Assembly Standing Committee on Public Safety

We're waiting to have a quorum, but in the meantime, we'll begin as a Subcommitee. Well, let me at least tell you what's off calendar.

I would wait, but we have a long list, so off calendar today, just in case you're here for any of these. Item number six, AB 561. Chin, was pulled by the author. Item number eight, AB 797. Weber, pulled by the author. Item number 10. AB 1039. Rodriguez, pulled by the author. Item number 19, AB 1497, Haney, pulled by Committee. Item number 24, AB 1721, top pull by office. First on the agenda is Miss Assemblymember Quirk Silva. Bill number 1187. Item number 11.

We'll begin as a Subcommitee, and as soon as we get a quorum, we'll be able to vote on you. Whenever you're ready.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Committee Members. First, I'd like to thank the committee consultant for working with our office on this important legislation and accept the Committee Amendments.

Adverse childhood experiences are well documented and are linked to negative outcomes into adulthood, including, but not limited to, PTSD repeating patterns of violence, chronic health problems, mental illness, and substance abuse.

Children who survive and/or witness family violence, child abuse and neglect, and/or have a family member die by suicide should receive referrals for support and therapeutic grief focused interventions from highly skilled and trained professionals such as Certified Child Life Specialists, CCLS.

When children enter the system, whether it be through law enforcement, California family services, or dependency or criminal court.

The need for grief counseling may be overlooked due to the many other pending challenges, including shortage of mental and behavioral health providers as well as competing priorities at the time.

These children and families are in dire need of grief interventions to lessen suffering, promote resilience, and mitigate the potential for these negative social, emotional, developmental, and behavioral effects over their lifespan.

Certified Child Life Specialists provide care and interventions that are family centered, evidence based, trauma informed, and developmentally psychologically appropriate.

Child life specialists are trained and equipped to respond to trauma cases and are well prepared to provide grief and crisis interventions for family members of all ages in the face of tragedy.

Unfortunately, the California Victim Compensation Board currently does not include Certified Child Life Specialists on the list of authorized mental health treatment providers and therefore valuable services provided by a Certified Child Life Specialist is not reimbursable for the victims of a crime program.

AB 1187 includes services provided to a child victim of crime by a Certified Child Life Specialist who is supervised by a licensed provider and therefore reimbursable by the California Victims of Crime program.

These children, their mental health needs, are often overlooked when they come into the system, whether it be through law enforcement, through children's services, or through the healthcare system.

With me today to testify in support of AB 1187 and answer any questions are Mr. Dan Felizzatto Special Assistant District Attorney with the Los Angeles County District Attorney's office, and Ms. Linda Garcia, Certified Life Child Specialist.

Whenever you're ready.

Mr. Chairman and members, Dan Felizzatto on behalf of the Los Angeles County District Attorney's office, we're proud to sponsor AB 1187.

As the assemblywoman testified, law enforcement we face many challenges when we come across children who have been the victim of child abuse, child sexual abuse, child neglect, or have witnessed other family members become victims of violent crimes.

The Certified Child Life Specialists are just what they sound like. They are specialists who help children who have faced severe trauma. AB 1187 will close the loophole in our state law so that the Certified Child Life Specialists are eligible for reimbursement when they work under the direct supervision of one of the already approved mental health providers.

Nothing in AB 1187 will expand the types of victims that are eligible for services.

It merely allows victims who are already eligible for services to be reimbursed when they see a certified child life specialist. Those negative impacts that the assemblywoman described are very real and need to be addressed as soon as possible.

Some children who have faced severe trauma are referred to CCLS. Already in LA County, we had three CCLS who were assisting child victims of crime. Unfortunately, the grant that paid for that expired and then wasn't renewed.

So without AB 1187, we don't have an ability to get these victims to the training and specialists they need. That's why this is important. Thank you.

Thank you. Next.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members. My name is Linda Garcia, and I'm a Certified Child Life Specialist practicing for more than 20 years in a pediatric medical setting. Currently, I provide trauma and grief home services to children in the LA community.

I'm here today to share the need for childlife specialists to provide trauma and grief support to children who become victims of severe family violence. Certified Child Life Specialists are trained, as mentioned, and provide and possess the necessary clinical skills to provide trauma and grief services.

The rigorous academic training mirrors that of psychology, MFT, social work. However, certified childhood specialists take another journey and are required to take courses in therapeutic play, coping and grief and loss. Our specific training to facilitate grief interventions lessen the trauma of loss.

We create a space for children, surviving children, to say goodbye, attend a funeral, or even visit a grave, establishing a foundation for positive coping and resilience in the face of a traumatic experience.

I would like to address what a child life specialist can do to assist a victim who has witnessed family violence. The best way for me to do this is to talk about a case that I have been involved with. This is a case of a three year old who witnessed the murder of her mother, who was shot by the biological father.

This child sat in the car, watched as her mother fell on the doorsteps of the Babysitter's home.

She then got out of the car and ran to her mother, who was dead on the scene. As a mental health professional, the images of this scene is intense and the many questions that follow were constant, not to mention what it was for this three year old. I received a referral three months after the violent act.

It is unknown why the delay of services. I immediately took on this case and started my weekly home visits.

I have found that home visits are more appropriate for children after such a traumatic event due to their inability, fear, grief, and confusion about a trauma. These home visits allowed me to meet the child where they're at in their trauma and to provide services in a familiar environment where they feel safe.

This young child presented with regressive behaviors, crying, bedwetting, nightmares. Her development was at risk due to the interrupted attachment relationships, her lack of understanding, death, grief, and the confusion of the whereabouts of her mother.

Emotionally, she was experiencing loss of secured attachments, loss of support from her dog, excessive clinging to her grandmother, separation anxiety, and demands for attention. Because of the developmental and cognitive level of this child, helping this child develop strategies was important to help her gain control and to deal with the traumatic memories and triggers that she had.

Eventually, the nightmares and the bed wedding stopped. Developing coping strategies for these children is important. They serve as a keepsake that lasts forever.

Currently, this child is thriving and emotionally stable. She exhibits healthy and normal development. She completed Head Start and has reached to her fullest potential of learning, improved attention span, cooperative, happy, socializing with new friends.

She has adapted positively and is thriving in her new living situation and in her community. I believe that traumatized victims who witness the terrors of family violence need trauma and grief support in order to promote resilience.

It is my hope that you believe that Certified Child Life Specialists can make a difference in the lives of surviving children and families, and that you also believe that they should not remain disenfranchised in their trauma and grief. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in support? Any witnesses in support? Seeing none. Are there any witnesses in opposition? Any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. I will bring it back to Committee Members. There they are. Mr. Zbur

I'll move the bill. I want to thank you for bringing this. I think it's really important, really thankful that the assemblymember, who's a former teacher, has really made protecting kids a priority in her work here in the assembly. I think funding these kinds of programs are really important for all the reasons that the witnesses stated strongly in support of the bill and just want to thank you all.

Unfortunately, we don't have a quorum yet because we can't move it yet, just yet, but we will. So noted. Did you, Ms. Ortega.

When we have a quorum, I will support the bill. I want to thank the author for taking on such an important subject. It's a life saving bill because it's about accessibility. And I really appreciate your testimony today, and we'll be supporting it. Thank you.

Thank you. I think there was a concern about who these individuals are and where they're coming from, how they're trained. Do you have any background information on that?

We are accepting the amendments, and as was saying, these individuals would be supervised by licensed provider.

Okay. Is there a particular skill set that you're looking for?

We currently have a group of certified trained child life specialists who meet the requirements of doing this specialized work. And it's a work group in Los Angeles that are throughout different areas of Los Angeles to be able to respond to any referrals made to us.

Okay, good. Thank you. With that, we can't do anything until we have a quorum. Once we do, it, looks like you got your first and your second, and then we'll vote on it. So thank you.

Thank you, members.

We now have Mr. Gibson, AB 1555, item number 201551.

I want to say good morning to you, Mr. Chairman and Members. Thank you for allowing me to present Assembly Bill 1551, which seeks to improve the lives of children who lose a parent as a result of vehicle homicide or a hit and run that results in a death. All children deserve an equal chance of life. This opportunity is taken away when a child loses its parents, especially if it results in a careless and selfish act when someone gets behind the wheel of a car.

DUI and hit and run are the leading cause of death among drivers on California roadways. In Los Angeles alone, DUI and hit-and-run accidents are rampant and have only gone up over the years. In fact, according to the data from the Personal Injury Lawyers, Los Angeles, it ranks 16th. Los Angeles ranked 16th among the US cities with the most DUI arrests. According to a law group, a whopping 50% of accidents reported in greater Los Angeles are characterized as hit and run.

Assembly Bill 1551 would establish an instrument to ensure that the children who loses a parent in a hit-and-run DUI accident provides child support to those children. And let me just go off script for a moment. This bill was taken out of the idea and a thought from Tennessee. A grandmother who lost her son, who was the main provider for his family, that son's life was lost, was taken away by a hit-and-run driver, and the grandmother was outraged.

Now she has to take on the responsibility. When you take away the main breadwinner in the family away due to a senseless drunk driving DUI, you cripple that entire family. A lot of children and families are unhoused as a result of that, that breadwinner no longer being in home. Also, a lot of the children lose both parents in such a senseless accident. Both parents are the breadwinners, and so those children winds up in foster care.

And in my notes, Mr. Chairman, certainly you intimately understand this. My staff wanted me to talk about my three-year-old son who was killed by hit-and-run motorists. The woman got out of the car when she saw she hit a three-year-old and ran to her car, took off, and the tow truck driver tried to capture her.

We don't know if she was a DUI driver or not, but the fact that she left the scene of the crime and that situation has yet to be solved, and she's still out there somewhere. And so, this is a personal thing for me and my family, when it comes down to hit-and-run drivers, when it comes down to the breadwinner being taken away. The Palacios family, and I'll conclude on this note, this is a family that lived in my community in the North Long Beach area.

A drunk driver, leaving the Bottoms Up Tavern, got in his truck after doing cocaine and alcohol, did donut holes, and then hit the accelerator, ran into the apartment building where the Palacios family was staying. The accident took the life of a father who was a breadwinner and his three-year-old daughter. The 17-year-old son just got up to go use the bathroom was in the bathroom.

When the truck driver, when the driver went through the home of the Palacios family, killing the father and the three-year-old daughter. Well, that family right now is living from pillar to post with family members taking them in and also making sure that the son graduates on time. We are that village that's surrounding that family and making sure that that family continue to have what they need. That's why this Bill 1551 is important.

I will pause now and turn it over to my witness to come and say a few words in support of the Bill.

Good morning, Committee. It's good to see you again. And I'm here. My name is Topo Padilla, and I'm an executive board member with Crime Victims United. Crime Victims United is obviously, unfortunately, formed due to a tragedy that happened to the Salerno family in 1979. Since then, we have worked on behalf of crime victims. And just yesterday, I looked out the west steps of the Capitol. I said, what's going on here? And it's supposedly a crime victims group.

We can't get thousands of crime victims to come down here and march these halls and come to your offices and talk to you. Send me here. This Bill is another step towards accountability, accountability for somebody's wrongful actions. I see in there, there was a question about, are they being punished twice? Does it matter? I mean, it does matter. You can't have double jeopardy. But this is a continuation of the punishment. You have your time in jail now.

Why shouldn't you have financial terms and conditions to help children of people that you've taken from their lives? This Bill has been done in Tennessee. It's called Ethan's, Hailey's, and Bentley's Law in May of 2022, and that was inspired by Missouri's law. And since then, there's several other states across this country that have done it. So why shouldn't we, here in California? We've done a lot. We've done a lot.

I've seen this committee and this legislature do a lot for people that have committed crimes and been convicted. We have to start standing up for victims. And I know you all want to, I don't have to beg you to do that, but I do see this as being a great way to take a step in the direction of helping victims and specifically children. So thank you.

Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in support? Any other witness in support? We're going to go kind of fast today. Any witnesses in opposition? Almost made a spoke too soon.

George, on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association, I want to thank the Committee and the author for the amendments. And also, I'm very sorry for your loss. I do want to point out that having the bill directed toward the money coming from the victim's compensation board still could possibly result in a restitution order against the individual if they were convicted. And I think that impoverishing someone and leaving them with a lifelong debt will never fill the loss that someone feels in this kind of situation.

And we have to figure out a way that everyone can heal and have the financial wherewithal to have opportunities. At this point, we still remain opposed unless amended, because we feel like this is a situation that should really be dealt with through the civil courts. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other in opposition? Then we'll bring it back to committee members. Any questions, concerns do you want to address?

Yes, thank you very much. And I appreciate the speaker a few moments ago and talking about lifelong debts. Well, if a parent has lost their lives in a car accident or hit and run, and those children, and again, this bill is looking out for the children, then we're talking about a child may be unhoused as a result, because the breadwinner is no longer there. Their whole life has been turned upside down by a decision that the driver made.

No one is putting a gun to the driver's head, to have one drink, and then get behind a motor vehicle and take someone's life. And so we have to look out for the children. In this particular case, we want to make sure that these children are not just left aimlessly in our society, moving from pillar to post, winding themselves into foster care because a driver took it upon him or herself to get behind a steering wheel, a car, and take someone's life.

And so I think when Tennessee brought this bill forward and it was signed into law, numerous other states feel the same way. And that's the reason why I'm bringing this bill before us. Texas felt the same way. Wisconsin, North Carolina, and many other states is following in the footsteps of Tennessee. As I opened up my initial remarks, Los Angeles, where I reside in the Los Angeles County area, we have so many people who have lost their lives due to hit and run, due to DUI drivers.

We must make sure that those individuals not only pay their debt to society, but also, I think there's a responsibility, if there's a parent that have been taken away as a result, that there should be some financial responsibility on the driver who took the parent's life away. I respectfully ask, when I vote at the appropriate time.

Okay. We still don't have a core, unfortunately. So when we do, we'll bring it up for a vote.

Thank you very much.

Hopefully I get a first and a second. Then we'll bring it up for a vote. Yes.

When we have a quorum, I'll move the, yep.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. Thank.

Assembly Member Weber, 1584, item number 21.

Good morning.

Good morning.

First, I'd like to thank the Committee for your work on this Bill, and I am accepting the Committee amendments. I'm here today to present AB 1584, a Bill that will modernize the state's competency to stand trial process. Currently, if an individual is facing charges, they cannot be tried or punished while they are incompetent.

If a doubt is raised on a defendant's competency, the court must suspend criminal proceedings and set a trial to determine whether the defendant is competent to stand trial, and criminal proceedings may not resume unless and until the person is found competent. Once someone is determined to be incompetent in a felony case, the judge has no choice but to commit that person to state hospital for restoration, even if other treatment options would be more effective, like community-based treatment, diversion, or conservatorship.

The number of people found incompetent to stand trial in California has far outpaced the state's ability to provide timely service and response. The Department of State Hospitals projects that as of June 30, 2023, the waitlist for competency restoration will exceed 1,400 persons. As a result, people may wait many months in jail before they are placed in a restoration program. Most who are found incompetent and then restored to competency often cycle back through the very same process.

They are released to the same conditions that led to their incarceration, managing symptoms of serious mental illness without housing, treatment, or support.

For these reasons, AB 1584 does the following: provides the judge with discretion to refer individuals who have been found incompetent to stand trial to mental health treatment when restoration to competency is not in the interest of justice. If requested by the defense, requires the court-appointed mental health expert to evaluate whether a person found incompetent to stand trial is eligible and suitable for mental health diversion. Requires court-appointed mental health experts to return competency evaluations within 30 days absent good cause for extension.

And finally, the Bill requires any hearing for mental health diversion to take place within 30 days of a finding of incompetency. The goal of AB 1584 is to promote speedy access to treatment for those severely and acutely ill individuals, reduce court and county detention cost, facility cost, and increase judicial efficiency by limiting the setting of unnecessary jury trials. This Bill is sponsored by the ACLU and the California Public Defenders Association.

Here to testify with me today is Demetria Simpson, a healthcare worker in Madera County whose son has been impacted by the IST process, and Stephanie Regular, an assistant public defender out of Contra Costa County Public Defenders Office and a board member of the California Public Defenders Association. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Committee Members. My name is Stephanie Regular. I'm a board member of the California Public Defenders Association, a cosponsor of AB 1584. I have also been a public defender for 22 years and specializing in mental health cases and competency to stand trial matters. For the past 12 years, the state's modernization of the misdemeanor competency to stand trial provisions have been transformative for my clients.

But my clients who are incompetent to stand trial and charged with felony offenses, are still suffering through a costly, lengthy, and sometimes fruitless restoration process. Under existing law, my clients wait nearly two months for the court-appointed doctor's opinion regarding competency, another 30 days for a con rep report regarding placement, and then another four to six months before admission to a state hospital or sometimes just another jail facility for a restoration. When they return, they are often in the exact same condition as when they left.

They may have gained enough knowledge to enter guilty plea, but they have not received enough treatment to change the trajectory of their life. The problem is that our current system is not focused on actual treatment. It is not designed to improve the lives of the people who cycle through it. Consistent with Committee on the revision of the Penal Code recommendations, AB 1584 provides courts with statutory time frames for quicker determinations of competency.

It requires court-appointed doctors to offer an opinion regarding diversion and likelihood of restoration and most importantly, it gives courts the flexibility to order mental health treatment. AB 1584 offered the hope that I have been waiting to give to my clients and their family members for the past 12 years. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello. My name is Demetria Simpson. I'm a care provider, a devoted mother, and now, by necessity, I'm a mental health advocate. Kevron Harris is my only child. He suffers ongoing trauma. He lost his father, his uncles, and grandfather, and he witnessed a friend's murder when he was still a child. He has been diagnosed with multiple serious mental disabilities and now he has been in and out of jail and state hospitals over the past last four years due to his mental illness.

He is currently committed at Patton State Hospital. In November of 2019, Kevron was arrested in Madera County for charges arising out of his mental health illness. I struggle to this day with my role in this incident, which led to my son's first-ever conviction. In the midst of one of my son's mental health crisis, I called for emergency medical intervention. Instead of mental health specialists, the county sent police and instead of emergency mental health care they arrested and charged him for an assault on an officer.

After cycling between jail and state hospital, Kevron ultimately pleaded guilty at the advisement of his public defender. He spent two years in custody for his first offense and was sentenced. His sentence was to probation. I knew it was only a matter of time before the cycle would repeat. Because he was released with inadequate supervision and no mental health treatment oversight, the system was set up to fail him.

In September 2021, approximately two months after Kevron's release, he was again arrested, this time in Fresno County, for two misdemeanor charges arising out of his mental health symptoms. Unsurprisingly, being in jail, Kevron's mental health condition worsened. I was watching by video the next time he appeared in court. It was his birthday, September 29, and this was the first time I saw him since he was arrested. His face was deformed and he was beaten. He looked at confused about where he was.

I went to the jail immediately. The jail told me he was in an altercation with an officer. As a result, now he has a new charge, which is this one felony. I was also informed he was placed in solitary confinement for 30 days. I could not call visit and I had no idea what happened to him. During this time, Kevron's grandmother who helped raise him passed away, which is my mom.

I tried to find the best way possible to relay this sensitive information to my son and I was told the jail chaplain would be the best person to deliver this type of information. However, they said they could not provide chaplain service to him due to him being in solitary confinement. Late October, he called my phone repeatedly asking to speak to his grandmother. The following months, he was suicidal and in and out of solitary confinement, and being tased repeatedly.

In March 7, 2022, the court determined Kevron incompetent and ordered in April that he be committed for restoration of competency. In August 2022, 5 months after he was found incompetent, nearly one year after his arrest on misdemeanor charges, he disappeared in the system and I spent a month trying to find out where he was placed and I feared the worst. September 2022, I learned that Kevron has been transferred to a jail-based treatment program in Kern County that was unsuccessful in restoring his competency.

In February 2022, Kevron was transferred to Patton State Hospital, where he is today. Imagine your family going through the system, someone who has experienced trauma and who struggled to explain their feelings, knowing that jail was what brutalized them and ignore their vulnerabilities, and make them feel alone. I know this is unlikely to be the last time my son will be cycled in the system. I fear my son will effectively serve a life sentence due to his mental illness and the state's broken competency system.

I know this is not what is best for him or for society. There should be other solutions outside of jail, not confinement, which is all but certain to worsen his condition and others and result in a growing criminal record that would only make it harder for him to reintegrate into society. The system has left me undefeated. I'm here today because I want to know that this same cycle would not be repeated if Kevron has another encounter with the police related to his mental illness.

I am here today because I don't want the system to leave others defeated as well.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I believe we have a quorum now, so let's try to establish that. Just give us a minute.

[Roll call].

Quorum is present on a proposed consent calendar. Item number one, AB 60, Bryan, restorative justice program. Item number two, AB, 235, Blanco Rubio, Civil Rights Department, Labor Trafficking Unit. Item number four, AB 428, Waldron, California Department of Reentry. Item number seven, AB 581, Wendy Carrillo, rehabilitative program providers. Item number 13, AB 1329, Maienschein, county jail, incarcerated persons identification card pilot program.

And item number 14, AB 1371, Low, unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor. Motion for approval of the consent calendar. Madam Secretary, call the roll.

On the consent calendar. [Roll call].

Consent calendar is adopted. Thank you for your patience. Yes, we're going to do other witnesses in support. Name and organization.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Mica Doctoroff on behalf of ACLU California Action, we are a proud co-sponsor of this legislation and here in strong support. I'm also here to voice strong support from Smart Justice California and the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights. Thank you.

Marco George on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association, co-sponsor. Thank you very much. Strong support. And also on behalf of the San Francisco Public Defender's Office, in support.

Thank you.

My name is Raphael Calex, and I'm a member of the Anti-recidivism Coalition, and I'm in support of Bill 1584. And the reason why.

Thank you. No, that's it. Name and organization. That's it. Thank you.

That's it?

That's it. Thank you.

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

Good morning, Chair and Members. Jeronimo Aguilar here on behalf of Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, also representing All of Us or None, here in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

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

Thank you.

Good morning. Ed Little, on behalf of Californians for Safety and Justice in support.

Thank you.

Danica Rodomel, on behalf of Initiate Justice in support.

Thank you. Now, are there any witnesses in opposition? Yes, sir.

Good morning, Chair and Committee Members. My name is Jonathan Raven. I'm the Chief Deputy District Attorney of the Yolo County District Attorney's Office and here on behalf of CDAA. I want to start off by saying my heart goes out to Kevron and her mother and the family members. And what she said today before all of you is exactly true.

That's what goes on in the system, and I've watched it because I work closely in the system as a prosecutor trying to help individuals like Kervron to avoid sitting in custody because custody is not the place for people who have mental illness. That being said, AB 1584 is not the answer here. I sat on a statewide Commission to help solve the problem with the overcrowding and the problems with the Department of State Hospitals. I sat on it with Miss Regular actually.

This was not one of the recommendations that came out of that statewide collaborative committee. The Bill would establish a rebuttable presumption of mental incompetence for criminal defendants who commit robbery, felony assaults, and other felonies and are facing a mental competency determination. According to the Department of State Hospitals, over 66% of defendants who were initially found to be incompetent were able to have their competency restored.

However, AB 1584 would require a judge to make a determination whether restoring the person to mental competency is in the interest of justice before any attempt at restoration has begun. AB 1584 creates a procedure by which some felony conduct will not be restored to competency.

Specifically, the Bill identifies robbery and felony assaults as some of the felonies that would not be restored to competency by creating a rebuttable presumption that restoration is not in the interest of justice for any defendant charged with robbery, felony assault, or any 1170 felony. AB 1584's rebuttable presumption tips the scales of justice in the favor of finding some felonies cannot be restored. As a result, some victims of violent crime will not be afforded the rights guaranteed to them by the California Constitution.

As I said, we have a significant problem in the system in terms of people who are criminally justice involved who suffer from serious mental illness. Custody is not the place for them. What we have to be focusing on are the upstream solutions, so they never get to that point in time.

And so if they do get into that point, we have other options, such as the Department of State's Hospital's Grant Program, which Yolo County and many other counties utilize to try to treat these individuals in the community. That being said, 1584 is not the answer to the problems that we're facing with individuals who are found incompetent to stand trial. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else in opposition? Seeing none, we'll bring it back to Committee Members for questions. Seeing none, you may close. You may close. Go ahead.

Before I ask for your vote, I do want to give a response to the opposition concerns. We are accepting the Committee amendments to address the concern regarding the rebuttal presumption of mental incompetence for criminal defendants who commit robbery, felony assaults, and other felonies and are facing a mental competency determination. So I believe that concern of theirs was addressed in the amendments.

Additionally, opposition states that competency, they talk about the fact that it is determined at a point in time and that individuals who were initially found to be incompetent were able to have their competency restored sometimes, quote, simply by resuming their medication. Unfortunately, the competency restoration process is a quick band-aid to expedite the prosecution process and the data does not show that it has long-term results. And that's exactly what we heard from my witness when she gave her testimony.

And I thank you so much for being here for that. More than 70% of people who go through the restoration process are rearrested upon release. And over a 10-year period, more than a third of people who are found incompetent are rearrested again and found incompetent once again. So the system that we have that the opposition thinks is working somewhat is clearly broken, and 1584 is a part of the process of fixing it. And with that, I respectfully ask for your Aye vote.

And I want to thank you for taking the amendment. I don't know if the Committee Members need to get to the California District Attorneys Association because I believe we did notify them that you did take the amendments to address their concerns. And so we'll work better at making sure they get that information before we have the Committee. So again, I want to thank you for taking that amendment because I believe it did address everything that was stated earlier.

With that, the Chair is recommending an Aye vote.

On AB 1584 by Assembly Member Weber. The motion is do pass as amended to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll call].

That measure passes. Thank you. I now have, in order, Berman, Ting, Muratsuchi.

Berman's on his way.

No. You're next. I think I have 2. 1380 and 1598, items 15 and 22.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and colleagues. I'll start with 1380. Hi, how are you? Good to see you. First I very much want to thank the Chair and the Committee for your Constructive engagement and discussions on this Bill.

AB 1380 is, to be honest, a very modest bill that would strengthen California's law against revenge porn by closing loopholes in current law that may allow individuals to distribute private sexual images of another person without their consent and with the intent of causing them serious harm.

Revenge porn is the cowardly crime of intentionally distributing an intimate image with the intention of causing serious emotional distress to the person in the image.

This most often happens when a person texts, emails, or posts an intimate photo or video as retaliation following a bitter breakup between partners. Unfortunately, this crime disproportionately impacts women as women face higher victimization of revenge porn, while men are the primary perpetrators.

With the emergence of social media, revenge porn is becoming much more rampant. From 2016 to 2020, incidents of revenge porn have doubled, with 1 in 12 individuals having reported being a victim of revenge porn. The effects of this crime should not be taken lightly.

A study found that 93% of victims suffered significant emotional distress, 51% had suicidal thoughts, and 49% stated they have been stalked or harassed online by users who saw their image. As a crime enabled by recent technology, revenge porn is relatively new.

As perpetrators find more creative ways to perpetrate revenge porn, we have a responsibility to victims to try to ensure that the law keeps up with technology.

AB 1380 provides a narrow fix in the statute to address existing deficiencies and ensure that victims of revenge porn receive justice in California.

Here with me today is Julia Schon, a deputy district attorney with the Santa Clara County Office of the District Attorney, along with Erica Gonzalez from Tulare County District Attorney's office. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

You have five minutes, two minutes apiece, or every way you want to split it up.

Good morning, Chair and members. My name is Julia Schon, and I'm a deputy district attorney for the Santa Clara District Attorney's office.

I'm also a member of the California District Attorneys Association, in support of AB 1380. This bill will strengthen protections for victims of revenge porn by clarifying the crime of revenge porn to include the intentional distribution of intimate images taken without the victim's knowledge or consent, along with strengthening the protections of victims of revenge porn by accounting for new advancements and technologies.

Recently in Santa Clara County, a woman received a Facebook message from a stranger alerting her that an intimate video of her was online, on a pornographic website. A quick Google search of her name revealed that intimate video.

It was a video of her and her ex husband, a video that included her full name, her city of residence, and where she worked. A video where her husband's face was blurred out but hers was not.

A video that she did not even know was recorded, a video she did not know existed under existing law, the crime of revenge porn is defined as the intentional distribution of an intimate image, under circumstances in which persons agree or understand, the image shall remain private.

This ambiguous language led to a jury finding being unable to find for guilt or innocence.

This ambiguous language prevented this woman from seeking justice against a man who violated her privacy, and to this day, she still lives in fear that her friends, family and employers will see the video.

She is unable to be here today before you because she could not give a statement anonymously because to this day, a quick Google search of her name still reveals the videos.

On behalf of the Santa Clara District Attorney's office and the California District Attorney Association, we ask that you support the victims of revenge porn by supporting AB 1380. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and members. My name is Erica Gonzalez. I'm an assistant district attorney with the Tulare County District Attorney's office and a member of the California District Attorneys Association in support of AB 1380. This bill makes a common sense change to the current law.

It gives victims of revenge porn the ability to seek justice when their privacy is violated.

The current law, as written, requires that one of the elements a prosecutor must establish is that the persons agree or understand that the image shall remain private. However, there is no specific law that addresses when a person intentionally distributes the image of the intimate body part of another person without authorization of the person depicted.

The area of law of revenge porn is relatively new. And since 2020, I have had the opportunity to testify on two prior occasions before this Legislature on the impact of revenge porn on victims.

The first time was the result of a teacher who was unaware her private images had been shared by an ex boyfriend on the Internet, and she was unable to seek justice before the statute of limitations had expired.

This legislature rightfully supported an expansion of the statute of limitations to the date of discovery. The second time dealt with expanding the definition of distribution to include exhibiting in public or giving possession, which was the result of a victim who was unable to seek justice when her ex boyfriend printed private images and displayed them on his truck while driving throughout the town, intending to cause her serious emotional distress.

Again, this legislature rightfully corrected the statute to include exhibiting in public.

This bill continues on the progress that has been made in improving California's revenge porn law so that it is consistent with other intentional violation of privacy crimes in California. On behalf of the Tulare County District Attorney's office and the California District Attorneys Association, we ask that you stand with victims of revenge porn and support this bill. Thank you.

Are there any others in support?

Morning, Mr. Chairman and members. Carl London here on behalf of Crime Victims United, also in support of the bill. Thank you.

Okay, is there anyone in opposition? Seeing none. We'll bring it back to Committee Members.

I'll move the bill. Can I speak?

Yeah.

So I want to thank the author for bringing the bill. I think it's really an important one, and I think that there should be a specific body of law dealing with revenge porn. These are some of the most intimate moments that people have.

We're in an age where on a click of a button, you can destroy someone's life, you can cause emotional trauma that can extend for decades. And for me, it's compounded by the fact that this often also occurs when there are elements of social stigma about those intimate moments.

And why I think this is something that is really necessary to protect women and actually members of the LGBTQ+ community, because I think you have those elements of social stigma there as well. So I'm strongly in support of the bill.

I'm just worried about revenge porn. A lot of youth are doing this. They see it on social media. They have no idea where it came from and they just start retweeting. I want to make sure that we're not overreaching here.

I think this is really different than other bills that have advanced, that have increased penalties for activities that are related to, really, the criminalization of poverty. I see this as very different from those things.

And so I'm in full support of the bill and want to thank you for bringing it and want to thank the witnesses for coming today.

I'm also supporting the bill today, but I do have some questions or one question which is related to the concern that was in the analysis. So there is a piece in here where the bill seems to lack specificity when it comes to knowing who is distributing and them knowing whether there was consent or non consent.

Absolutely. Thank you for the question. I'm going to let the experts dive in deeper to my short answer, but that's an area that I want to make sure that we're not overreaching either. And so that's an area where I'm very open to having continuing conversations about that specific part of it.

I would note that you still have to have the intent to do harm, and harm still has to be done.

So it can't just be like an innocent situation where you don't know the person or you're just kind of retweeting something mindlessly. The prosecutors would have to establish that whoever they're trying to target has the intent to do harm to the person in the image and that the intent was done.

So I think that's a way to help put guardrails around that. But I'm open to other ideas as well.

I would agree with that. This is a specific intent crime. It's not a general intent, just the act of sharing the image is not enough. We have to actually show that you intended to cause emotional distress by doing so.

Like in the example you give of teenagers maybe gossiping and saying, oh my gosh, look what I was just sent. That would not be sufficient to be able to prosecute someone.

And it is a misdemeanor crime, but we wouldn't be able to prosecute someone for this misdemeanor crime. There would have to be that additional element of showing that the person intended to cause harm. Like the example I gave of the ex boyfriend who posted the image all over his truck and drove around town.

It's clear his intent was to embarrass, humiliate, and cause distress to the person in the image. And so I haven't seen any examples of overreaching because of the way the law is written you have to have that required intent.

And I generally agree with that. However, this is new and therefore, I'm thinking ahead and making sure we protect and not overreach.

1000% appreciate that.

Yeah, we agree. Thank you.

And again, happy to want to keep that conversation going.

Any other comments from the committee? We've had a motion in a second. Please call the roll on.

On AB 1380 by senior Member Berman. The motion is do passed to the Appropriations Committee.

[Roll Call]

That measure passes. We'll move on to item number 22. Thank you, 1598. Mr. Berman, go ahead.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair and colleagues. AB 1598 would ensure that potential firearm purchasers are aware of the benefits and risks of owning and bringing a firearm into their home. There are many reasons why people choose to own firearms, but peer reviewed academic research shows that bringing a firearm into the home makes it more dangerous. It is critically important that potential firearm purchasers understand these serious risks so they can make an informed decision and take appropriate safety measures of a responsible firearm owner.

This Bill would expand what is covered in the firearm safety certification test to explicitly include the increased risks of owning and bringing a firearm into the home, as well as know about life-saving firearm laws in California. AB 1598 would also require that a pamphlet be given to all firearm purchasers at point of sale with the information about the benefits and increased risks associated with bringing a firearm into the home.

Educating potential firearm purchasers on the increased risks of death by suicide, homicide, and unintentional injury ensures individuals understand the gravity of being a responsible firearm owner. And here with me is Angela Bayer, the Director of Engagement and Impact at the UC Davis Firearm Prevention Research Program and the California Firearm Violence Research Center. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. My name is Angela Bayer. I'm the Director of Engagement and Impact at the California Firearm Violence Research Center, and I'm here to present my own views as a public health expert. During my two decades working on public health projects to learn about the perspectives of diverse groups of people. I've repeatedly heard people express their need for high-quality, easy-to-understand information, to be able to make independent choices about their lives. This includes firearm owners.

What do people believe about firearms and safety? First, most people own firearms to protect themselves from other people, including six in 10 handgun owners and two in 10 long gun owners in California. Second, most people in the US, over six in 10 believe that having a firearm in the home makes you safer. Does the evidence confirm what people genuinely believe?

No evidence shows that, on balance, having a gun in the home makes the gun owner and other household members less safe by increasing their risk of suicide and homicide. A summary of 16 research studies found that people with access to firearms have a three times higher risk of suicide and a two times higher risk of being a homicide victim than those without access. But it's hard to find this information outside of academia and public health circles. Firearm owners and non-owners alike think safety is essential.

This Bill would ensure that firearm owners have access to information about the risks of owning and having a firearm in the home and about gun and domestic violence, restraining orders for high-risk situations. That information will increase owner's awareness of such orders if they become relevant for them or others. They know and will enable owners to make informed, independent, and responsible decisions about their firearms. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have others to testify in support? Do we have any witnesses to testify in opposition? You'll have five minutes between you.

Thank you. Got it, madam Chairman. Members, Sam Paredes, representing Gun Owners California. We've got some significant issues as to why we oppose this Bill. Number one, if this is about informing people about the attributes of owning firearms, why don't they inform them across the board of everything? They choose only to inform about subjective studies.

And it's not arguable, because for every study that comes up with this position, there's an opposing study that shows that there is a lot of subjectivity in the way these studies were conducted. They are epidemiological in nature. They show causation and correlation, but they cannot show proof. They cannot show causation. So they don't talk about the fact that in California, somewhere around 50 to 300,000 times a year, lawful citizens use firearms to successfully defend themselves.

So there are definitely positives for owning firearms legally in the State of California. It happens every single year. I get to look into the eyes of people who have successfully saved their lives or the lives of their families or friends because they had a firearm that is never taken into the quotient. The fact that this is just stilted to one side is the reason that we are in opposition to this Bill. Thank you.

Rick Travis, Madam Chair, California Rifle Pistol Association. We are, for the same reasons that Sam just did, are opposed, but also there's a couple of others. The CRPA has been around since 1875 and has been the leader in firearms safety training here in this state, and not once were we contacted. We do believe that there are ways to put forward such a document that would be balanced, would be fair, and would improve safety, but have not been part of the conversation. So we stand opposed on that.

Plus, it's compelled speech and one sided and throughout the land, on multiple issues, including in this space that has been handed down by the courts, is not being legal. And we will be ready to fight this if it does go through in court. Thank you.

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

Dan Reed with National Rifle Association in opposition. Thank you.

Seeing no other comments in opposition or support, we will bring it back to the Committee. Sorry. We have one more.

Anna Ioakimedes with Los Angeles Unified in support.

Thank you. Mr. Chavez moved the Bill. Ms. Ortega seconds no other comment from Committee. Mr. Berman, you can close.

Thank you very much. This is the first we're hearing from any opposition on the Bill, so we're happy to. If you all want to send us letters with the concerns you have, happy to take a look at that information. Again, we just want to make sure that folks get peer reviewed academic data about both the benefits and the harms of bringing a gun into the home and the real risks that data shows. And we collect that data in California.

Unfortunately, we don't collect that data nationally because there's been efforts to block us from just collecting information at the national level. But we have that information in California. It's peer reviewed. The efficacy is strong, and we think that folks should get that information before they make a decision on whether or not to bring a gun into their house. Respectfully ask for your vote.

Thank you. We have a motion in a second. Please call the roll.

On AB 1598 by Assemblymember Berman. The motion is do passed the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Mr. Muratsuchi, you're up next. Okay. Yep. Item 23.

What's that?

Item 23, AB 1708.

Yes.

All right. Thank you.

You can go ahead and present the bill.

Thank you very much, Members of the Committee. I am here to present AB 1708. This is part of a growing movement of people and of organizations, of communities that want to restore balance to our public safety laws, especially focusing on retail theft and especially focusing on repeat offenders of retail theft.

This is a bill that is co-sponsored by the League of California Cities, the California Retailers Association, the California Police Chiefs Association, and the California District Attorneys Association, along with eight bipartisan joint authors of this measure. We want to have a common sense fix to Proposition 47 to combat the retail theft that we're seeing in our communities. We are proposing a balanced approach to hold repeat offenders accountable while addressing that much of what is driving retail theft, property crimes, is drug addiction.

And so we are proposing diversion programs to provide drug addiction treatment as well as mental health treatment. The data is clear, and I wanted to add to the information that was provided in the Committee analysis that according to the Public Policy Institute of California, in 2021, they came out with a study that property crimes are up in Los Angeles, Oakland, San Diego, and San Francisco, and that this followed their report, the Public Policy Institute of California's report in 2018 that property crimes have increased after Proposition 47 passed.

This is the data that we know our constituents are seeing in each and every one of our communities. And we know that according to a poll taken by UC Berkeley just last year, 78% of Californians feel that crime is rising statewide. And 65% of Californians are feeling that crime is increasing locally. Fifty-nine percent, almost two thirds of Californians, support amending Proposition 47 specifically to prosecute some property crimes as felonies.

So I'm asking this Committee to give a fair consideration, and I'm frankly disappointed that you're the only Member of the Committee on this dais. But this is an earnest attempt to try to hear what our constituents are saying loud and clear, that they don't feel safe in their communities. They want common sense fixes to Proposition 47. Nothing is perfect. Nothing is perfect. And we need to start somewhere to make some common sense fixes to Proposition 47.

I'm very proud to be joined with representing the League of California Cities, the mayor of the City of Paramount, Isabel Aguayo, as well as representing the District Attorneys Association. Specifically because I know the Chair has stated many times, incorrectly, that current law allows for the filing of felony charges against repeat offenders.

And so we have our Sacramento County District Attorney, Thien Ho, who will be able to answer and to clarify that the existing law does not allow for going after repeat offenders, as well as to get them to participate in the drug addiction diversion court programs. I'd like to turn it over to Mayor Aguayo.

Good morning, Chair.

We hold for a minute. I just sort of think that the.

Good morning, Chair and Members. My name is Isabel Aguayo and I am the mayor of the City of Paramount, an all female City Council in Los Angeles County. I am here to speak on behalf of the League of California Cities, which proudly sponsoring this measure on behalf of the 482 cities throughout our state. My city is home to over 53,000 residents in southeast Los Angeles County and largely consists of underserved, low income Latino residents.

We are one of many cities within the League of California Cities that voted to support this measure, and we want to do so loudly. We may not have been vocal enough in the past, but I am here to tell you that we need your help in finding solutions to fix Proposition 47. According to a February 2023 study conducted by the Public Policy Institute of California, a majority of Californians worry their families will be a victim of a crime.

This is the growing sentiment being felt in cities throughout the state, and it is not without reason. Prop 47 relaxed criminal prosecution for petty thefts and certain types of fraud. Repeat offenders faced no escalating penalties and dangerous drug possession charges and cases were reclassified as misdemeanors. It's no wonder why the City of Paramount saw an 11% increase in petty thefts following the implementation of Prop. 47, going from 756 in 2014 to 842 in 2018.

Perhaps more striking is the 47% increase in grand theft autos, which spiked from 388 in 2014 to 572 in 2021. These offenders typically have a large role in repeat thefts and burglaries. We are here today to advocate for common sense solutions that help address these types of continuous and escalating offenses. I've personally heard countless times from residents that I serve that they are fed up with being victims of crime. AB 1708 seeks to amend Proposition 47 in a modest but meaningful way.

We agree with you and do not want to return to the days of over-incarceration, but reform needs to happen. We support strategies and resources to address not only crime, but also its underlying causes. This includes a partnership with all levels of government and organizations to improve community safety through prevention and early intervention programs. Increased accountability improved rehabilitation and reentry services. AB 1708 would increase accountability for repeat theft offenders and offer pathways for diversion programming.

We believe this combination will be truly effective in increasing community safety and wellness. Improving public safety throughout our communities is a top priority for cities this legislative session. This strategy is one of many supported by Cal cities in addressing crime and its underlying causes. We cities remain committed to improving California's jail and prison systems, ending repeat offenses and building community based system for all community members. I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Thien Ho. I am the elected District Attorney of Sacramento County. After my parents and I escaped Vietnam on a small fishing boat, we eventually made our way to East San Jose, where my parents spent years saving up money to start a grocery store where I worked. $30 billion a year is lost to retail theft. And that's just the tip of the iceberg when you're considering all the unreported theft offenses.

For businesses, especially mom and pop shops like my parents, theft can make the difference between staying in business or going out of business. This bill is a common sense way of addressing this issue. People often steal either to make money or to feed their addiction. For those who repeatedly walk out of stores with an arm full of stolen property, this law will allow the justice system to hold them accountable in a meaningful way.

But for those who are stealing to feed their addiction, it also allows us to create a special diversion program. In Sacramento, we have 12 different collaborative courts and diversion programs, but none of them are an effective means to deal with theft and drug addiction in combination. And this is why misdemeanor theft offenses, which we charge all the time in Sacramento, often result in just a fine or a few days in jail. That's the reality of a misdemeanor theft offense.

The gravity of drug addiction will pull an addict towards a path of least resistance. When faced with the choice between a few days in jail or a comprehensive drug program, the addict will often pick the path of least resistance. We have no teeth, no leverage, no means of encouragement. This bill gives us the means to address that while also holding accountable those who commit repeated theft and help small businesses, such as the grocery store that my parents owned.

We in Sacramento have an example of an individual who was stealing repeatedly from Target, just a mile and a half away from here every day for 30 days. Each of those offenses are misdemeanors. Because the individual committed those offenses individually and not in concert with other people, we could not charge organized theft. Because that individual was stealing a day here, a day there, there was no common scheme or plan. So the amendment that was passed through last year does not address that.

At the end of the day, this is a common sense approach. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have other people in support?

Good morning, Chair and Members. Elisa Arcidiacono with the League of California Cities is a proud co-sponsor of this measure. Thank you.

Ethan Egler, on behalf of the cities of Bakersfield, Carlsbad and Rancho Palos Verdes, in support.

Chair and Members, Jonathan Feldman with the California Police Chiefs Association, proud co-sponsor. Thanks.

Mr. Chair. Chris McKayley on behalf of the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce, in support.

Jonathan Raven, Chief Deputy District Attorney of the Yolo County District Attorney's Office here on behalf of the California DA's Association, in support.

Leticia Garcia with the California Grocers Association, also in support.

Good morning. Kyra Ross on behalf of the City of San Marcos, in support.

Sarah Pollo Moo, on behalf of the California Retailers Association, in support.

Do we have any witnesses in opposition? You have five minutes. Five minutes total. Five minutes total between the two. You go ahead and start.

Good morning, Members. My name is Ed Little. I'm with Californians for Safety and Justice and we are in respectful opposition to AB 1708. AB 1708 seeks to partially repeal fundamental components of Prop 47 by increasing penalties for low level shoplifting and petty theft in numerous scenarios. It gestures towards a continuing failed narrative and push for the destructive, tough on crime policies of the past.

AB 1708 intends to charge nonviolent Californians with felonies and take us back to a time where punishments were not commensurate with the offense and overly punitive measures were the order of the day. We have all witnessed the costly result of believing we can incarcerate our way out of crime. The social problems that undergird these issues we all seek to address cannot be solved with a jail or prison cell.

Poverty, housing insecurity, lack of adequate mental health services, unemployment, substance use, and an extremely high cost of living require us to think critically about solutions that will make all of us safe and secure. Prop 47 is an example of a solutions based approach to addressing these issues. Over the past eight years, Prop 47 has saved the State of California $700 million.

These resources have gone towards transforming communities across the State of California through investments in mental health services, substance treatment programs, youth intervention, reentry services, trauma recovery services for victims of crime. This results in fewer people in jails and prisons, and more services and support, and ultimately more safety, not less. The success of Prop 47 should be highlighted rather than used as a straw man by those who are resistant to the idea of reform.

If we disproportionately invest our resources into prisons and jails and prosecutors and police, there will be nothing left for the things we know create true shared safety and community well being. AB 1708 is yet another attempt to go down the path that California voters have rejected on multiple occasions, significantly reverting misdemeanors back to felony would once again dramatically increase incarceration rates, leaving the state vulnerable to falling out of compliance with the prison system's population cap and mandated by the federal judiciary.

For these reasons, we are opposed to AB 178.

Good morning again, Margo George, on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association, we're respectfully in opposition to AB 1708. I would echo Mr. Little's comments and also add that this is not a common sense solution to what's perceived as rising crime. And the analysis and the Committee's analysis lists one study after another done by all kinds of different committees, policy institutes, ranging from the National Institute of Justice to the California Public Policy Institute, showing that crime actually has overall been reduced since 2019.

And I would echo the other benefits of Prop 47. It has reduced racial disparities. The Public Policy Institute of California said it led to a notable decrease in racial ethnic disparities and arrests and bookings. Also, we all know at this point that at least the studies show that harsher punishment does not deter criminal behavior. Prop 47 has reduced the prison population and saved millions of dollars, mainly responsible for California being able to close two prisons already and potentially close up to five more.

This is especially important in light of the fact that in the budget that's being asked for you to pass now, CDCR is saying that it costs them $127,000 a year per individual to keep someone in prison. This is while California now is facing a $22 billion budget shortfall, which is believed to be increasing. So imprisoning people for selling, stealing items that amount to less than $950 for a year is just not even financially feasible, does not make common sense.

And frankly, it would be cheaper just to reimburse the merchants for their losses. I understand your plight. My family had a small business at one point and also suffered, and this was way back in the 1950s, from theft. I think it's an ongoing problem, and imprisoning people is not the answer. So we respectfully ask for your no vote.

Are there any other witnesses in opposition? Name and organization.

Morning, Chairman, Members. Jeronimo Aguilar, here on behalf of Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, also here on behalf of All of Us or None, in strong opposition. Thank you.

Hello, Committee Members. Kent Mendoza with the Anti-Recidivism Coalition and respectfully opposed this bill. Thank you.

Good morning. Analisa Ruiz on behalf of Young Women's Freedom Center as well as Sister Warriors Freedom Coalition, in opposition.

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

Good morning. Mica Doctoroff on behalf of ACLU California Action, in opposition.

Danica Rodarmel, on behalf of Initiate Justice. In opposition.

Jim Lindbergh, Friends Committee on Legislation of California, opposed.

And may I add, please, San Francisco Public Defenders Association, also in opposition. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. And I'll bring it back to Committee Members. Mr. Lackey?

Yeah. My concerns with this bill are quite significant, but allowing the status quo is even more objectionable, and I'll be supporting it today, and I move the bill.

Thank you. Any other. You may close, Mr. Muratsuchi.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for joining us. I don't want to repeat what all of the witnesses had testified earlier, but I do want to say that, first of all, the opposition's comments seem like they're just cut and paste from the standard talking points to defend Proposition 47.

I think this doesn't recognize that this bill is trying to meet you in the halfway by proposing diversion programs, by wanting to make the drug addiction diversion programs effective, by having some meaningful incentive to participate in these drug addiction programs. We heard from the Sacramento District Attorney about how people are not participating in the drug diversion programs because there is no incentive to.

I know, as a former prosecutor as well as a former public defender, that if it's a choice between spending a day or two in jail or participating in a commitment to participate in drug rehab, they're going to take the easy road out and they're just going to do the time.

The problem is that as 78% of Californians don't feel that they are safe, 59%, almost two thirds of Californians, according to last year's UC Berkeley poll, support amending Proposition 47 to focus specifically on property crimes, to allow some property crimes to be prosecuted as felonies.

We are trying to meet you halfway here by proposing a diversion program I think is very progressive in the sense that we are trying to be in the spirit of Proposition 47, to propose drug addiction, mental health treatment, diversion alternatives to incarceration in this bill. And this Committee, frankly, Mr. Chairman, needs to quit being the deathbed of any effort to try to amend, to fix Proposition 47, to make it better.

This Committee has been out of touch with the 78% of Californians who feel that California is no longer a safe place to be, 65% of people who believe that their local neighborhoods are not safe, and 59%, almost two thirds who would support some common sense fixes to Proposition 47. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

And thank you. As you know, several members of the Committee had other committees to go to, not only Democrats, but also Republicans. And so I will tell you, it's not out of disrespect. You and I have had numerous conversations about this, so I probably know more information than most on this subject. And so this is what I will do for you today, to at least second so we at least get a vote on this.

I wouldn't want it to die because I think we need to continue. I think you maybe even be on the right path. There may be a semantics that I told you earlier when I mentioned to you, the movement to end Prop 47 or 57 is not appropriate when the voters have voted twice to have Prop 47, 57 and going to, you can do all the polling you want. Heck, I probably get polling so I could be Governor.

But don't mean the voters will vote for me as Governor. At the end of the day, it's the voters that make the decision. And so, as I told you before, and I'll say it again, and I'll say it here, there is no law that is 100% perfect, even though I think all of mine are perfect, but there is no such thing as a perfect law.

And if it does not make it out of here, if you're serious about improving, it may be a semantics versus amending, versus fixing, versus improving Prop 47, which I think every Member here would love to improve it, which may, again, it may be semantics, but we've got to get on the same page, at least there. And I think more and more of Californians will be in line as voters will be in line with whatever we come up with to move forward.

And so with that, you have your first, you got your second. And there was no other comments, so we'll call for the vote. I'm assuming there was no other comment.

On AB 178 by Senator Muratsuchi. The motion is due passed to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll call]

Measures on call.

Thank you.

Phil Ting. How did Muratsuchi get in front of you?

I was in sub two.

Mr. Ting, 505, item number five.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. AB 505 ensures the state is being consistent with its efforts to shift from a corrections model to a more appropriate health based approach when dealing with our incarcerated youth. In 2020, we passed a budget bill which created the Office of Youth and Community Restoration to help transform the juvenile justice system from corrections based to health based. We also created an ombudsperson responsible for investigating violations of youth rights in the juvenile justice system. The Legislature has moved to close all youth prisons.

So starting this year, all incarcerated youth will be held at county facilities. As part of this challenge, the state provides more than 200 million annually to counties to care for youth. In order to receive the funding, counties must submit a plan, including certain elements describing how they'll meet the needs of youth. However, there is little accountability that as a state we can actually impose.

So our bill AB 505 clarifies and strengthens accountability, ensures county plans are consistent with health based approaches, remove barriers that hinder the ombudsperson from effectively investigating complaints and accessing youth, and shifts all youth related duties from the Board of State and Community Corrections to OYCR. Youth justice advocates and formerly incarcerated youth have spent countless hours and months helping develop the language to create a comprehensive youth justice system that appropriately and thoughtfully meets the needs of our incarcerated youth to ensure their success.

With that, I have one witness and one person here to answer any technical questions. So I have Michael Mendoza from the Anti Recidivism Coalition.

Thank you, Assembly Member. Thank you, Chairman Jones-Sawyer and Members of the Committee. My name is Michael Mendoza with the Antirecitivism Coalition here in support. In 2020, the Legislature and the Governor set California on course to transform the youth justice system from a corrections based model to a health to a health and healing and opportunities for growth. Much has happened since that time. Counties have developed and are refining their plans to meet the needs of youth.

The first ever state office of Youth justice, the Office of Community and Restoration, the Office of Youth and Community Restoration started up, and in just a little over two months, California will close the state juvenile halls. However, over the last two and a half years, it has also become clear that clarification of OYCR's role and authority are needed. This is to be expected. It is a big transformation, and it is important that the Legislature analyze how it's going and make adjustments before things get off track.

AB 505 corrects and fills those gaps. It is an essential next step to ensure that the transformation of youth justice that this body envisioned goes right. I remember clearly what it was like to be very young and very alone in the small, dark cell of a juvenile hall. Those walls tell you no one cares. I look back and know now that was the moment when I needed the state support the most. This is what AB 505 is about, the state being there for youth.

OYCR is key to making this work, and AB 505 does three things. It makes sure the new ombudsperson, the new youth ombudsperson can talk to youth right away when they file a complaint. Existing law requires a 48 hours waiting period for the ombudsperson to talk with youth, access records, or go into facilities. A lot can go wrong within 48 hours, especially when the complaint is about physical or sexual abuse.

Importantly, much of AB 505 and ombudsperson language is lifted directly from another California law, the foster youth and ombudsperson. AB 505 requires OYCR to review and approve county plans to spend the 200 million they get from the state. Existing law allows counties to get realignment funds even if their plans don't reference a single element required by law. This bill ensures accountability for taxpayer dollars. Finally, AB 505 makes state government more efficient and effective by streamlining all youth justice functions with OYCR.

Right now, some key functions are in the adult corrections focused office, the BSCC, a legacy of the Schwarzenegger era when the state youth justice was placed under CDCR. It is common sense to unify all state youth related tasks under the state office created to handle youth justice, OYCR. It is efficient and effective.

We've all heard that there's a crisis in Los Angeles happening right now in juvenile halls, but it is not just LA. Just two weeks ago, during a convenient focus on juvenile halls, we heard reports on conditions in 17 different counties, overdoses, lack of mental health services, insufficient programming, retaliation for attempting to reach the ombudsperson, and violence. But OYCR has no authority to act, and the BSCC has only one tool, the nuclear option of shutting down the halls.

Also, the BSCC has zero authority to make any kind of finding on the suitability of secure youth treatment facilities. This means our highest need youth have no state oversight at all. AB 505 would provide options other than a full shutdown, ways to support change at the local level before things get too bad. It is so clearly needed and needed right now. Now is the moment to ensure youth justice transformation you envisioned stays on course, and AB 505 will do that. And I urge your aye vote.

Thank you. Anyone else in support? Name and organization.

Good morning. Jordan Sosa with California Youth Connection, proud co-sponsor of AB 505 and here, an abroad coalition of organizations supporting the bill. We'll name 15 Arts for Healing and Justice Network, Every Child's Foundation, Santa Cruz Barrios Unidos, Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice, Children's Defense Fund California, National Juvenile Justice Network, the Gathering for Justice, Ceres Policy Research, Community Agency for Resources, Advocacy and Services, and the Alliance for Boys and Men of Color. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, Mr. Chairman, I'm Amanda Level with Human Rights Watch, also a proud co-sponsor of this bill and on behalf of the Alliance for Boys and Men of Color, Rise Youth Center, Asian Prisoner Support Committee, Fresno Barrios Unidos, California Alliance for Youth and Community Justice, the Sentencing Project, Freedom for Youth, and Grace and Child Poverty in California.

Nicole Morales, on behalf of Children Now in support.

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

Annalisa Ruiz with Young Men's Freedom Center, a proud co-sponsor in support. I'd also like to express support for Sister Warriors, Freedom Coalition, California Coalition for Women, Youth Forward, Kids in Common, Sew a Seed, Community Foundation, Spirit Awakening Foundation, Urban Peace Institute, Urban Peace Movement, Inside Out Riders, Uncommon Law, Youth Alliance and Vario Sunilos.

Elizabeth Calvin from Human Rights Watch. We're a proud co-sponsor. We have several other co-sponsors we want to list here in strong support. The Alliance for Children's Rights, the Haywood Burns Institute, the National Center for Youth Law, and the Pacific Juvenile Defender Center.

Thank you.

My name is Stephen Cotteron. On behalf of Anti Recidivism Coalition, I'm in support of this bill.

Thank you.

My name is Jose Miranda. I'm with ARC. I just got out four weeks ago and I stand with this bill.

Thank you.

Good morning, Committee. My name is Aliyah Davila and I came out two weeks ago for DJJ and I support this bill.

Thank you, sir.

I just want to say welcome home to those young brothers. My name is Heroni M. Gilad. Here in strong support on behalf of Legal Services for Prisoners with Children. Also here on behalf of All of Us or None. Strong support. Thank you.

Hello, everybody. Anti Recidivism Coalition. Thanks, everybody in support of this bill. Because of all the young people that are here, this is why we do this.

My name is Lewis Scott. I'm with the Anti Coalition Recidivism and I'm in support of this Bill.

Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Michelle Zapata, a member of Anti Recidivism Coalition and I am in strong support of this bill.

Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Jose Torres. I just came out of Division of Do In Justice a month ago and I strongly support.

My name is Marquise Nunez. I'm part of Anti Recidivism Coalition and I strongly support this bill.

My name is Douglas Rodriguez. I'm part of Anti Recidivism Coalition. I'm in support of this bill.

My name is Angel Hernandez. I'm from Anti Recidivism Coalition. I just got out three weeks ago and I support this bill.

Good morning, Chair, Members. Joshua Thubei with the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice in support.

Margot George on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association and the San Francisco Public Defender's Office in strong support. Thank you.

Good morning, everyone. My name is Jules Vidania. I am a member of Anti Recidivism Coalition. I strongly support this bill.

Good morning. Espan Nunez with the Anti Recidivism Coalition as well as Social Change in support. Thank you.

My name is Jamie Carper. I'm an attorney and member of the Anti Recidivism Coalition. I'm in support of this bill.

Thank you.

My name is Kamal Valdez and I'm with Anti Recidivism Coalition and I'm in strong support of this bill.

Thanks.

Hi, I'm Selena Chapen with ARC, Anterior Citizen Coalition, in strong support of this bill.

Thank you.

Danica Rodarmel, on behalf of Initiate Justice in support.

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

Yes, I'll bring it back to any witnesses in opposition.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Danielle Sanchez on behalf of the Chief Probation Officers of California here today, respectfully in opposition to AB 505. We are very much concerned about the substantial changes that this bill proposes, both organizationally and also programmatically, to the overall structure of the various components that are necessary to ensure the safety, security, and advancement of youth and facilities, and also making programmatic changes to what was included in SB 823 as well as last year's budget and making additional changes to those.

Very much concerned about the destabilization of the very significant implementation network that has been asked of probation and counties and is currently and very earnestly underway with many, many stakeholders at the local level, especially in light of the very soon and upcoming impending closure of DJJ as of June 30 of this year.

What we see at this time that's needed is stability, continuity, and the ability to implement DJJ realignment and the related juvenile policies without concurrently moving the overarching structure for training standards and inspection duties. We see the proposed changes in this bill as creating instability in implementation and additional barriers that would impede the work that is being done and should continue to be done robustly to best serve the youth, both of the DJJ realigned youth, but also all youth being served locally.

So for those reasons, we respectfully oppose 505. And I would just note that we look forward to more conversations because certainly we see very similar shared values in some of the ultimate goals, but are very much concerned about the approach that this bill takes. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in opposition? Any other witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Bring it back to Committee and I'll second any comments. Seeing none. You may close.

Appreciate the probation officers for their concerns, their comments. Again, this approach is just to provide greater accountability, because the state is investing so much money into the county systems, making sure that the counties are acting uniformly, making sure that the counties actually are moving more toward a health centered model than an incarceration centered model. I think making sure that that's happening across all 58 counties.

Without this bill, we really don't have the ability to ensure that there is uniformity and standardization across all the variety of counties. With that respect, we asked for an aye vote on AB 505.

And I thank you for bringing this up. As you know, coming from in Los Angeles County, we're in a crisis there in Los Angeles, and I'm being nice. Even the chief probation officers will tell you that we're in crisis there, and something needs to be done. From what I can see, other probation departments across the state are doing relatively well, and it looks like we probably need to import that down to Los Angeles.

And so your statement about a uniform or making sure that everybody's performing well across all platforms, across all counties, especially now that LA is trying to figure out how to fix it, the fix should be relatively easy. Just copy where it's been successful before and then just implement it all the way across the board. And so I thank you for bringing this up.

I wish we had had it a lot sooner, because as I look at now in my own county, the BSCC may have to take some really drastic measures. And unfortunately, the bulk of the young people are coming into our county. And so the sooner we get some stability and get rid of this chaos, the better. So, the Chair is recommending an aye. Call the roll.

On AB 505 by Assembly Member Ting. The motion is do pass to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

That measure's on call.

Thank you.

Okay, I have Arambula, bill number 380, item number three. Thank you. Whenever you're ready.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. AB 380 will protect California's most vulnerable workers from being taken advantage of by individuals who force them to work for little or no pay under severe working conditions. Human labor trafficking is an unscrupulous act which dehumanizes and exploits people's lives, especially low-wage earners. Trafficked workers endure threats from their employers relating to documentation status, withholding of their wages, and threats to the safety of their families. This imposes fear among victims and prevents them from reporting their traffickers.

AB 380 creates a labor trafficking unit within the Department of Industrial Relations, a department already tasked with administering and enforcing laws governing workers. The labor trafficking unit to be established within DIR will investigate these cases and coordinate with entities involved in these efforts, such as the Attorney General's Office and the Department of Civil Rights. It will also serve as a contact point for victims of this abuse. DCR has had the authority to investigate and to enforce labor trafficking investigations.

However, according to the Little Hoover Commission, DCR has not used their authority to bring labor trafficking cases since 2016 to 2021. This bill bridges the collaboration between both DCR and DIR to coordinate, investigate, and to enforce labor law violations and to respond appropriately to stop the abuse of workers. There are two witnesses in support of AB 380 today: Christopher Sanchez with Western Center on Law and Poverty, and Tamar Foster, who's the Executive Deputy Director of the Little Hoover Commission.

You have five minutes.

Sure. Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Christopher Sanchez, Policy Advocate with the Western Center on Law and Poverty, proud to be a cosponsor of AB 380 to further combat labor trafficking in California. As many of us know, the root cause of labor trafficking is poverty. Numerous studies have shown the correlation between individuals or families who are in extreme poverty who are more vulnerable to labor trafficking, especially undocumented immigrants who lack access to critical social safety nets.

In some instances, individuals are lured into labor trafficking, have been promised enrollment in educational programs or job training or a secure job. Unfortunately, some individuals will take these promises at the face value and fall into forced labor in hopes of moving themselves or their families out of poverty. AB 380 is a critical measure to build California's infrastructure to combat labor trafficking, to ensure that we leave no stone unturned to end the exploitation of these workers.

Lastly, over the years, California has further legitimized and provided additional protections to workers in industries that often see labor trafficking, such as garment workers, domestic workers, farm workers, which have allowed certain state agencies, such as DIR, to build more of a trusted relationship with those workers, which is an important step to ensure that survivors come forward. It is for these reasons that we ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. You may begin.

Good morning, Chair and Members. My name is Tamar Foster. Thank you. I'm the Deputy Executive Director of the Little Hoover Commission. The Commission is a nonpartisan oversight agency that's charged with investigating state operations and developing recommendations to promote the efficiency, the effectiveness, and the economy of state government. In 2020, the Commission released a report titled: 'Labor Trafficking Strategies to Help Victims and Bring Traffickers to Justice.' In this study, we found that each year, hundreds of known labor trafficking survivors seek help in California, yet cases that bring traffickers to justice remain rare.

On average, there are less than 30 convictions for labor trafficking in California each year. Labor trafficking cases are resource intensive and they require well-trained staff with the capacity to devote sufficient time to the work. Given the complex nature of labor trafficking cases, no single agency or entity is in a position to conduct the comprehensive, detailed analysis or to provide the culturally sensitive, trauma-informed support that survivors may need.

Though some referral mechanisms are in place, California currently lacks the formal agreements and other procedures necessary for a holistic response to labor trafficking enforcement. Without a formal means to share data and critical case information, investigations could stall, adding time and cost to prosecutions and delaying justice. The Commission has also found that there is no centralized referral tool for service providers and survivors. Though several services are available to help labor trafficking survivors, California lacks a means to centralize information regarding these services and resources statewide.

California already has some tools in place to target various crimes inherent in labor trafficking, but it must do a better job ensuring that traffickers are brought to justice. To enhance efforts to bring labor traffickers to justice, the Commission recommended California empower state agencies to investigate labor trafficking crimes. By creating a unit charged with investigating and responding to labor trafficking claims and providing coordination among diverse agencies and jurisdictions that may be involved in the case, this bill would help fill a leadership void in the state around combating labor trafficking. For these reasons, we respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you. And any other witnesses in support?

Mr. Chairman, Members, Dan Felizzatto, on behalf of the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office, in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. James Michael Agpalo with the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFSCME, in support.

Thank you.

Morning, Chair and Members. Jeronimo Aguilar, here on behalf of Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, also here on behalf of All of Us or None, in support. Thank you.

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

Just want to thank the author for bringing this forward, and I move a motion.

Oh, Mr. Lackey. How are you doing?

Okay. First off, let me say that I fully support this particular bill, and it's pretty much identical to AB 1820, which was in 2022, and I supported that one as well. But as you know, it got vetoed, and that's why we're back here again. And I could read the whole thing, but it's a little bit painful, so I'm not going to do that.

But I would like to know how you plan to address his veto concerns because obviously we don't want a Groundhog Day event on this bill. And so, yeah. If you could just kind of address that issue. And my last statement is, I think we need better statistical gathering when it comes to this labor trafficking because it still is quite nebulous. And I don't think the severity has been captured.

And I really would hope that we as a state would--as a Legislature--would address and try to support any measure that would allow better statistical data to be gathered because this is a very, very big problem.

Thank you, Assembly Member. To address the Governor's veto, we are working with the Department of Industrial Relations to ensure that the actions they take to combat human trafficking are complementary to the Department of Civil Rights and do not jeopardize its ability to also pursue investigations.

But we need more state agencies that are coordinating and working together and have to acknowledge the past and the results that we've gotten, which is why we continue to push a conversation to ensure we have an organization that workers are used to going to for wage theft violations, that for something like labor trafficking, which is a form of aggravated wage theft, that we have an opportunity to support workers where they're used to going.

They get traumatized at the moment when they go to the Department of Civil Rights, an organization that has not produced results and believe we need to reinforce the patterns that our community members and farm workers are used to going to, which is within the Department of Industrial Relations.

Thank you.

Thank you. Any other comments? You may close.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the question, and respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Chair's recommending aye vote. Call the roll.

On AB 380 by Assembly Member Arambula, the motion is 'do pass to the Appropriations Committee.' [Roll Call].

Measure's on call. Needs one more. Ms. Waldron, we have about 15 minutes. You have two bills. Do you want to try to do 1723 first? It looks like there's no opposition. We might be able to get through that one fairly quickly.

Okay.

And if we still have time before we have to rush off.

Okay.

There's no written opposition to it anyway. Sometimes people come out of the woodworks.

Whenever you're ready.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Committee. AB 1723 will streamline the process to allow people who have successfully completed state prison sentences and are employed by a community-based organization that provides rehabilitative programming to visit county jails in order to provide mentorship services for people incarcerated there. As a result of an indefinite ban, some counties and CDCR have created internal policies that will allow people who serve state prison sentences to visit incarcerated people.

However, the policies are often unclear, vary from facility to facility, and don't take rehabilitative factors into account. It is important that we have a clear and transparent visitation process for people who serve time in state prisons and that the process be made accessible on the facility's website and any other outward-facing publications. I would like to make it clear that the intent of this bill is to maintain that sheriffs have the ultimate discretion to make the final decision over who can and cannot enter facilities.

This would not be a blanket grant of entry for anyone who applies. I understand the concerns that the bill does not explicitly state that. We are committed to work on those amendments as the bill moves forward. With me today is Andrew Winn from the Insight Garden Program, a cosponsor of the legislation, who can share his personal story along with the mission of his organization and the rehabilitative work they do.

You will also hear from Mir Aminy, a doctoral student at the Chapman University, and Esteban Nuñez from Anti-Recidivism Coalition, also a cosponsor to answer any questions from the Committee.

Thank you for having me here today. Yeah, my name is Andrew Winn. I'm the Executive Director of the Insight Garden Program. We provide in-prison programs inside nine state prisons and provide reentry services to those we serve in that we hope to be able to be able to serve the people that we are currently serving in California.

Like I said, we're in nine prisons and just trying to build out a pathway for formerly incarcerated people to build relationships and create mentorship and have mentees who are currently incarcerated within county facilities. This is a way to keep our jail safer for people inside, just for the incarcerated people and even the staff. Recently, we had a person who served a life sentence, part of my program inside of a state prison. He was then transferred from the state prison to my county of residence.

As an ED of this organization with statewide gate clearance, I couldn't even convince the county of my residence to allow me to go visit my program participant who's to this day still currently incarcerated in that county facility. And so what we hope to have is be able to create a process so somebody like me, who certainly meets rehabilitative factors, can go ahead and provide the services that we committed to the people of California to serve. And so with that, I want to be able to pass my time on to Mir.

Thank you, Andrew.

Thank you.

Whenever you're ready.

Thank you.

Appreciate it. Hello, Honorable Chair and Members of the Public Safety Committee. My name is Mir, and today I'm here to advocate for the passage of AB 1723, which would enable mentorship programs for individuals currently incarcerated in local county jails. At the age of 18, I became incarcerated. I was a broken, impressionable, misguided young man. I spent half of my life incarcerated in California state prisons. After an 18-year sentence, I was released and given a second lease on life.

Upon being given the second opportunity to make things right, I built a life for myself. I got an education, secured a full time position as an academic counselor at a prestigious university, got married, and I'm a father to three beautiful daughters. In recognition of my efforts to better myself and my community, Governor Gavin Newsom granted me a full and unconditional pardon in January of 2022. To me, this was symbolic of all my hard work in the eight years since my release from prison.

The acknowledgment received from the highest office in our great state allowed me to start my own healing process. No longer would I have to live with the collateral consequences of a crime I committed 27 years ago. No longer would I have to be subject to the shame and ridicule of those who choose to judge me by my worst mistake. Today, I have the privilege of mentoring youth in my county's juvenile detention facilities, as well as individuals housed in California state prisons.

Recently, I was turned away from visiting a young man at a local county facility who I have been mentoring. I was told that I was not allowed to visit my mentee, with no explanation given. After asking to speak to the watch commander, I was told to utilize an appeal system that is mired in obscurity and confusion. Worst of all, I was told that once a parolee, always a parolee. Today, I am a full time academic counselor for Project Rebound at Cal State Fullerton.

Project Rebound is a campus support program for formerly incarcerated students who wish to pursue a college degree and use education as their transformative tool. I am a beloved member of the Titan Family, or so I'd like to think. I am also a doctoral student at Chapman University, pursuing my PhD.

But I am also a taxpayer, a proud member of my community, a board member of a disability rights organization, a father, a son, and a husband. During my 16 years of incarceration in my darkest times, I was given a glimmer of hope by mentors who had walked my path, mentors with lived experiences who were now the best versions of themselves. Seeing them thrive gave me hopes that I would one day have the chance to redeem myself.

To deny those with lived experiences access to those who are living their experience is an injustice. If somebody like myself is denied access to those in need, then my accomplishments, including my pardon, were in vain. Honorable Members of the Committee, I humbly request that you ratify AB 1723.

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

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

Joshua Thubei, on behalf of the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, in support.

Thank you.

Jeronimo Aguilar, here on behalf of Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, also here on behalf of All of Us or None, in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any witnesses in opposition? Any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none, we'll bring it back to Committee. Any comments? Questions? Ms. Ortega.

Just want to thank the author. I'm excited to vote on a bipartisan piece of legislation that will make a huge difference. So I will be supporting this bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr. Bryan. Second. You may close.

Move the bill.

Thank you. Just really quick, we know that a lot of folks who have been currently incarcerated really need the support of people who have been there before. And being able to streamline this process and allow people in who have that experience and have lived it and walked that walk will be very helpful in having hopefully a successful reentry into society eventually. So I urge an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. And I want to thank you for bringing this. Not only is it a good bill, but it helps us show the outside world that we can work in a bipartisan manner. So for the entire Legislature, we thank you for bringing this forward. Call the roll.

On AB 1723 by Assembly Member Waldron, the motion is 'do pass to the Appropriations Committee.' [Roll Call].

Measure's on call. We need two more votes.

Thank you.

Thank you. This Committee will now go into recess and we'll reconvene. We'll reconvene at 1:30 in this very same room again. We'll reconvene at 1:30 in Room 126, this room that we're in right now. Yes, and then Ms. Waldron will come back and finish.

We're back into Assembly Public Safety from recess. We'll go ahead and we're going to pull quickly the absent Members. Madam Secretary.

On the consent calendar, [Roll Call]. On Item Number Three: AB 380 by Assembly Member Arambula, this measure was on call. [Roll Call]. That measure passes. Item Number Five: AB 505 by Assembly Member Ting. This measure was on call. [Roll Call]. That measure remains on call. On AB 1380 by Assembly Member Berman, [Roll Call]. Do you want to take up items? That way, we'll do testimony running on them, correct?

Yes. So we can get--good.

On AB 1551 by Assembly Member Gipson, the motion is do pass to the Appropriations Committee. This measure was for testimony only. Is there a motion? [Roll Call]. That measure's on call.

That one needs one more.

On item 21: AB 1584 by Ms. Weber, [Roll Call]. Item 22: AB 1598 by Assembly Member Berman. This measure was on call. [Roll Call]. That measure now passes. Item 23: AB 1708 by Assembly Member Muratsuchi. This measure was on call. [Roll Call]. That measure fails.

And if there is no objection, we will grant reconsideration by unanimous consent. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Item 25: AB 1723 by Assembly Member Waldron. This measure was on call. [Roll Call]. That measure now passes.

Good. Ms. Wicks, you may now.

Okay.

Item number 12, AB 1252 Wicks, gun violence prevention.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members, I'm happy to accept the amendments proposed by this Committee and thank you for your work with our office. AB 1252 codifies the Attorney General's Office of Gun Violence Prevention and Statute and establishes a Commission to end gun violence, tasked with issuing a public report identifying top priorities to improve the implementation, coordination, and effectiveness of gun violence prevention focused laws and programs.

Creation of a Commission to end gun violence will foster more coordination and planning across different state and local agencies to help cement the new office's central role in advising and shaping policymakers response to this complex problem. This bill has no opposition. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Let us pause real quickly so Ms. Bonta can vote on AB 1187, item 11, Quirk-Silva. There a motion?

My apologies on AB 1187, Quirk-Silva. The motion is do pass to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

Are there any witnesses in support of Ms. Wicks' bill AB 1252? Seeing none. Are there any witnesses in opposition?

Mr. Chair, Members of the Committee, for the record, Dan Reid, Western Regional Director with the National Rifle Association. We're here in opposition today. We just have concerns. As you're aware, the taxpayer dollars already go to Fund the UC Gun Violence Research Center, which kind of goes to the heart of these issues. And we have concerns about how this could be utilized. And we'd rather see if they're going to form this to look at violence holistically rather than just focus on the firearms here.

Also, we'd rather see DOJ's resources be dedicated to programs that are in existence that goes after violent crime, like the apps program, whether the backlog is north of 20,000. A lot of times we feel like there could be some improvement there and let's focus on what they need to do rather than creating another office, which in some respects is redundant of the UC Gun Violence Research Center. Thank you.

Thank you. Yes, sir?

Mr. Chairman, Members, Sam Paredes with Gun Owners of California and also with authorized to represent the National Shooting Sports foundation. Members, this is the creation of a government marketing arm of a segment of the political arena. And that being those people who are entrenched in the gun control area, the thought of ever having them come to us as stakeholders or participants in the arena or experts in our area. First of all, since 1980, when I've been involved, that has never happened.

And I don't have any expectation that there will be a serious effort to do this. So I think that we believe that it would be a very stilted product put together by this Commission. So for those reasons and others, we oppose this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any others in opposition?

Rick Travis, California Rifle and Pistol Association. We stand opposed.

Thank you very much. Any other witnesses in opposition? Bring it back to Committee. Comment?

Yes, please. I have some concerns about the bill, some questions. One, I see that this creates an office within DOJ. But has DOJ had any input on this?

The office currently exists. This would put the office into statute. The Attorney General established the office last year.

So this is already in effect.

But it would put it in the statute.

Okay, and then who's on this Commission?

We will figure that out with working with the Attorney General's Office and other stakeholder holders to establish the Commission.

That's where my concerns are. Is just anybody randomly come off the street say they want to be part of this?

Probably not random people, people who are experts in gun violence prevention measures, obviously with input from the AG.

Okay, so maybe like people that were in the opposition, that were here would be good people to have there.

I think that's ongoing conversations with Attorney General's Office. I know that they've established this office. They've are in the process of hiring a director for the office and getting the office up and running. And so, obviously with consultation of him and his office.

And then just last one and very respectful. I was really hoping DOJ was going to be here to at least talk to us about this. I would have felt like that would have strengthened this a little bit more.

Yeah, I mean, the bill is a work in progress. This is the first policy Committee hearing. We're having those conversations and anticipate more participation. It's a collaborative effort, and we want to make sure that we're creating an office. I mean, I'm happy to go into some of the work that we've done in terms of CalVIP, the violence intervention prevention program that we know is really effective in a lot of communities. And I think that's going to be a big focus of the office.

But the big thing, from my perspective, is ensuring that as we've passed a lot of laws here in California that are gun violence safety measures, making sure those are implemented correctly, that they're effective, that they're useful. That's a part, from my perspective, of what the Commission should do with the aim of ending gun violence in our community, particularly because we don't have a federal apparatus to ensure that, i.e., we don't have comprehensive background checks.

So what can we do as a state to ensure that our communities are not being killed on the streets, particularly our black and brown communities, who are disproportionately impacted by the issue? So that's some of the stuff that I want to hope to see in terms of the Commission working on and the office working on.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you. Any other questions? Mr. Bryan.

Just to clarify, so the current Attorney General has this office. And what you're proposing to do is to actually do the opposite of what was said, but to take it from being politicized where it can come and go at the will of an Attorney General, and instead put it into statute so that gun violence prevention becomes a statewide priority of California's Attorney General's Office indefinitely. Is that correct?

Correct.

Happy to vote yes.

Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Zbur.

I mean, I think the California public gun violence and prevention and gun safety is one of the things that I hear about most in the community. I think the public broadly wants our government to address the shootings that we're seeing every day in shopping centers, in schools. I think the Attorney General's Office is the appropriate place to actually look at this issue and come up with systematic, thoughtful recommendations that are coordinated. I think it's really a great bill. I would love to be a co-author if that's welcome. And I'll be supporting the bill.

Would love to have you as a co-author. Thank you.

Anyone else? You may close.

Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

And I want to thank you for taking the amendments. And hopefully this part in title 12.31421, section c, sub paragraph three, it says basically that "this prevention will include best practice recommendations for improving implementation and coordination in court, law enforcement, health care, and crime victim system responses to gun violence." So hopefully that takes care of some of the concerns that each of the opponents have with this, that it's geared toward how do we make everybody safe. And I would also like to be a co-author.

Thank you. Appreciate it.

We have some support witnesses.

Thank you. Hi, Claire.

I think I cut you off short. I'm sorry.

That's okay. Clare Senchyna, a volunteer with Moms Demand Action and a gun violence survivor and strongly support.

Okay. Thank you.

Good afternoon. I'm Cheryl Davis from Folsom and a volunteer with Moms Demand Action. We ask for your yes vote on this important legislation. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. And call the roll.

About on AB 1252 by Assembly Member Wicks. The motion is do pass as amended to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

Measure on call, needs one more.

Thank you.

Thank you. And thank you for being patient. Ms. Waldron, item number nine, AB 829. Whenever you're ready.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Committee. AB 829, sponsored by Social Compassion in Legislation and aptly named the Animal Cruelty and Violence Protection act expands the currently required counseling for those convicted of animal abuse, allowing a judge to order a mental health evaluation if necessary. Law enforcement, animal welfare groups and mental health professionals have long been concerned that current penalties for animal cruelty cases did not do enough to address the root causes of violent crimes toward animals, including mental health problems.

Given the correlation or link between animal abuse and violence toward humans, early mental health intervention is key to stopping the progression and escalation of violent behavior. I would like to thank the Committee for their Amendments, which ensure that the cost burden of these treatments do not fall on the defendant. I would also like to acknowledge the opposition's concerns, and I look forward to continuing the conversation to try to reach a solution all sides can agree on.

With me today to testify is Nick Sackett from Social Compassion in Legislation and Rebecca Katz from the Animal Rescue Foundation, speaking for mental health professionals and advocates from across the state. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair, Committee. My name is Nicholas Sackett, Director of Legislative Affairs, proud sponsor of Social Compassion in Legislation. First off, thank you Assemblymember Waldron for your leadership and introduction of this bill. The relationship between human violence and animal abuse, referred to as the link, is the finding that the two behaviors are correlated. They co occur such that each is a predictor of the other.

For example, one trait the perpetrators of both the Uvalde, Texas, and Buffalo, New York, tragedies share in common was a propensity for animal cruelty. Both disturbed 18 year olds bragged about and posted online content describing or depicting their abuse of cats and other animals. Research has long identified animal cruelty as a strong predictor of subsequent violence against persons, finding that animal abusers are as much as five times more likely to harm humans. The correlation is particularly robust in regards to family violence.

This link has prompted therapists and researchers such as Dr. Kenneth Shapiro and Dr. Lorin Lindner to develop instruments that help assess adults who are involved in animal abuse to help those individuals from further animal abuse or human abuse. For example, there is the AniCare approach, which is a psychotherapeutic intervention that focuses on establishing accountability, examining beliefs and attitudes towards animals, and developing nonviolent problem solving techniques.

Behavior Accountability, Responsibility, and Knowledge, otherwise known as BARK, is a less intensive psycho-educational program, and the benchmark Animal Rehabilitative Curriculum is an educational program that has been developed and is currently used in California. These are just a few of the tools that judges may point to when ordering treatment under this bill. This bill is not meant to be punitive. The aim of this bill is to get counseling for those who need it to prevent future harm to, again, both animals and humans.

And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair, Committee Members. My name is Rebecca Katz. I have over 20 years of professional experience and leadership in public safety and animal welfare. I spent nine years as a deputy city attorney in San Francisco, working with public safety agencies, primarily the San Francisco Sheriff's Department, where we had treatment programs both in custody and diversionary.

Then I spent six years leading San Francisco Animal Care and Control, followed by five and a half years at Oakland Animal Services, and I am currently with the Animal Rescue Foundation in Walnut Creek. Over the many years that I have been working in these industries, I've seen case after case after case that demonstrated the link between animal cruelty and human violence, particularly, as Nick noted, in domestic violence situations. Simply put, people who lack sensitivity to the suffering of others commit acts of violence.

Oftentimes it starts with animals and escalates. Nick mentioned Uvalde in Buffalo, but there was the Cascade mall shootings left five dead. Parkland, Florida, left 17 dead. Columbine, left 15 dead. Sandy Hook Elementary, left 28 dead. And what did all those have in common is that the shooters had a history of animal cruelty. We spend millions on the prison industrial complex, not to mention the incredible cost to our society, to the victims, to the survivors and others impacted by this violence.

And this bill is merely a tool that gives judge an opportunity to stop future acts of violence and suffering. This instrument is not a mandate, and there's no reason not to give them this opportunity to use it. Therapeutic programs such as those that I mentioned in San Francisco worked, and they reduced recidivism both in custody and out, and they prevented future bad acts. Intervention is key to saving lives, and this is common sense legislation. It's not controversial. It's not like gun control laws.

It's an easy instrument to give judges to use, and I urge you to ratify this Bill.

Thank you very much. Are there any others in support? Seeing none, any in opposition?

Good afternoon. Margo George for the California Public Defenders Association and separately for the San Francisco Public Defender's Office. The San Francisco Public Defender's Office opposes the bill. I'm not able to say exactly what their stance is at this point, other than that they oppose it. For the California Public Defenders Association, however, I want to thank the author and Ms. Katz, who we spoke separately in the hall on the break and the Committee for the Amendments. I really appreciate that.

That answered many of our problems with the bill. What remains, however, is the requirement that an individual may be ordered to do counseling and have a mental health evaluation, which is not going to be confidential for all purposes. And in California, there is a very strong privacy interest in your medical records, and mental health records have a heightened layer of protection.

The problem here is, I think that, and I think the proponents would agree that usually an individual who abuses an animal, and I think we probably all love animals, even if we are allergic and have hay fever, but that they will be diagnosed with a conduct disorder at a minimum. And conduct disorder now is thought to be primarily a product of either Post Traumatic Stress Disorder or cumulative trauma.

And the National Institute of Health has done studies of military veterans and civilians and that reveal that post traumatic stress disorder is highly comorbid with both conduct disorder and major depression in men, and that preexisting conduct disorder increases the risk to exposure to even more traumatic events. And similar results have been found by researchers at Harvard with children and adolescents who are exposed to traumatic events. So what I'm saying is that I do not disagree. We do not disagree that this is a mental health issue.

But the problem is that we do not want people to be stigmatized by their mental health records then becoming available to be used against them later in a criminal trial, and that then it could be used potentially in sentencing, it could be used in a death penalty case, it could be used at parole. It could be used in any numbers of ways because it would be available for criminal matters. And it also undercuts the purpose of having somebody go to counseling.

If your records are not confidential and you do not have confidentiality with your therapist, then it's highly unlikely that you're going to disclose what's actually going on with you. So for these reasons, we'd like to continue working with the author, but at this point, we respectfully oppose unless amended and ask for your no vote.

Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in opposition?

Joshua Dube with the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice. In opposition.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in opposition? We'll bring it back to the Committee for any comments or questions. Assemblymember.

So the only reason you have is the confidentiality reason, is that correct, Ms. George?

Is that our only objection? Yes, at this point with the bill, that is our objection. Because the counseling is not mandatory, the defendant and my clients were indigent, would not have to pay for it, which would make them automatically fail. So I don't think that counseling is a bad thing. It's just that it needs to be confidential.

And with working with the author's office, is there anything that can make that possible. Or the author?

Well, we just got the opposition letter on Friday. We're more than happy to work with the opposition to look at that issue. I know we were talking about it. If you had any comments you wanted to make.

Yeah, I think in theory, we understand why someone would want to have confidentiality going into therapy. So we are absolutely on board with discussing further and taking it to the Committee consultants to discuss how it can possibly be done.

And I think even with the confidentiality, without it, it outweighs the potential risk that the points that you made about all the school shootings that we had, how they had all one common denominator, if we can prevent another school shooting for public safety reasons, I think that alone would be great. And maybe this person does need the help they need to get, confidential or not.

And the points that you also brought up with the parole hearings and stuff, if they're to that point, then there's something else going on there. So I'm hoping they would get help early on. We're about early intervention, and I think this is something that hits it right on. I'll be supporting this. Thank you.

Thank you.

That will be a motion.

Second.

Mr. Bryan.

I think the concerns of the opposition are extremely valid right when we're talking about confidentiality and counseling, restorative justice, things that then may be used against you when your full participation is actually what makes them work. But I trust the author to work through these things. And I know what it's like to get opposition letters on Friday before you have to present on Tuesday.

The bills you've brought before the Committee today, I think, by and large, are very good, and I don't think there's any reason you should be held up from continuing to grow and do this work. So I will be supporting today.

Thank you.

Thank you. You may close.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Committee. We're committed to continue the work on the issue, and we urge your aye vote today. Thank you.

Thank you. Chair is recommending the aye. Call the vote.

On AB 829 by Assemblymember Waldron. The motion is due passed to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll call]

Measure's on call. We need one more. Thank you. Mr. Valencia. Item number 17.

On AB 1483. It's very much appreciated. Additionally, I'd like to thank our team's Legislative Director, who is here with us today, Ms. Natalie Teran, for taking the lead on this bill as well. AB 1483 brings parity to an existing law by closing a gap that allows bulk firearm purchases to be made through private party transactions. Specifically, AB 1483 will cap the amount of firearms that an individual may purchase to one per 30 days, the same restrictions that already apply for purchases made from licensed retailers.

Too many Californians suffer from gun violence, and statistics produced by the California Department of Justice indicate just that. Someone is killed with a gun in our state every three hours. As a state, we must close gaps in existing law that may perpetuate gun violence. Two other states have already done what AB 1483 intends to do. New Jersey and Maryland place similar limitations on acquiring more than one handgun per a 30-day period.

However, unlike California, these states do not exempt firearm purchases from private party sellers from the 30-day waiting period. Mr. Chair, I'd be happy to answer any questions that you or the Committee may have. Thank you.

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

Clare Senchyna, gun violence survivor and Moms Demand Action volunteer, in support.

Thank you.

Anna Ioakimedes with Los Angeles Unified School District, in support.

Good afternoon, again. Cheryl Davis from Folsom. I'm a volunteer with Moms Demand Action, and we ask your support for this bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

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

Thank you. Now, are there any witnesses in opposition?

Mr. Chair, Members of the Committee for the Record, Dan Reed, Western Regional Director with the National Rifle Association. Also here for National Shooting Sports foundation and Gun Owners of California today, all in opposition here we have another Bill that's placing more restrictions on law abiding citizens. These are people that are going through the lawful means to acquire a firearm by going a background check, having a firearm safety certificate, and waiting the 10 day waiting period.

We've seen bills like this over the years that continue to ration lawful firearm sales to law abiding persons. We've had a one handgun a month through a dealer for quite some time in California. This has been extended to long guns. And one of the issues that we've continually brought up is situations where you have estates or inheritance where you need to receive a larger collection or you want to go, you're getting an opportunity to buy firearms. Just two in this instance. Right.

And what we were told during those Committee hearings is, well, the private party transfer, that's an avenue for people. Maybe you have a family Member as dementia who had a collection that you're going to sell. Maybe there's an opportunity to sell to someone or you have a family Member that doesn't meet an exemption. And so this was an avenue to do that. Again, we're going through lawful channels, and now they're looking to close that.

I understand straw purchasers and other types of trafficking, and there are laws that go at that. This is just, again, at the heart of law abiding people. For instances, personally, when I've gone to buy a firearm, it's expensive, right? You're going through, it's a whole process where, whether you're going to a Bass Pro or any local shop, you're going to have to go in, you have to wait.

You fill out a lot of paperwork and you're paying $37 plus for a background check, and you have to wait the 10 days and you have to go back. A lot of times people will group them or they found another seller. But again, these are people going through these lawful channels. And we're just creating avenues that are creating problems for people who are trying to do the right thing and big issues for those that are trying to do the inheritance and the collections. So I see this as problematic. I don't see the public safety benefit for that. We're in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Rick Travis, California Rifle Pistol Association. Mr. Chair, Committee for many of the reasons Dan just said, but I want to focus on two of them.

There are many people in our society that have chosen at various times as times has changed to collect firearms as part of a hedge in the economy where it might be or might not be as a retirement to now go to move those could cause a firearms dealer to have to hold a 60 gun collection, which I just worked with for up to five years at the one time a month, which means those are people that thought, like any other transaction that they would be able to sell and move and be able to get the money to do what they need to do for maybe medical reasons or other reasons, they're not going to be able to do it.

Also, in the cases of areas where there's somebody that has dementia, where I listened to many bills this morning being talked about trying to make it easier for those people to do the right thing. And again, if the people want to be able to move it, currently, firearms, yours can't hold firearms that long in a bigger collection. And so now those firearms are staying in the area where probably most people in this room would agree they shouldn't be.

And so I see this Bill by removing the PPP section of it, which in previous years on previous bills, that was kept there just to avoid this very problem. And so I see us causing more problems than it's solving that we oppose.

Thank you. Are there any others in opposition? Anyone else in opposition? We'll bring it back to Committee Members. Questions, concerns? Mr. Vice Chair.

So I had the same concerns when I read this Bill. Also, I don't know if the author wants to comment on this real quick.

I do. Thank you, and I appreciate the concerns, and they're well noted. I'm happy to have further conversations about addressing that. We're also addressing some other concerns that the Committee has also highlighted through amendments. I believe if a court Deems somebody not able to own a firearm and they have a collection of them as well, or are trying to inherit them to somebody, we are more than happy to take a look at that and figure out how we can best move those firearms forward.

Thank you. My other line of work, if I retired, you can't predict when you're going to die. And some of these people have collections that have been in their families for a long time. And when I was reading this, I was just seeing that that can't happen. But thank you for wanting to work with them and being part of that. So no other questions Chair

You may close.

Ask for an aye vote. And I appreciate your time. Thank you.

I also want to thank you for your willingness to work with the opposition on this, it sounds like you may be able to come to some agreement. I am hopeful, and I am optimistic. So recommending an aye vote. Is there a motion? M.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Next is supposed to be Mr. Mccarty. I believe he's trying to get one of the Members to present. Okay. Maybe I can go now, give you some time.

Okay. We're on item number 18, AB 1486 by Jones Sawyer.

Says good morning. But it's afternoon, so good afternoon, Mr. Chair Members. I present AB 1486, which will ensure that law enforcement agencies comply with existing reporting requirements and transparency laws when purchasing assault weapons. In 2021, the Legislature passed AB 481, which established specific procedures for law enforcement agencies to follow when acquiring and using military equipment. That Bill, now in statute, requires law enforcement agencies to submit an equipment use policy to local government for approval prior to acquiring and using military equipment.

Current law classifies specialized firearms and assault weapons as military equipment, but makes an exemption for standard issue service weapons. Unfortunately, there is no definition for standard issue service weapons. This lack of clarity allows law enforcement agencies to acquire weapons intended to fall under the requirements of AB 401 without reporting them and without receiving proper approval for their use.

Given the serious harm that has been caused through the use of military equipment, it is imperative that the Legislature clarify what kinds of weapons can be considered standard issue and put in the hands of every law enforcement officer. By defining standard issue service weapons, AB 1486 will preserve the intent of AB 481 and improve law enforcement accountability, transparency and compliance with existing law. With me is Jennifer Tu. On behalf of the American Friend Service Committee, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Members of the Committee, for the opportunity to speak here today. My name is Jennifer Tu of American Friends Service Committee, or AFSC. In 2021, the Legislature passed AB 481 to increase transparency and accountability for military equipment used by law enforcement, which includes a range of gear. AB 481 requires law enforcement agencies leas to submit a military equipment use policy to local governing bodies for approval to acquire or use military equipment.

Governing bodies determine if that military equipment meets specified standards and must annually review the use policy. AFSC has worked with city councils, county supervisors, leas, advocates, impacted community Members, and police oversight bodies in dozens of jurisdictions regarding the implementation of AB 481, we track AB 481 use policies and annual use reports. Thanks to these use policies and use reports, the public has a better understanding of how much military equipment is deployed and used in their communities.

Assault weapons are explicitly included in AB 481's list of military equipment to be regulated, but there is an exception for standard issue service weapons. There is no definition for standard issue service weapon. This lack of clarity creates the possibility for leas to acquire and use weapons intended to be covered by AB 4081 without creating policies for their deployment or reporting on their uses. Assault rifles are among the most intimidating types of equipment deployed by law enforcement.

Multiple youth that AFSC works with were traumatized by the deployment of assault rifles in their homes and neighborhoods. In too many communities, these deadly weapons remain in the dark and outside civilian input. AB 1486 will help clarify how leas may remain compliant, accountable and transparent for all intended military equipment. We are grateful to Assembly Member Joan Sawyer for authoring AB 1486 and respectfully urge your yes vote.

Thank you. Any others in support?

Diane Rosenblum, representing Amnesty International Human rights Sacramento group. I also bring message of support from Code Pink, San Francisco Bay Area Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice Friends Committee on Legislation of California Indivisible San Francisco Indivisible Livermore Mill Valley Force for Racial Equity and Empowerment Secure Justice South Bay People Power National Lawyers Guild San Francisco Bay Area Public Defender's Office of San Francisco. I urge a vote in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone in opposition hearing none. Committee comments questions? Mr. Lackey

Yeah. I have to say this, that there comes a time when I think we need to build trust back in law enforcement, not erode it. And I think it's insulting to think that law enforcement in this day and age would pursue a weapon that wasn't to their benefit and enhancing public safety. I find this to be really hurtful. Truthfully. Law enforcement has a hard job. They have a hard job and I think that they're doing their level best.

And we have legislation that now requires a mother. May I? I just don't think that's helpful. I don't think it's warranted. And I'm sorry it's come to this point because I think this is going to pass. Thank you.

Assemblymember Bryan.

Yeah, I just want to thank the chair for bringing this forward. Our communities are not war zones. The idea of having surplus military equipment roaming small communities. I represent the City of Culver City, 30,000 people, and they had what was akin to armored tanks rolling around.

And surplus equipment. There's a lot we've got to do in this space, but what you're doing is a really sensible, measured approach with this Bill. Thank you for bringing it. I think there's a motion I refer back to the chair.

Thank you. Actually, I have just some questions for the witness. You said leas that you guys are working with. Can you name some of them that you guys are working with for this?

Sure. There are a couple. One is the Richmond police, which we finished working with, Oakland police, which we are still in the process of working with and have been actively working with since June of last year, and the San Francisco County Sheriff's office, which we are still in process with, but wrapping up.

Okay. And for the author, I'm sorry, I apologize. I haven't read all into this. As Mr. Bryan had brought up the surplus. Is this just the military surplus? Because I know from my Department we would get the surplus on that part. Is this just surplus? Military surplus program.

And this is really about letting the legislative body know what's going on in accountability and not to be able to just buy something and then categorize it as non military and then use it. This affords law enforcement an opportunity to show what they're buying to the legislative body, just like us.

And if they were to approve it or if they were feel that it was appropriate by making whatever statement they need to make to say that this is the most appropriate that they need in this situation, in this municipality, they have that opportunity to do that. It's really about transparency and making sure whatever is being used in a lot of ways, everybody knows what's going on. That's really what it's about, and have some input into the process.

Thank you. I know sometimes with my Department we got some military surplus because either we couldn't afford the armored vehicle to get our SWAT team safely to a building or maybe safely extract either a victim or another officer from an area. And I know that in those ways it did help. I'm just curious about the expectation now on the city officials or the Board of Supervisors. Now, I think, I believe, approving it.

And I know, like back in 97, I'm sure you remember the Hollywood shooting, that's when law enforcement was very undergunned and had to go out to gun shops to go get guns because they didn't have the Ars, as we see today. And I remember being a pivotal thing when I was at the sheriff's office when we started to reach out to that. If there's no other comments, please close.

And the purpose of this is to let everybody know ahead of time what they will need, especially in those types of emergencies. If you're a beach city, and I know this is extremely hypothetical and probably out of bounds, but if you felt you needed a mini sub because you wanted to patrol the area for drugs and other contraband, if the local municipality approved that, they could.

If they wanted to approve you dealing with a drug problem that we're having up with cannabis, and as we know, the weapons of the cartels that are being used have been ramped up. They can then go to that county and say, look, we need to be able to ramp up our ability to counteract another entity than what they're using.

The important thing is transparency and accountability and making sure that the people who are going to authorize the purchase, they have the fiduciary responsibility to approve all of these purchases, that they're in the know and they know what's going on and that they have some type of approval process in this. All right. Take roll, please.

[Roll Call]

Measure on call.

On call. Thank you. Thank you.

We have a motion. Do we have a second now?

I'll motion. Yeah.

The other light skin brother.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and colleagues. On behalf of Assemblyman McCarty, I want to begin by saying I appreciate the work done by the Committee and accept the amendments, or he accepts the amendments. AB 1406 simply gives California's DOJ an additional 30 days to notify a firearm dealer whether a gun purchaser is legally eligible to possess a gun if it is during a State of emergency.

Guaranteeing that the DOJ is 100% confident that a deadly weapon is given to a lawful resident is a top priority, and giving the DOJ an extra 30 days to do so if unable to get to work during a pandemic, natural disaster, or other State of emergency is a common sense proposal. I have Alison Mendoza and Candace Chung from California's DOJ to testify here in support.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Committee Members. My name is Candace Chung and I'm a Deputy Attorney General with the office of Attorney General Rob Bonta, who's proud to sponsor AB 1406. I'm joined by my colleague Alison Mendoza, who is the Director of the Bureau of Firearms. I'd like to thank Assemblymember Mccarty for authoring this Bill and Assembly Member Brian for stepping in and presenting on it. This Bill will provide the DOJ with the necessary flexibility to ensure that no firearms are released without background checks completed first.

Currently, the Department of Justice must conduct a background check on firearms buyer and report its findings to the dealer within the 10 calendar day waiting period for transfers. Unfortunately, these background checks aren't as simple as just simply putting someone's name into a computer and it instantly spits out their name and says yes or no they're prohibited or not.

Instead, the person needs to be cross referenced through various different systems and because it's a name based system, we have to verify that the information that's produced, it's correct and it's attributed to the right person. Additionally, oftentimes we need to get additional information from outside agencies, courts, treatment facilities, the US military, and we're at their mercy to get those records which are necessary to resolve questions that might arise during a background check.

10 days is not a lot of time to do this, and if a background check is not completed in those 10 days, the DOJ has to allow the dealer to release the weapon at that time without one. This Bill would extend the current 10 day limit for completing a background check to up to 30 days in specified circumstances, including a state emergency as defined in the government code, such as the recent Covid-19 pandemic, which highlighted the need for this legislative fix in 2020.

During the height of the pandemic, firearm sales soared. To put this in perspective, the number of applications we received during the six month period between March and August of 2020 was almost as many as the total number that we received in all of 2019.

This meant that we were balancing the challenge of meeting our mandate to vet the spike in new applications while trying to protect the safety of our employees at a time when workers were being advised to stay at home to avoid spread of the virus. Compounding the issue was the fact that courts and government offices were shut down or operating on skeleton crews, making it exceedingly difficult to get records to complete background checks, much less within a 10 day time frame.

While we completed the background checks for all of those applications that were received during that time, many were completed beyond the 10 day limit. Seems understandable given the circumstances, but unfortunately, in the recent Campos v. Bonta decision, the court ruled that existing law did not contain an implied exception for emergencies, regardless of the magnitude, to justify delaying a firearms transfer. But that ruling was not based on the equities of the circumstance. Instead, it focused on the strict interpretation, a plain reading of the law.

Basically, the judge held that the statute only specified three reasons for delaying a firearm transfer. Good cause, based on emergencies not being one of them. And if the Legislature had intended to give us a more expansive reading of that, it would have done so. But when the Legislature drafted this statute way back when, it did not take into account the possibility of a viral pandemic that all but shut down the world. Up until three years ago, that was simply unimaginable. But now we've lived through one.

And while I hope that nothing like this ever happens again, we need to be prepared for future pandemics and other emergencies. Because as it stands, if no legislative action is taken and the campus ruling is affirmed on appeal, the DOJ could be compelled to release firearms to unvetted and potentially dangerous persons in the event that there is another statewide emergency that hampers our ability to process these background checks. And that simply puts the public at risk.

AB 146 will ensure that guns are only transferred to vetted, law abiding citizens, providing the DOJ with additional time to complete background checks during times of emergency, while still preserving the rights of firearm owners to take possession of their guns within a reasonable time. I thank you for your consideration and respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you. I'm available for questions. And I have ... available for questions.

Are there any others in support? Any other in support? Is there anybody in opposition? Seeing none, bring it back to Committee for any comments, questions, concerns? Seeing none, you may close.

On behalf of Assemblymember McCarty and as his new co author of this Bill, we respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Chair recommends an aye vote. Call the roll

[Roll Call]

That measure passes. Thank you so much. Next, we have to do any add ons and lifting of calls and votes, but we will need Mr. Santiago, Mr. Zbur, to return.

[Roll Call]

Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you, everybody. And that so concludes the business of the Public Safety Committee.