the severity of punishment are ineffective, partly because criminals know little about the sanctions for specific crimes, ore severe punishments do not chasten individuals convicted of crimes, and prisons may exacerbate reoffense.

And this same conclusion was reached by the Little Hoover Commission in 2014, which talked about there is a disconnect between the science that we have now and sentencing that putting offenders away for increasingly longer periods of time with no evidence that lengthy incarceration for many brings any additional public safety benefit. Against that backdrop, that we know that this is not an effective way to deter this kind of crime, you have to look at the cost.

The LAO estimates that it cost approximately 106,000 per year to imprison an individual in California. And then there are potential additional costs if you have to provide social services for the families. So what we would argue is that imprisoning people for long periods of time is a waste of scarce resources. And we respectfully ask for your No vote on AB 484. Thank you.

Thank you. Yes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Ignacio Hernandez, on behalf of the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice in opposition. Statewide Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, both in private practice and working in public defender offices. Let me just address a few things. Number one, a lot of the cases that were, and thank you for your work, but a lot of the cases that were mentioned are not single activity thefts.

I mean, some of the cases are mentioned, there are going to be multiple charges and offenses that could be brought against an individual. Oftentimes you're going to get to the embezzlement or the white collar enhancement that already exists in statute. So a lot of the cases that are being described already have a lot of punishment beyond what's already been argued about. Just being theft.

It's just like any other theft or low-level theft. That's not necessarily accurate because there are a lot of options already on the table for DAs. So we have to keep that in mind. The other thing, as far as recapturing some of that money that was already described and go through forfeiture, there are a lot of different ways to get the money back already on the books now. I can tell you I did testify, I think, against one of the extensions of the old law.

I wasn't around for the very first one. But let me point out this that often gets overlooked when we talk about sentence enhancements, and it's something I've been arguing for a long time. We're able to finally fix it in statute, and that is, every felony on our books now already allows for flexibility when you have a crime that involves a high amount of money. That is an aggravating factor. That can justify the upper term. Every felony has three options, a lower, mid, and upper term.

And pursuant to judicial counsel and pursuant to the law, high dollar amount can get someone to an upper term when someone who has a low dollar amount committing a crime would be maybe the midterm or even the low term. So we already have that flexibility built in. And that was one of the major problems with sentence enhancements, is that we were simply getting everybody the upper term on the norm and then adding these sentence enhancements, which resulted in this huge prison population.

We fixed that two years ago. Now, when it came to aggravating factors. But that's still there. That flexibility is still there for those reasons, we're opposed. We understand the issue and happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in opposition?

Good afternoon. Glenn Backes for Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in opposition.

Thank you. Now bring it back to Committee for any comments or questions? Yes, Mr. Bryan.

I don't love this, but I understand what the author is trying to do. This conflicts with multiple different values I hold, right? I'm kind of fundamentally against sentence enhancements. I also think with the criminal legal system we have, we should have equal justice under the law.

And we just argued just the other day in this Committee for judges to have the discretion to apply an enhancement that used to be mandatory that we brought down to judicial discretion. You're bringing this up to judicial discretion, which I appreciate, as opposed to trying to make it mandatory.

I think the opposition makes a good point that at least for the 200 and some odd $1000 restitution, the state could also just pay that versus the two years of having you incarcerated, and it would still pencil out. So that's an interesting thing to think about. I trust the author's motives and intent and willingness to work with the opposition and to work hard on this Bill. I'm not going to be the reason you get held in the first Committee. I will be supporting it today.

But I hope you take these comments very serious and work with folks all the way through the process.

Thank you. Ms. Ortega.

I want to echo the concerns of my colleague, and I did speak to the author about these concerns. It feels like a very slippery slope here when we're talking about enhancements. We can't say yes to some and no to others. I understand your intent and I'm going to support it today. But I do want to encourage you to continue working with the opposition and our office to make sure that we don't go backwards, which is something we've been very consistent with here in this Committee.

Yes, Ms. Bonta?

Just have a question for the author, and I appreciate the outreach prior to this Bill. You offered a lot of good examples of the ways in which kind of identifying who the typical victim is and who the typical perpetrator is. White collar victim. Can you apply this to organized retail theft?

I don't, I hadn't thought about it in, in that context. And I'll, I'll let, I'll let the witness answer in a minute. Would it be okay for me to respond, though, to some of the points that the opposition made? Is that appropriate now or at a different time?

In your clothes and let your witness respond to this question.

As far as organized retail theft, again, if the loss is $275,000 or more, then yes, that allegation can be charged. If there's a pattern involved. If the 186 A3 passes and gets cleaned up, that can be alleged as well, and the 12022.6 A1 does not have to be imposed. As a matter of fact, the judge can dismiss it if the judge feels the case, but yes, they are applicable to anybody and everybody over the threshold amount.

I thank you and I just want to thank the author for bringing this forward and being so thoughtful. And I also am with Assembly Member Bryan in my level of, and Assembly Member Ortega, in my level of squeamishness about moving forward with an enhancement bill. But I also don't want to be the reason why this gets held up at this point.

I do think that given the first tier, the tiered system around 275K might merit some additional consideration to see whether or not you want to capture that category or level of crime in this 100% legislation, and hope that you'd consider that.

You may close.

Thank you. Thank you very much, Richard. First of all, I just want to appreciate the comments from my colleagues and the opportunity to continue to have conversations with a lot of folks that I deeply respect and often find myself on the same side with and aligned with. And so thank you for that. I appreciate that. And you have our commitment that we will work very, very closely with them and continue to have conversations.

I also deeply understand your squeamishness, and I understand how people could find themselves on the opposite side of this, given the history that our state has been through. And, Mr. Chair, you weren't in the room, but I wanted to compliment you for the work that you've done, dismantling mass incarceration and making sure that our state doesn't go backwards. And I also appreciate your support of this Bill, understanding that this is a very, very specific and targeted application of this.

If I might, I just wanted to respond to a few points that the opposition made just to help folks, maybe understand a little bit of my thinking and how I arrived at the conclusion that I did. One is, the research cited about the ineffectiveness of lengthy sentences is something that I agree with.

And I think it explains a lot of my votes against sentence enhancements, a lot of the reasons I felt comfortable pulling back sentence enhancements, or not voting to increase them because they don't serve the general interest, they don't serve public safety, they don't serve the interests of people in the state. What I would maybe differ, in my opinion, is, is there a better way to do this, or is this an effective tool. And I know that to the first point that was made about the opportunity to seize assets, and there are other ways to do this.

I never practiced criminal law, so I have not done this specifically. But I was involved in a number of pro bono cases as an attorney, helping to represent folks who were defrauded and the amount of effort and legal hours to go back and get somebody's house, to get somebody's life savings. When things have been moved, when deed of trust have been moved, you are talking oftentimes about legal bills that will exceed those value, right?

I mean, luckily, there were big firms out there that are willing to devote $1 million of legal fees to an elderly couple to go recover $200,000 in life savings. So while those other tools exist, in theory, from my personal experience, they are often insufficient to help provide the restitution to help provide the justice, to give people back their life savings, to give them back their family home. And that's why I think this tool is an appropriate one.

And we also heard that there are potentially other tools out there. But you heard from the witness about specific fact patterns. If it's the first time. If it's a particular kind of case where a lot of those other tools may not be available. So I appreciate both of those points, and I apologize for bringing you all a little bit of a headbanger of a Bill. But I do think when you look at this on the margins, there is a really good justification for it.

Let me make two other points. One is about cost. Certainly, there is a cost for incarceration, oftentimes, most of the time not justified. But there's also a cost to society, to the taxpayer, and to individuals when a couple is deprived of their life savings and end up on public benefits, when people are deprived of their place to live and may end up homeless. So there are costs on both sides of this leisure that I think are worth considering.

And again, we've said this over and over and over again. The point of this Bill is not to put people in jail for a longer amount of time. It is not about some emotional satisfaction. It's not because we believe long prison sentences are a good thing. It is because we want to give prosecutors the tool to help people get their money back.

And the final thing that I'll share in terms of my overall perspective with all of this, we have on this side of the table defense attorneys, and I think they play an exceptionally important role in our criminal legal system. And they take the perspective of the defendant. I often look at these questions. The question is, who is powerful and who is vulnerable, and how do we achieve justice for our most vulnerable communities?

And I think in this situation, what you have is that you have powerful defendants that are exploiting our most vulnerable communities. And that is why I think that we have a system that has not provided enough tools to support those vulnerable communities and to not support them. And so with that, I felt comfortable with that. And so with that, I would respectfully request an Aye vote.

Okay, just in general, for anybody listening, you have a squeamish, a concern. I'm just going to let this go, but I'm going to be watching this Bill. So that's three out of eight. So you were precariously... don't want to lose those three, otherwise, you'd lose the whole thing.

So I have this thing that I say, don't talk past the yes. Probably should have gone straight to, because a couple of Committee Members were giving me the eye. And so hopefully, and I believe we should get this out. I think part of why people have expressed concern but are willing to let this move forward is because of you, because they trust you and they trust you're going to do the right thing. And I think that's what you're hearing right now.

And so I would say work very hard with people who have concern, I won't even call them opposition, people who have concern about the Bill so they can get to a place. I know we work real hard to get you even to here, but it's really important as you move forward to get to that place.

I appreciate that and you have my firm commitment to do that.

Okay. Thank you.

On AB 484 by Assembly Member Gabriel. The motion is do pass as amended to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll call].

That measure passes.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

AB 391. Still moved. Did you hear that, Mr. Chair?

I'll keep it short, sir. I'm supposed to have a witness, hopefully. There you go. Good morning, Chair and Members. I present AB 391, which seeks to address the harassment enabled by anonymous child abuse reporting system. This bill would require anyone who seeks a report of child abuse or neglect to leave their name and phone number. In doing so, it will deter those who seek to intentionally make false reports.

Under AB 391, all reporters personal information will be kept strictly confidential in order to protect both victims and reporters. Unfortunately, the anonymous reporting system has been weaponized and used against the very individuals it was meant to protect. There are countless stories of domestic violence abusers making false reports in order to get revenge on their partners. These false reports trigger intrusive and frightening investigations.

Additionally, research has shown that anonymous reports disproportionately affect low income people of color, as minority parents are more likely to receive higher levels of state intervention following a report. AB 391 will deter false reporting by requiring reporters to leave their name and phone number, and confidentiality protections will ensure that anyone with a valid concern will be able to file a report with confidence in doing so.

This bill will protect the most vulnerable Californians from unnecessary suffering and allow child protective services to focus resources on actual cases of child abuse and neglect. With me is Brooke Huley. On behalf of the bill sponsor, the Los Angeles Dependency Lawyers respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Good morning, Mr. Vice Chair and Members. My name is Brooke Huley. I'm a supervising attorney at Los Angeles Dependency lawyers. We're the largest family defense firm in the country, and we represent approximately 20,000 parents on any given day in the juvenile dependency court system. We're pleased to sponsor AB 391, which ends the harmful practice of anonymous reporting in the family regulation system and would prevent undue harm to innocent families.

Currently, all mandated reporters are required to provide their name and contact information, and that is kept confidential. But unlike mandated reporters, laypeople are not currently required to provide any identifying information whatsoever. As the chair noted, often abusive partners are making false, anonymous reports to gain leverage in a custody dispute with their ex partner. These perpetrators know that all they need to do is leave one or two false tips and then their grab for custody is underway.

This also is a practice used by landlords trying to evict tenants they don't like without going through the proper eviction procedures. These malicious reports do trigger investigations which can be incredibly terrifying and damaging for the children. In their eyes, their home is invaded by strangers. They're asking them strange questions. They are saying that they might be taken from the only home they've ever known, and they're terrified.

Also, the parents live in fear that at any moment, a social worker could come in and take their child into foster care without any real valid claims of abuse or neglect. And sadly, this does have a greater impact on families of color. For example, in Los Angeles County, black children are 3.6 times more likely to be subjected to a child welfare investigation than white children. We can rest assured that all reporters information will still be kept confidential, just as it is today with mandated reporters.

And that part of the statute will not change. We should step in to protect these families from further victimization and prevent resources from being diverted from children who really do need governmental intervention. And for those reasons, we ask for your aye vote on AB 391.

Thank you. Do we have any others in the audience here for support? All right, hearing none. Any opposition? All right, hearing none. Committee? Yes. Comments or questions?

I have a comment real quickly. I'm highly connected to child abuse issues, having in my district three very tragic set of circumstances where we had loss of life. And in my opinion, of course, false reporting is toxic and a detriment to our process of fairness. But stronger investigative practices need to be the focus, not removing confidentiality, because I think what it will do is discourage the reporting of legitimate concerns. So I'll just be laying off on this one.

Chair, you can close.

Okay. And thank you. And I'm well aware of the concern of Mr. Lackey. And I think one of the things that maybe moved forward with this, and I know I've been highly critical of law enforcement on a lot of different things, but I think one of the things that law enforcement has that is almost, like, sacred, is this thing of confidential informants that that doesn't leak out, that you've been very good, your profession has been very good in ensuring not only the confidentiality of that person's identity, but even with fellow officers, you may not even share that information because you know how important it is to maintain that person's anonymity.

And so I trust that law enforcement will be able to keep things confidential and that we will encourage even more people to continue to report this. But hopefully we discourage individuals who like to do false reporting, that that will curb that. And so I respectfully ask for your aye vote. And as always, Mr. Lackey, respect what you're saying. And if you have any ideas to tighten it up even more, so, I'm fully open for that.

And if I may just, I guess, as the Vice Chair, adding some comments to that as well, it does also take away the time and resources that law enforcement is being used to work on those false calls. So I've had plenty of those and seen those also in the court system as well. So thank you for bringing that to an attention. Thank you.

Okay, the bill has been moved, a second. Yes. Everybody looked at one another. Secretary, take roll.

Can I move my own bill?

On AB 391 by Assembly Member Joan Sawyer. The motion is do passed the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

The major passes. Thank you. Next, we will do any add ons, lifting of calls, motions and vote changes. Madam Secretary, please go through all the measures taken up today.

If I could just start with the other ones, please. Thank you.

My apologies. On the consent calendar. [Roll Call] Item number one, AB 229 has been dispensed with. Item number two, AB 280, by Assemblymember Holden [Roll Call]. Item number three, AB 301, by Assemblymember Bauer-Kahan. [Roll Call]. Item number four, AB 304, by Assemblymember Holden [Roll Call]. Item number five, AB 391, was just dispensed with. Item number six, AB 423 was on consent.

Item number seven, AB 442, was on consent. Item number eight, AB 443, by Assemblymember Jackson [Roll Call]. Item number nine, AB 449, by Assemblymember Ting [Roll Call]. Item number 10, AB 462, by Assemblymember Ramos. Mr. Lackey?

I move the bill.

Do we have a second? Thank you, Mr. Santiago. On AB 462, by Assemblymember Ramos. The motion is do pass as amended, to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]. That measure passes. Item 11, AB 467, by Assemblymember Gabriel. [Roll Call]. Item number 12, AB 479, was on consent. Item 13, AB 484, has been dispensed with.

Item 14, AB 508, was on consent. And item 15, AB 600, by Assemblymember Ting. [Roll Call].

And with that, this concludes business for the Public Safety Committee.