Senate Standing Committee on Public Safety

All right, the Senate Committee on Public Safety will come to order. Good morning. The Senate continues to welcome the public in person and via the teleconference service for individuals wishing to provide public comment today. Participant number is 877-226-8163 and the access code is 6948930. We are holding our Committee hearing here in Room 2200 in the O Street Building. I ask all Members of the Committee to be present in Room 2200 so we can establish our quorum and begin our hearing. I think we can call the quorum now.

[Roll Call].

All right, quorum has been established. We have 15 bills on today's agenda. Two are on consent. SB 690 by Senator Rubio has been pulled from today's agenda and reset for next week. Before we hear presentations on the bills, let's--okay, right, we skip that part. Now let's hear from our first author, Senator Marie Alvarado-Gil, SB 268.

Good morning, Chair, Committee Members, and Members of the Committee staff. I want to thank you for being with me this morning to hear Senate Bill 268. Not only is this a deeply personal bill for me, this is also one that has created a lot of emotions and a lot of feelings, not only here at the Capitol, but also throughout my district. It is a pleasure for me to present this on behalf of survivors of sexual assault for April Sexual Assault Awareness Month.

In its current form, Senate Bill 268 makes all rapes, including an unconscious person, a violent felony in California. Existing law already includes rape as a violent felony when committed against a person's will by means of force, violence, duress, menace, or fear, or by threat of violent retaliation. However, rape is not considered a violent crime when committed against a person who is unable to give consent due to intoxication, unconsciousness, or a developmental disability.

I understand that Members of this Committee are concerned about adding another strike to the three-strikes law and prison overcrowding in California, and I am here to say that I, too, share the same concern. However, Proposition 57 gives felons an opportunity to be considered for early release if they are not serving time for a violent felony. That means allowing more rapists on our streets to continue to perpetrate. This flaw allows for the early release of those who have raped a victim unable to give consent.

Early release under Prop 57 would not be granted to someone who forcibly raped their victim, as opposed to someone who took the extra step to drug their victim first. This inequity is simply wrong. Victims of sexual assault often face legal and societal hurdles when trying to attain justice, and during this difficult process, the state should not further distress victims with the possibility of their attacker receiving lesser punishment just because they were incapacitated.

I speak out not only as a survivor of sexual assault, but as a voice of women, men, the LGBTQ community, and children everywhere. Senate 268 brings parity to these victims of sexual assault. In addition to that, I want to thank the Committee and thank the Chair for working with me on amendments to narrow the bill and apply a new violent felony only to someone who causes the intoxication of the victim that they have raped. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Senator, we'll now move on to witnesses in support, if you have any.

No.

Okay. We'll move on to other witnesses in support in this room.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Michael Furman, on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association. Support. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else? All right. Seeing none, we'll move to lead opposition witnesses in this room.

Good morning. Lesli Caldwell-Houston for the California Public Defenders Association and the San Francisco Public Defender's Office. We had not seen the amends, so we will remain opposed until we can look at it, and I suspect we'll withdraw our opposition.

All right. And just for clarity's purpose, I will read what the amendment is. 'Committee amendment to narrow the bill to apply to rape of an intoxicated person where the defendant intentionally caused the intoxication by drugging the victim without their consent in order to accomplish the rape.' And Senator, you accept that amendment, correct?

I accept the amendment. Yes.

All right. Do we have any other opposition witnesses?

Yes. Thank you, Senator Wahab. Good morning, Chair and Members. My name is Carmen-Nicole Cox. I am Director of Government Affairs for ACLU California Action. Good morning, also, Senator Alvarado-Gil. And we are respectfully in opposition to SB 268. I do appreciate the amendments, have not quite processed them, but do come to already understand that it would still create a new violent offense.

And while ACLU does not dispute that those who commit sexual assault should be held accountable, quite plainly, the law already does that, in our opinion. While SB 268 will add more time in prison and thereby respond to our rage and our disgust, which is not to be diminished, it will not have the effect of making survivors whole. Sexual assault survivors deserve to be believed to have their cases solved, to be treated with compassion, and provided the services needed to address trauma and harm.

Survivors should be empowered and provided the physical and emotional care that encourages a healthy return to life. We understand that adding the specified crime to the list of strike offenses will impact credit earning inside of CDCR, thereby limiting the ability to earn release based on demonstrated commitment to self-improvement and rehabilitation. But rehabilitation is precisely the outcome we should want from incarceration. Otherwise, we're just warehousing bodies.

And according to the recently released report from CDCR, rehabilitation is what is happening, and I quote here, 'the conviction rate for sex register'--and this was released just this week, related to those who were released in 2017, 2018, which was the first full year that Proposition 57 went into effect--'the subsequent conviction rate for sex registrants is regularly at least 15 percentage points lower than the rate for non-sex registrants.'

In other words--I am continuing to quote here--'in other words, sex offenders consistently recidivate at lower rates than non-sex offenders.' End quote. If we believe that the years of incarceration currently required for a rape conviction are insufficient, we might consider turning our attention to restorative justice. In any case, California already locks up a higher percentage of its people than almost any democracy on Earth.

And while prison overcrowding has not made our community safer, it does result in inhumane prison conditions, cost taxpayers millions of dollars in litigation, stymies rehabilitation, and expands the budget and footprint of the prison-industrial complex. Further monopolizing these resources is not the right policy approach. We would be better served by investing in our communities and investing in the repair and restoration of sexual assault survivors. For this reason, we ask for your no vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any other opposition witnesses here in this room? Please just state your name, your organization, and that you oppose.

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

Good morning. Gregory Fidell with Initiate Justice. Opposition.

Do we have anybody else in opposition? Seeing none, we'll move to witnesses waiting to testify via the teleconference service. Please just state your name, your organization, your position. Moderator, if you please prompt the individuals waiting to testify in support or opposition, we'll begin.

To provide support in comment in support or opposition for SB 268, please press one then zero. Once again, to provide comments in support or opposition for SB 268, please press one then zero. One moment, please.

Okay.

Line 13, please go ahead. Line 13, you're open.

Good morning. Thank you for hearing me, Committee. My name is Anne McHale Holden. I am calling in to support SB 268. I am the victim of molestation that started at the age of 15--

Thank you. Thank you.

We'll go to line nine. Your line is open.

Hi. I am in support of SB 268.

Thank you.

There are no further comments. Please go ahead.

Thank you, Moderator. Now, thank you to all the witnesses. We will now bring the discussion back to Members. Do any of our Members have any questions, comments or concerns? Senator Ochoa Bogh.

I do. The opposition read a statement with regards to a study that just came out with, the Recidivism and Rapist. Did that study include violent rapist within that recidivism or just rapist in general? And I share the concern that--and I'm grateful for the amendment that you're adding on there--the intention to drug someone with the intent to, or drugging someone with the intent to rape, that's malicious ill intent. There's a difference between that and saying someone that is--what's the word--age difference. If you're 18 or 19 and you have sex with a minor, that's very different. So I'm kind of curious as whether or not that data that you were or that--

Ms. Cox, you can come to the microphone and answer the question if you can.

So the data comes from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, and it is in reference to folks who were released in 2017, 2018, and it was not disaggregated based on the kind of sexual assault or the purpose for having to register as a sex offender. So my response would be, I have no reason to believe that it distinguished across sexual assault offenses.

Okay.

Thank you.

So we don't have that distinction. So we wouldn't know on that end. I'm actually going to be supportive of the bill on that end, and that's not to say, I never think that you can have one or the other.

It has to be one or the other as far as rehabilitation as well as accountability on that end because I really believe that many of these individuals would not be compelled to seek that self-improvement courses and trajectory if they don't hit a certain threshold of, quote unquote, 'hit bottom.' So I'm going to be supportive of this measure. Thank you for bringing it forth, but I do want to emphasize that in our criminal justice system, it doesn't have to be one or the other.

We can have both: accountability as well as having an opportunity for people to have that self-improvement and trajectory for opportunity in the future for healing. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator. I believe we're still waiting on some Members, but I do want to appreciate the author's commitment to taking these amendments. More specifically, I also understand the opposition's concerns regarding adding more people to a prison system. However, I think that there is a big desire of this Committee on sexually violent crimes--as well as any for me personally--also, crimes against children and so forth.

And at a certain point in time, accountability is a priority for the community just to keep them safe, as well as there's a lot of studies on sexual violence that clearly show that it continues to happen, even if they have other options and so forth. So I will be supporting this, and if I can have a motion, I'd greatly appreciate it. Moved by Senator Ochoa Bogh. Can we have a roll call?

SB 268: the motion is 'do pass as amended to Appropriations.' [Roll Call].

The bill is on call. Thank you, Senator.

Opportunity to close?

Oh. So sorry. Yes. Yes, go ahead.

I just want to say--well, now that you voted--but I do want to say that this is a vote of courage, and so many victims of sexual assault do not come forward for fear of not being believed, for fear of questioning whether or not they did something to contribute to the act of violence and power and control against their bodies.

And that although we see this crime happen over and over again from generation to generation, it's very few who are actually held accountable in a court of law, and very few who are actually identified as sexual predators or under Megan's Law or even under the sexually violent predator list. Very, very few. And I'll leave you with this. So I can only speak from experience. My perpetrator targeted me while I was sleeping as a child and went on to impregnate his stepdaughter.

So this is a crime that is a plague, an epidemic in many cultures. And we here in California need to put a stop to this. We are leaders in this world, and we are leaders in the way that we use our voice and our power as legislators. So thank you very much for your vote, and I will be monitoring the votes from your other Committee Members. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. I think we can, actually...can I get a motion to approve the consent calendar, item number four, SB 359 Umberg? Item number 11, SB 799 Durazo. The consent calendar has been moved by Senator Ochoa Bogh. Can we call roll?

[Roll Call]

The consent calendar is on call. We will be waiting for our next author.

Senator Blakespear, whenever you're ready. And no rush. Just, you know, breathe.

There you go.

All right, our next bill, SB 4117, by Senator Blakespear. Senator, you have the floor.

Okay. Thank you. Good morning. Happy to be here. Thank you for welcoming me.

Madam Chair and colleagues, SB 417 modifies existing signage already required in gun stores to acknowledge the statistical risk that accompanies access to a firearm in the home. As the analysis concisely points out, while many people believe that keeping a firearm in the home makes them safer, the data show the opposite is true. A gun in the home is linked to a nearly three times higher likelihood that a family member or friend will be fatally wounded.

SB 417 reasonably incorporates this evidence into the existing signage so that potential purchasers of a firearm are aware of the risks and, ideally, will take steps to safely store their firearm should they go forward with their purchase. In the interest of the committee's time, I don't have lead witnesses here today. However, this bill is supported by every town, Mom's Demand Action and Students Demand Action, which are all gun safety groups. With that, I urge your aye vote.

Thank you. With no lead witnesses in support, we'll move on to witnesses in this room. Do we have any witnesses in this room in support? So please just state your name, your organization, and that you support.

Good morning. Tanya Sharp from Brady: support.

Thank you. We'll now move on to lead opposition witnesses.

Madam Chair and Members Sam Perettas, representing Gun Owners California. And we have had a neutral position on this bill. We want to inform the committee, make sure that you understand there are nine separate signs that go up in every gun store. The thought that somebody goes in and reads all of these signs, it's not reality. It just doesn't happen.

But the committee should know that the National Shooting Sports Foundation has one of the only program to talk about suicide and violence in the home that they share with every gun store in the state of California. They provide training and materials to all people that are involved in the gun business. How do I know? I am a licensed gun dealer here in the state of California, and that information is extremely valuable. And I can tell you, since 1980, when I have had -

- since I've had a license, the number of people that have looked up and read those signs is zero. So just wanted to provide that information and let you know that this is a whole lot of work and a lot of requirements that are going to have zero to no impact. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any other lead opposition witnesses? Seeing none. We'll move to opposition witnesses in the room. Seeing none, we will now move on to hearing witnesses waiting to testify via teleconference service. Please just state your name, organization, and position moderator. If you'd please prompt the individuals waiting to testify, we will begin.

To provide comments and support our opposition. Please press one, then zero at this time. Line eight, please. Go ahead.

Hello, my name is Nancy Hardwick. I'm a volunteer with Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America. We strongly support SB 417. Thank you.

There are no further comments in queue at this time.

Thank you, and thank you to all our support and opposition witnesses. We'll now bring the discussion back to Members. Do any of our Members - have we skipped that part? Okay, are you lead opposition or just in opposition? Yes, go ahead.

My name is Susan Arnall. I'm with the Right to Life League, and we are in opposition. Thank you.

My name is Tee Hakobian, and on behalf of Tulare Coalition for Freedom, Stand Up Sacramento, and also Unmasked Tulare County, we are in opposition.

Thank you. So, we'll now bring the conversation back to Members for questions, comments, and concerns. Senator Ochoa Bogh.

So it's an advisement. I have no problem with it. I was in support of an advisement form for the fentanyl bill that was just brought up a couple of last week or so ago.

The only question I had for you and the concern that I had here, I can see the data maybe increases the risk of death, a family member or a friend within the scope, but I'm a little concerned about the implication by adding the word suicide because a gun in the home. I'm not sure that that increases suicide. If someone is suicidal, they're going to find a means to do that. I'm not sure that guns increase the risk of suicide, which is behavioral, mental health.

It's a means by which it happens. But I'm not sure that that is a cause for suicide or that caters to suicide. So I was kind of curious as to why. I'm perfectly fine with the rest of the advisor, but the suicide part is I have grave concerns.

Thank you for that question. So, statistically actually, suicide rates are much higher when there's access to a gun. And the reason for that is that somebody who is feeling suicidal on impulse can actually successfully accomplish it. So, there are other types of suicide that require a much longer preparation period. And somebody who is in a momentary pit of despair, who uses a gun, is substantially more likely to, in fact, kill themselves for it to be fatal. So, suicide is a major risk of having a gun.

And so that's why it's included. Also, part of this language includes a suicide prevention lifeline phone number. So it's the same thing that is posted adjacent to the railroad tracks so that people don't jump in front of a train or on a tall bridge so that they don't jump off of the bridge. So it is for people who might be in that position of wanting to take that action that they would have access to a crisis helpline right away.

Okay. And this is at the advisement where they purchase the gun, where they have to wait 10 days before they actually receive the gun.

I don't know all of the details of how many days one needs to wait in each type of gun store.

I think it's a pretty standard. If we have a witness here that would know the process. I'm just kind of curious because it would.

He gave a thumbs up. That's sufficient. Okay, next question.

She's efficient. So just for the record. So this is an advice meant to prevent, just so people that are aware with the intent to sort of protect people that are from committing suicide, but at the purchase point, they have to wait 10 days on that end. Does that change at all, your perspective on the adding the word suicide on there?

No, because suicide, I think, of the violence that comes from suicide is one of the main problems with easy access to firearms. So, people sometimes buy more than one firearm. So they might already have a firearm in the home, and then they're at the store buying another one. And so they would see this hotline. And I think that it's important that we're communicating with people at all steps if they are feeling suicidal.

So, including suicide as a word and including the phone number is really important for this relatively short one-sentence warning.

All right, well, I just want, for the record, state my concern with that particular word on there, but I will be supporting your bill.

Okay, well, thank you for your questions and the opportunity to talk about that part.

Thank you. I will say if you ever, at least in my district, when you go into a gun store and a shooting range, they actually don't allow you to have fun and shoot a gun without somebody with you. So you actually have to come in in twos, in fact. Right. And I specifically asked the shooting range individuals that were working there why is that the case, and they have stated that there are individuals that come in and commit suicide.

They don't have a weapon themselves, so they come in and borrow the gun if you will. So I appreciate this. And Senator, do you have any questions? Comments? Senator Skinner?

I moved the bill and actually wanted to just relay to reinforce what the author. There's numerous studies that show a complete correlation between a much higher suicide risk and the ownership of a handgun or the presence of a gun in a home. So there are numerous studies, including by Stanford Medicine.

Thank you. Senator, would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. This bill has been moved by Senator Skinner.

SB 417 motion is do passto the Floor. [Roll Call]

Thank you. This bill is on call. We will now move on to another Senate Bill, 452. Senator Blakespear, you have the floor.

Well, thank you, Madam Chair and colleagues. I appreciate being able to be here for the second bill. So, first off, I'm accepting the amendments contained in the committee's analysis. And I thank the Committee Council's work in improving the bill. And I look forward to further refinements should SB 452 be approved today. So, SB 452 prohibits the sale or transfer of a semiautomatic pistol made after July 2027 unless it has been verified as a microstamping-enabled pistol.

As the majority of homicides remain unsolved, microstamping will allow law enforcement to more effectively identify and trace crime guns through intentional markings. The California Legislature passed micro-stamping requirements in 2007, but the firearm industry has been reticent to embrace this. SB 452 ensures this technology is incorporated into guns manufactured on or after July 2027. So this bill is co-sponsored by our Governor, Gavin Newsom. And with me in support today, I also have Tanya Shardt with Brady and Claire Senshun with Moms Demand Action.

And so they are here today. Right here.

Thank you. I will ask all witnesses to get ready to testify. We will move quickly. You are timed. You have two minutes for lead support. Witnesses right here. Your time has begun.

Good morning. My name is Tanya Shardt and I'm Senior Counsel and Director of State and Federal Policy. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today in support of SB 452. Microstamping technology utilizes lasers to engrave markings onto firing pins. The engravings include specific identifying information about the gun, much like a serial number. When the gun is fired, these markings are stamped onto the cartridge.

And when a cartridge is recovered at a crime scene, law enforcement has access to the make, model, or other identifying information about the gun. In 2007, California made a forward-thinking decision to invest in microsamping, a tool that, if implemented, would increase community trust in law enforcement by allowing them to rely on something that does not infringe on privacy rights and provides objective data for evidence as opposed to more biased alternatives. Importantly, this incredible tool is available, reliable, feasible, and inexpensive.

And yet, while micro stamping has been the law of California for some time and the industry has admitted that they can do it, the industry has functionally boycotted the implementation of the technology in California. Perhaps they do not have an interest in aiding law enforcement. Or perhaps they do not have an interest in preventing crime. Or perhaps they do not want transparency regarding the source of crime guns. Unfortunately, without this tool, most shootings go unsolved, encouraging cycles of retaliatory violence and distrust in law enforcement.

This is even more true in communities of color. A year-long investigation based on data obtained from 22 cities showed that law enforcement's clearance rates for crimes that when they involved a victim of color was only 25% for firearm assaults versus 35% for white victims. SB 452 is an innovative piece of legislation that will work to ensure microsamped guns are finally introduced into California.

The bill will do so by creating three pathways for the technology to be incorporated through gun manufacturers, state-licensed vendors, and the California Department of Justice. Long term, this will help state and local law enforcement solve crimes. It will break cycles of gun trafficking and increase trust in law enforcement. Long term, this will reduce gun violence in California. Thank you so much to Senator Blakespear and Gavin Newsom.

Governor Newsom, for the strong leadership on this bill and to the committee, I urge you to vote in support of this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Next lead. Support. You have two minutes.

Good morning. My name is Claire Senshun. I live in the Bay Area. My son, Camilo, my only child, was killed in 2014. Camilo had just completed paramedic school and was out celebrating that accomplishment and his upcoming birthday. His life and his bright future were ended by a bullet. As I was thrown into this new life, carrying this unbearable grief, I was to find out that in some respects, I was lucky. The person who killed Camilo was apprehended, which provided some answers. He was a stranger.

He didn't know or target my son. He senselessly fired his gun into a crowd. Knowing this provided some relief in the unbearable pain. A mother needs to know what happened. Since Camilo's death, I have left my work as a nurse practitioner and started to volunteer as a California survivor lead with Every Town and Moms Demand Action. I have met countless people affected by gun violence over these years, those that break my heart the most but at the same time, strengthen my resolve to speak out are the countless moms whose children are taken by gun violence.

And that's why I say I was lucky, because the majority of these moms don't know who killed their child. The crime is unsolved and remains unsolved as the years go by. And these moms constantly wonder, who killed their child. Why was their child killed? So many unanswered questions that prevent them from ever finding peace.

They wonder if their killers, their child's killer, passes them on the street or in a store. Have they gone on to kill others? It is a heavy burden to have your child killed by senseless gun violence, made heavier by never receiving any answers or justice. This is why I'm here today in support of SB 452, the microstamping bill, which will help solve more gun crimes and also play a role in prevention. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you to everybody. We are going to ask again. Witnesses, both in support and opposition get lined up right now. We're taking support. Witnesses state your name, organization, and that you support.

Good morning. Kelly Hitt on behalf of Every Town for Gun Safety in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any other support witnesses? Seeing none, we'll move to lead opposition. You have two minutes. Time has begun.

Good morning. Rick Travis with the California Rifle Pistol Association. We stand opposed to SB 452. Recently, in the Boland v. Bonta court case, the judge found that the entire roster issue was not applicable, as well as specifically the microstamping. It has provided, according to the judge, less safe handguns available in California to prevent many of the issues that is being discussed. Microstamping would not have prevented any of the tragedies of the past. And that's important to understand a couple of things, too.

If this technology actually existed and was in range, out of range, when you fire, those casings fall on the ground. Many times, people, range staff, others pick up the casings you've used. Those could be used at a crime scene to falsely implicate somebody. So this is not, no pun intended, a bulletproof measure to find out who actually fired the weapon, who actually hurt somebody or did bodily harms. This safe roster and the micro-stamping issue has done nothing to make us safer.

In fact, it's made us less safe because many of the technologies available to the rest of the 49 states are not available to Californians. We stand opposed.

Thank you. Next lead opposition. You have two minutes.

I will take my two minutes Madam Chair. Sam Perttas, representing Gun Owners California. Understand that microstamping does not exist in the marketplace right now because the inventor has abandoned the technology as it not being close, ready for use. All of the studies cited have been debunked as unreliable and not complete. So the security of microstamping just doesn't exist.

The commentary that it is an inexpensive technology shows the dramatic lack of understanding on how firearms are made and how they have to guarantee that a particular firing pin has to be matched up with a particular frame. And if they mess up, that manufacturer extends a huge liability upon themselves. But law enforcement doesn't want this. The federal courts have declared that microstamping is unconstitutional.

And in fact, this bill will mean that if guns do not have microstamping, that they will, in essence, be banned in the State of California. New York State Rifle and Pistol Association versus Bruin as well as Heller, Mcdonald and Kaitano said that anything that bans a gun that is in common use for lawful purposes makes it unconstitutional. And then the burden is on the government to prove that there is a historical analog for requiring microstamping back to 1791.

And if it didn't exist, it's unconstitutional. Think what you might that is the law. That is the law of the land. We will proceed and probably end up in court. And by the way, right now we're batting 1000 in court. We're winning every case throughout the country.

Thank you. We will now move on to opposition witnesses that just please state your name.

Dan Reid, Western Regional Director with NRA, also here for NSSF in opposition. Thank you.

Dee Jacobian, representing Tulare County Coalition for Freedom, Blessings of Liberty, and Unmasked Tulare County. We stand in opposition.

Seeing no other witnesses in opposition, we'll now move on to witnesses waiting to testify via teleconference. Please just state your name, organization, and position. Moderator. If you'd please prompt the individuals, we'll begin.

To provide comment and support or opposition. Please press one, then zero. Line 29, please go ahead. Line 29.

Good morning. I'm Samira Collier-Watt, member of the California Rifle and Pistol Association, the NRA, Gun Owners of America, and Gun Owners of California, and I'm strongly opposed to SB 452. Thank you.

Line 16, please. Ahead. Line 16, your line is open.

Can you hear me?

Hello?

Please state your name, organization and whether or not you support or oppose.

Bill Gaines speaking on behalf of the San Diego County Wildlife Federation in strong opposition to Senate Bill 452.

Line 11.

Madam Chair this is Tim McMahon. I'm the Chair of the South Sacramento Chapter of the California Rifle and Pistol Association and NRA member in strong opposition.

Line 25.

Hi, good morning. My name is Darren Bedwell. I'm a member of the California Rifle and Pistol Association and the Gun Owners of California, and I'm calling in strong opposition of SB 452. Thank you.

Line 26.

Yeah, good morning. This is Carlene Ellis. I'm a member of the California Rifle and Pistol Association, Gun Owners of California, and a member of the NRA in strong opposition to 452. Thank you.

Line 30.

My name is Elise Hunt-Mackenzie. I'm a member of Armed Women of America, NRA, and CRPA. I strongly oppose SD 452. Thank you.

Line 32.

Hi, my name is Richard Heiler. I live in Tulsa, California. I am very opposed to the microstamping requirement because.

Thank you.

It can be easily defeated.

Moderator.

Line 33.

Good morning. My name is Pat Herton. I am the Chairman of the Tehama County Gun Owners Chapter of the California. Rifle and Pistol Association. I'm also a retired sergeant with California Highway Patrol, and I am in strong opposition to SB 452. Thank you.

Line 35.

I'm Patricia Scarsdale, a member of the California Rifle and Pistol Association, the NRA, and Gun Owners of America, and I'm firmly opposed to this Bill.

Line 38.

Good morning. This is Mike Elliott, resident of Ventura County. I'm a member of the Ventura County Gun Owners Chapter of the CRPA, and an NRA member, and a responsible gun owner. I strongly oppose SB 452. Thank you.

Line eight.

Yes, my name is Nancy Hardwick. I'm a volunteer with Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America. We strongly support SB 452. Thank you.

And line nine.

Hi, my name is Dara Spears. I'm a resident of San Diego, California, and I strongly oppose SB 452.

There are no further comments in queue at this time.

Thank you. We're going to return the discussion back to our Members who have questions, comments or concerns. Senator Wiener.

You can go first if you want.

Senator Ochoa Bogh. Senator Wiener, let's do this.

First of all, I move the Bill. I want to thank the author for bringing this forward. I just want to make one comment. Before I was in, I was listening to some of the testimony on the TV. I think there was a comment about how because microstamping wasn't being done or required in 1791. That that means that we can't require it today. That is a deeply radical and dangerous argument, not just around gun safety, but around so many things. We need to be clear.

In 1791, the only people who were allowed to participate in any decision making were white men who own property. And to suggest that in 2023, we should be bound by policy that was created hundreds of years ago only by white men who own property, I think it's just absurd and is extremely dangerous for a variety of reasons. I know there have been some bad Supreme Court rulings, but what we've learned from this Supreme Court is that precedent doesn't matter.

And so the Supreme Court has decided to completely upend and inject chaos into the entirety of law. And so all we can do is make the best policy decisions possible. And this is very, very good policy, and I support it.

Thank you, Senator Ochoa Bogh.

So I get the gist of the intent of the Bill with the microstamping on requirement in order to basically know where a bullet comes from and so forth. For clarification purposes, the microstamping is supposed to be on the bullet or on the casing, because I think they made a valid point as far as changing the casings around.

Well, it ties the gun to the bullet, and it allows law enforcement to solve crimes more effectively. We could ask one of the lead witnesses to answer this if you'd like.

Sure. The microstamp will be on the casing, which will be left behind at the crime scene. It's an important piece of evidence that's most often left behind at the crime scene. Those casings are already used by law enforcement to solve crimes. They already use ballistics technology, which, unfortunately, is only successful 1.5% of the time. Microstamping technology is going to be successful about 90% of the time.

So, I mean, if we're concerned about people dropping casings at crime scenes, we should be concerned about that now. And it's simply not happening. So there's no reason to believe that's going to happen more in the future with microstamp technology.

So the other question I had for you, because we were going to have nefarious actors in any field, no matter what the laws and the guns laws that we have in place.

So my question is, is microstamping, no pun intended, bulletproof, can it be tampered with in order to basically make it so that it's not legible or not identifiable?

It can be just like a firearm serial number can be removed or try to be removed from a frame and from receiver. There are going to be people who try to engage in this activity. This criminalizes that behavior in the Bill itself.

But even if half the time, they're not doing that, and we are able to recover the casings, and law enforcement does have this, a tool immediately to be able to trace that firearm. That's huge. Again, no Bill is perfect. No law is perfect. No tool is perfect. But this is an incredible tool for law enforcement to be able to solve crimes.

The other question I have is it has to do with. I understand it says here, requires after July 1, 2027, it shall be unlawful for a firearm stealer, license to sell, blah, blah, blah, blah, and transfer. My question has to do with the fact, how does that apply to guns being manufactured out of state and brought in for sale? How does that, I guess, interstate commerce factor come into this Bill?

Would you like to answer that?

Sure. So the Bill actually creates three pathways for the dealer to get the gun microstamped before transferring it.

So it can be through the manufacturers, which would be fantastic. But we have two alternatives. So if the manufacturer doesn't actually install the microstamp technology into the gun before they send it to the dealer, the dealer can go to Cal DOJ or to a licensed vendor in the state to get the gun serialized. So, irrespective of where the gun comes from, there's three pathways to ensure that guns can get microstamped. This also means that guns will always be available for sale in California.

That's why we create three pathways to ensure that there is the ability for dealers to get these guns incorporated, to get microstamp technology incorporated into handguns.

Okay, and the last question that I have, and I'm not sure if the author would like to answer it or the lead witness, but it has to do with, I guess it's a statement or purview that the National Academy of Science Review, the forensic firearms examiner's report, and even the UC Davis study all reached the conclusion that there is no microstamping technology available that will reliably, consistently, and legibly work or that is feasible on a mass production scale.

I don't believe that's accurate, and I'm happy to provide you peer studies that suggest otherwise.

Okay, so you're saying the statement is false?

What I will say is, we currently don't have any microstamped guns on the market. That's an accurate statement, which is why we're using this pathway. But microstamping itself is feasible. It is reliable. There are peer-review studies to show that it's reliable. Other states have passed this law now, so it's past time for California to move forward with this. But I'm also happy to provide you with the data that.

That would be great because that's what I have in my notes. Thank you.

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

Yes. Just at the highest level, this is to protect public safety. This Bill will allow law enforcement to solve crimes because it connects the firearm to the bullet and the casing that were used in a crime. And I urge an Aye vote.

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

Sorry, SB 452. The motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations. [Roll call].

The Bill is on call. Thank you, Senator. We'll now move on to Senate Bill 804, Senator Dahle.

Good morning, Members. For my first time in front of the Public Safety Committee since I've been in the Legislature. So I have a common sense Bill here with me today, SB 804. Law enforcement and the legal system must be given the tools to properly serve our communities. Law enforcement and civilians are becoming more frequently used. This Bill would authorize fully trained law enforcement civilians to perform hearsay testimony at the preliminary hearings.

They would need to have at least five years of experience, must have undergone the same hearsay testimony training that sworn officers do. This training is the same post-training that sworn officers must complete. Currently, only sworn officers can perform hearsay testimony if law enforcement civilians are called to court. Sworn officers must reinterview old victims, and those victims must be called to court to testify themselves. Allowing law enforcement civilians to perform hearsay testimony will streamline the process and will lighten the load on already strained police force.

This Bill is good for victims, as it would enable them to avoid appearing in court, and it is good for the law enforcement as it would free up already limited resources, not requiring sworn officers to be the ones performing the hearsay testimony. This Bill was brought to me out of my district. I have with me today the Police Chief of Redding, Bill Schueller, to testify.

Thank you. You have two minutes.

Thank you. Good morning, Senators. My name is Bill Schueller. I'm a sworn law enforcement officer for over 29 years, currently serving as a Chief of Police for the City of Redding. June 5, 1990, the majority of California voters passed Proposition 115, the Crime Victims Justice Reform Act. One of the provisions in Proposition 115 is the allowance for peace officers with specified training or experience to provide hearsay testimony during preliminary hearings.

The law required peace officers to either attend postdeveloped training or have five years of experience to provide this hearsay testimony. The new law only applied to sworn peace officers. Current day City of Redding, like many other police department, utilizes unarmed civilian officers, we call them community service officers, to investigate a wide variety of past tense, felony, and misdemeanor crimes. Those include financial crimes, elder abuse, car theft, and theft from homes, businesses, and automobiles. The civilian officers interview victims and witnesses, write police reports, and collect evidence.

When a felony arrest is made on a case previously investigated by a civilian officer, the District Attorney's office must subpoena the victim and witnesses to testify at the preliminary hearing. This is significant impact on victims who have already been victimized when the crime was committed. In addition, they must now miss work, close their small business for the day, hire daycare, or make other arrangements to testify at that preliminary hearing. If the case has been investigated by a sworn officer, that would not be the case.

Another option is to have a sworn officer re-interview all victims and witnesses of any felony case previously investigated by a civilian officer. My Department received an, on average, 10 to 15 of these requests from the DA's Office every month, and that process of re-interviewing victims and witness takes significant time to complete and keeps that peace officer off the street and away from their primary duty of responding to emergency calls.

This is a significant drain on law enforcement resources and defeats the purpose of having unarmed civilian officers in police departments. SB 804 solves both these issues. It allows a properly trained post-civilian officer with a minimum of five years experience to testify in the same minor.

Time. Sorry.

Thank you for allowing me to testify today.

Thank you. If we have any other lead support witnesses, you have two minutes.

Chair and Members, Jonathan Feldman with the California Police Chiefs Association. I won't take the full two minutes and reiterate what the chief had mentioned, but this is a statewide issue, and as agencies have moved with the public to have less sworn officers contacting members of the public in low-level cases and utilizing community service officers instead.

We have to make sure that the community service officers have the powers and tools they need to do their job and this would at least give them that ability and we would ask for your Aye vote.

Thank you. Do we have any other witnesses in the room? Seeing none, we're going to move to lead opposition witnesses. You have two minutes.

Good morning. Leslie Caldwell Houston for the California Public Defenders Association and the San Francisco Public Defender's Office in respectful opposition. Allowing civilian witnesses, even limited to those employed by law enforcement, to testify to hearsay seriously undermines the purpose of a preliminary hearing, which is to weed out unsupported charges.

It undermines California case law that has consistently upheld hearsay evidence offered by trained, experienced sworn officers. While not minimizing the value of civilian police employees, they are not sworn. They do not go through a police academy. They do not have the breadth of experience that a sworn officer would have. There is a reason that preliminary hearing hearsay testimony is limited to sworn officers, and there is not a reason to broaden it, as this Bill proposes to do.

Preliminary hearings remain a critical stage of a criminal proceeding. The author states that given reduced funding to the police, which the data may not be supporting, quote, efficiency is more important than ever, unquote. The issue with this statement is that efficiency should not be a priority in a criminal proceeding that could lead to incarcerating a human being. Police unions might also want to consider whether this is a step to replace sworn officers with cheaper and less skilled labor.

Given the erosion of public trust in law enforcement, such a course seems destined to widen rather than bridge the gap between police and the communities they serve. For a myriad of reasons. We request your No vote.

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

Good morning, Carmen Nicole Cox, on behalf of ACLU California Action, I think we just have to appreciate the purpose of the preliminary hearing and what the trier of fact is being asked to assess, and that is the credibility of the evidence. We should also consider the fact that every person who is accused has a right, as a general matter, to cross-examine their accuser. When we allow for hearsay, what we're saying is you no longer get the right to cross-examine your accuser.

It also says that the person who is making a statement that the trier of fact is being asked to accept is true is not present to assess their credibility. We should also be very, very concerned when we're talking about law enforcement officials. There are consequences for perjury, for example, including, up to and including, discipline at their work, including, up to and including, especially if we're talking about more serious instances, potential decertification.

So the idea that we would take civilians and have them replace trained law enforcement officers for the purpose of saying the witness whose testimony we should accept as true doesn't need to be here, ought to be very, very concerning. We already have a system that in most cases, 97% of cases, the cases conclude via plea bargain.

We should not be further trying to remove the opportunity to find truth for the sake of efficiency and especially with individuals who are not necessarily trained and don't have the same consequences for errors, whether intentional or otherwise. For these reasons, ACLU Cal Action is in respectful opposition.

Thank you. Do we have any other opposition witnesses? Seeing none. We'll move to those that are waiting to testify via teleconference service. Please just state your name, organization, and position. Moderator, if you'd please prompt those individuals?

Thank you. And we do have a question from line nine. Line nine, please go ahead.

I just want to say my name is Dara Spears and I support SB 804 to not further victimize victims.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. And we'll move to line 50. Please go ahead.

Sharita Moore with California Attorneys for Criminal Justice in opposition.

Thank you.

Thank you. If anyone else is in queue or has a comment, please press 1 then 0.

Seeing none. Thank you. Thank you to our witnesses. We'll now bring back the discussion to the Members. Senators? Senator Wiener?

Thank you, Madam Chair. So I want to explain why I'm going to be voting for this Bill today. When I first saw this Bill, before I dug into it, I was skeptical for a lot of the reasons that were stated here today. But as I read it and really tried to contextualize it and what I think is happening in law enforcement today and what I'm seeing in my own City of San Francisco, I think this Bill does make sense.

We are seeing increasingly in San Francisco, we are very short-staffed in our Police Department, and so with officers, we're seeing significant delays in responding to crimes. I'm not criticizing the Department. They're really just stretched beyond belief. And in San Francisco, we are actually, this was recommended, I think, 15 years ago, and our police union fought it, I think, for a long time.

And it's finally happening that we are employing more of these non-police officer investigators who are specifically trained to go up, particularly in situations where it's not something that's an active crime, where home has been broken into and they're gone or a car has been broken into. Someone who can do the investigation, fingerprint, write a report, interview witnesses and is specifically trained to do it, not just someone pulled off the street, someone who's a professional and trained to do that, which is lower cost than hiring them police officer and frees up police officers to do more urgent kinds of work.

And I've always been a supporter of that civilianization of those kinds of functions. I think it takes a lot of stress off of our police departments, and the cost is less in terms of the personnel. But without allowing them to testify, as outlined in this Bill, preliminary hearings, we're creating an incentive for departments not to move in that direction. And so I think this makes sense. I am sensitive to making sure that the people who are providing this hearsay testimony are actually trained.

And the Bill is very specific that a law enforcement civilian doing this has to have either five years of experience as a law enforcement civilian. So they have to have been doing this for at least five years or have completed a training course equivalent to the training course described in subdivision b, which I believe is a police academy level a post-class.

These are people who have received either the same training to do this as a police officer or have been doing this work for five years. So I think this is a reasonable. I totally understand and respect the objection and opposition to it. I'm not any way critical of the opposition. This is a tough issue. But I think on balance, I'm supportive of this Bill and I'm happy to move it.

Thank you, Senator Wiener. Senator. Okay. So personally, I just will say that I think that I understand what the goal is, but just working with in our local city, some of these efforts, I don't necessarily agree with it. I think that it is concerning. I also think that as we are talking about law enforcement and just the institution itself, I will not be supporting this because I think it's actually detrimental to the institution.

I also think that these individuals that want to work, they're not 100% vetted, to be completely frank, and yes, they can have some of the training. Post-training is not sufficient to my standard at least. And at the same time, it tends to attract a certain type of individual that is interested in this. We've seen it at the local level. It causes actually more problems, in my personal opinion. So I will not be supporting this. But since the Bill is moved, Senator, would you like to close?

I want to just thank the comments from the Senator from San Francisco. Look, this Bill was brought to me. I respect the opposition as well, and we are in a place where I think they focus mainly on efficiencies and costs. That's really not the issue. It's about getting people to do the job and the post-training. They're required to do the training. And that's why I think the Bill does make a common-sense approach to trying to do the right thing.

And if you talk about the victims who have to be then re-interviewed with a sworn peace officer, I think that's where we run into the issue. So I would respectfully ask for your Aye vote. I think this is a common sense Bill. We're trying to get in the same classifications where we've seen other Senators bring bills forward that allow other people to actually do law enforcement that aren't even citizens, and we pass those types of bills. This is a Bill where we have met the qualifications.

I respectfully ask for an Aye vote.

Thank you. The Bill has been moved by Senator Wiener. Roll call?

SB 804. The motion is do pass to the floor. [Roll call].

The Bill is on call. Thank you. Definitely. You will get reconsideration if this does not move. Senator Rubio, if you are ready, the floor is yours. Senator Rubio will be presenting SB 376. I believe that you have accepted the Committee's amendments as well?

Yes.

All right, the floor is yours.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and committee members. As you stated, I will be accepting the committee amendments, and I want to thank the Chair and staff for working with my office today. I'm presenting SB 376, which would grant victims of human trafficking the right to an advocate or support person of their choosing to be present at any interview by law enforcement authorities, prosecutors, or defense attorneys. Additionally, this bill would require the attending law enforcement authority to notify or advise a victim of human trafficking of that right.

It would also require the advocate to inform the victim of limitations on the confidentiality of their communication. Human trafficking is a worldwide epidemic. Human trafficking has increased 842% in the US since 2007, with California having the largest increase of reported cases. In 2017, California had the most calls to the hotline, nearly 4000 calls, and the most reported cases of human trafficking, 1305. The right to an advocate is currently only granted to victims of sexual assault and domestic violence. But victims of human trafficking experience similar barriers.

They're extremely vulnerable, and many often feel helpless and unsure of how to navigate the system, especially after a traumatic experience. We must consider what they went through, how young some of them are, and we sometimes expect them to be knowledgeable and be able to be strong enough to withstand a system that is not designed to help them.

It is important to understand that victims may feel fearful of stepping forward and going through the legal process due to fear of government, distrust of law enforcement, their immigration status, or other fears such as retaliation. Some have been sexually exploited, forced to work under unbearable conditions, or coerced into committing crimes. The human trauma, it's hard to understand. It runs deep, and it is overwhelming to go through this process alone.

Access to a confidential advocate that can provide trauma-informed, survivor-centered, and culturally responsive support increases the likelihood that the victim will fully cooperate and have access to vital services and, of course, pursue legal remedies which is what we want to do. Human trafficking affects everyone. It does not discriminate, and it could happen to anyone. Today, here with me to testify is Leigh LaChappelle on behalf of CAST and Perla Flores with Community Solutions. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you and before we go to our first lead witness, I will hand the gavel over to Senator Ochoa Bogh, as I have to present. Senator, thank you.

So you have your two lead witnesses?

Yes.

Please begin.

Thank you. My name is Leigh LaChappelle. I'm the Associate Director of Survivor Advocacy with the Coalition to Abolish Slavery and Trafficking.

We are one of the nation's largest antitrafficking service providers, and I personally have spent the majority of my time at CAST working directly with escaping survivors through our 24-hour emergency response program. Previous to that, I worked with survivors of sexual and domestic violence. And when I first came to CAST and learned that human trafficking survivors did not have a right to an advocate under California law, I was appalled.

And every time I could not accompany a client of mine who needed me into an interview, I was heartbroken. And so what we're asking for today is just equity under the law for human trafficking survivors alongside sexual and domestic violence survivors. So I'm urging you today to support SB 376, which would ensure that those survivors have a right to an advocate as they navigate the criminal legal system.

And we've also ensured that law enforcement, similar to when they're working with sexual and domestic violence survivors, have the right to ask that support person or advocate to leave that interview if they feel like it's compromising it in some way, because we do want to maintain the integrity of that investigation. I've seen firsthand, over and over and over again, that if an advocate is there or a support person is there, that survivor is more likely to cooperate.

We're going to see increased cooperation with law enforcement, increased cooperation with prosecution, and more importantly, less revictimization and less criminalization of survivors with that advocate present. So this bill will position the state to take a trauma-informed approach to investigation while working to protect survivors by informing them of their rights and connecting them to appropriate legal services and social services. California has the urgent opportunity to be the global leader in anti-trafficking efforts, but that starts with protecting our most vulnerable from exploitation.

And I want to thank you all today and our author for standing with survivors of human trafficking.

Thank you.

Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today in support of SB 376. My name is Perla Flores, and I have worked in the anti-gender-based violence field for over 20 years. I currently oversee intimate partner violence, sexual assault and human trafficking services for Community Solutions, a multiservice, community-based organization serving the counties of Santa Clara and San Benito.

Community Solutions is proud to cosponsor SB 376. For decades, survivors of intimate partner violence and sexual assault have had the right to have an advocate and support person of their choosing present during follow-up interviews with law enforcement, prosecutor and the accused defense attorneys. Having an advocate present during follow-up interviews ensures survivors feel supported, validated and safe during what could be a very intimidating and traumatic process.

Advocate involvement also increases survivors understanding of the rights as victims of crime and facilitates access to long-term, trauma-informed, survivor-centered and culturally responsive support. Additionally, advocates provide referrals to vital resources, including housing, self-sufficiency programs and legal services. The right to an advocate is currently not afforded to human trafficking survivors, yet survivors of human trafficking experience many of the same vulnerabilities, power and control tactics, violence and abuse that intimate partner violence and sexual assault survivors experience.

Many foreign born human trafficking survivors are particularly at risk for future exploitation or harm given their lack of legal status. The Trafficking Victim Protection Act includes immigration remedies and social service benefits for foreign-born human trafficking survivors. Advocates play a key role in supporting survivor linkage to these immigration remedies and social service benefits. SB 376 aims to augment human trafficking survivor safety, autonomy and agency through increased access to advocacy and comprehensive services. Please support SB 376.

Thank you to both our lead witnesses in support.

We'll now hear from any other support witnesses here in room 2200.

I'm Sharon Dhanoa, the Director of South Bay Coalition and Human Trafficking. On behalf of the following agencies Step Forward Foundation, the YWCA, Golden Gate Silicon Valley, Tara Justice Center and the Wage Theft Coalition of Santa Clara County, we support.

Thank you very much. Do we have any other lead witnesses here in room 2200? Seeing none? We will now move on to witnesses in opposition to SB 376.

Leslie Caldwell Houston for the California Public Defenders Association, we thank the author for taking the amendments, and we will withdraw our opposition.

Do we have any other witnesses in opposition here in room 2200? Seeing none? Thank you. We'll now move on to witnesses waiting to testify via the teleconference service. Please, Madam Moderator, if you would, please prompt the witnesses on the teleconference line, and for those that will be testifying over the teleconference, please just state your name, organization and position, please.

Thank you and if you'd like to testify, please press one, then zero at this time. First caller is line 55, please go ahead. Line 55, you are open.

My name is Al Gonzalez from Community Solutions and FCC, and I'm calling in support of the passage of SB 376.

Thank you, we'll move to line 23. Please go ahead.

My name is Luanne Martinez from Community Solutions and I am calling in support of the passage of SB 376.

My name is Luke Gonzalez from Community Solutions. I'm calling to support of the passage of SB 376. Thank you.

Thank you. Line 24, please go ahead.

Line 28, please go ahead.

Good morning, my name is. And I am in support of SB 376.

Thank you, and line 18, please go ahead.

My name is Edmunda Vasquez and I am calling in support of the passage of SB 376, thank you.

Line 61, please go ahead.

Ruth Silver-Taube, on behalf of the Santa Clara County Wage Theft Coalition, and I'm calling in support of SB 376. Thank you.

Line nine, please go ahead.

Hi, Dara Spears, San Diego County, calling in support of passage 376.

Line 58, please go ahead. Line 58, you're open.

Hi, this is Dr. Katherine, medicine residency in strong support of SB 376.

Hi, Aaron O'Brian, Community Solutions, calling in support.

Thank you, line 15 please go ahead.

Line 39, please go ahead. Line 39, you're open. Yes, your line is open.

Hi, good morning. My name is Veronika Leon. I am from Community Solutions in Sanatara County, and I'm calling in support of the passage of SB 376. Thank you.

Thank you. We'll move to line 14. Please go ahead. Line 14, you're open. We'll move to line 54, please go ahead.

Hi, my name is Christina Martinez from Community Solutions in Santa Clara County, and I am calling in support of the passage of SB 376.

Thank you. And line 49, please go ahead.

Hi, my name is Lorenza Labrada from Community Solutions in Santa Clara County, and I'm calling in support of the passage of SB 376.

Thank you. And there's no further participants. Thank you. Please go ahead.

Thank you, Madam Moderator. And thank you to all our support and opposition witnesses.

We'll bring it back to our members. Senator Skinner.

Thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you for bringing the bill for us. I am happy to move the bill and apologies that I don't have the page in front of me. Did the committee have amendments in this? And you took the committee's amendments, so I will move the bill with the committee's amendments and appreciate the author for bringing it forward.

Thank you. Senator Skinner, do we have any other comments, questions? No, we're good.

I just want to say thank you to the author for bringing this measure forward. And when I've looked at these human trafficking bills, there is a huge need to make sure that we take care of both the victims and make sure that we hold the perpetrators accountable. So thank you for this measure. I and a special kudos to both of our lead witnesses in support of the bill and the work that you're doing.

It takes a very special heart and spirit to be able to work in that environment, because it's an incredibly emotionally draining or impacting work. So thank you for having that courage and that heart to serve those victims. Thank you. With that, Madam Secretary, please. Oh, I'm sorry. Yes. Would you like to close Senator Rubio?

Yes. Thank you. And thank you for your comments.

Having an advocate is an important step to building trust in the system, and we clearly know that victims are already in a vulnerable state, and it's a step forward in holding perpetrators accountable as well. So I thank you, and I ask respectfully for an aye vote. Thank you.

SB 376, motion is due pass as amended, to Appropriations. [Roll Call]

Thank you, we'll put or place the bill on call for our absent members. Thank you.

Thank you.

Senator Skinner, would you like to present your bill? When you're ready.

I think my witnesses were, because I'm last on file that they're not here, but,

Would you like to wait? We're more than happy to wait to accommodate your circumstances.

And I'm also just checking with the other committee where I'm bill number four to make sure that I'm not going to be called. Right. So let me have a minute.

No rush.

We'll see if anybody else shows up. And if not, I'll then present.

Senator Wahob is presenting her own bill, so we've got time.

All right, so item one was SB two. No, sorry, we didn't do that one. Item three, SB 268, was Alvarado-Gil. The motion was due pass as amended to appropriations. Bradford. And it's one-to-one.

[Roll Call] The consent calendar, it's currently two to two. Bradford. Two to zero, sorry [Roll Call] Item number five, Rubio, SB 376, the motion is due pass as amended, to appropriations. No. [Roll Call]

Yes. Item eight was SB 452, Blakespear. The motion was do pass as amended to appropriations. Ochoa bogh? Bradford?

How about the other person?

The motion was do pass to the floor. [Roll Call] Yeah. SB 804, Dahle. Motion was do passed to the floor. Chair was a no. [Roll Call]. That's all of them arriving by 10:30, so I think I would like to hold until then. That'd be great. Okay, so.

Good afternoon. Thank you very much. This is public safety. We are going to recess until further notice. We have several Members that out are in committees presenting bills. So we're going to recess until further notice. Committees is in recess enjoy lunch.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Today, I'm here to present SB 237. It's an enhancement on sentences for fentanyl dealers and traffickers. The fentanyl epidemic in California is a crisis, and it has to be addressed with great urgency. And it is exactly what I just said. It's a crisis. In 2021, there were 5,722 fentanyl related deaths in California, the second highest in the country, with 224 of them being minors. That's 5,722 lives taken from friends, families and loved ones.

That's 5,722 people who could have been saved if dealers and traffickers couldn't have reached them. Last year, there was a 594% increase of fentanyl seized at the border compared to the previous year. And in a report from this governor's office, there was still enough of that drug reaching this state in 2022 to kill every man, woman and child in North America. Twice. There's no denying that fentanyl overdoses have been on the rise for many years now.

In Fresno County, the coroner's office reported that only two fentanyl related cases in 2018 existed. By 2021, there were over 110 fentanyl deaths. And that's just one of my counties. If you were to look into your counties that you represent, I would suggest to you that you would find the same unfortunate steady rise in fentanyl fatalities. We need to shift our attention to catching these predators who sell this drug, to get them and get them off the street so they cannot hurt anyone else.

And it's this legislation that will help accomplish that. SB 237 increases penalties for the possession, purchase, transportation with the intent to sell fentanyl. By increasing penalties, offenders will spend more time in jail and less time distributing this lethal poison to our children.

With me today, and the sponsor of SB 237 is the Fresno County District Attorney, Lisa Smittcamp, an expert in her field, and Laura Dider, an incredible mom from Rockland, California, that lost her beautiful son, Zachary, to an early life due to the tragic fentanyl crisis that we have in this state. Ms. Smittcamp.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, and the members of the Senate Public Safety Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today. My name is Lisa Smittcamp, and I'm the elected District Attorney of the County of Fresno.

Right now, I spend 50% to 60% of my time educating my community about the ills and the risks of fentanyl, because the California state laws fail to protect the people that we are in charge of and elected to protect today, with the presence of illicit and abundant fentanyl, we are in a whole new dimension. And fentanyl is not only a public safety issue, but it is a public health crisis.

We cannot apply the same standards of the past and fool ourselves into thinking that fentanyl is just the newest drug on the market and continue to treat people who sell it the same way. If we can agree on nothing else, we have to agree that fentanyl is different. Yes, I'm going to say it again and again and again. fentanyl is different than street drugs of any other generation. It is different because of its lethality and its ability to kill instantly and immediately.

Fentanyl will kill everyone from a first time user to a full fledged addict. Please understand that these drugs are not being accidentally sold or shared. To suggest that is an insult to every parent who has lost a child to this poison. People who are manufacturing, transporting and selling this are well aware of what they are doing, the addictive nature of the substance, and they are most aware of the incredible profits they are making as a result.

Despite misinformation in the media today, the role of a prosecutor is not simply to put people in jail or prison and throw away the key. Prosecutorial discretion is something this committee is well aware of. We have elected DAs all over this state who choose every day whether or not to pursue certain crimes in their individual jurisdictions. Prosecutorial discretion can also be used in the application of health and safety code, Section 11351 and 11352. With the amendments brought forth by this Senate Bill.

It is giving law enforcement a tool and to target the most serious offenders who are spreading the poison in our community. You may be saying to yourself, how do we know this is true? It is true because we have no other choices as prosecutors since the realignment of CDCR and 1170 H crimes.

Sorry, you have two minutes.

All right. Can I just finish up here?

One line.

There are limited number of beds in our county jails, and without consequences and ability, we have no order. If you allow these dealers to continue this behaviors, we are not doing what we are elected and expected to do.

Okay.

Thank you. Next speaker.

Good afternoon, Senators and Madam Chair. Thank you for your time in listening to my testimony today. My name is Laura Didier. On December 25 of 2020, Christmas Day, I was enjoying the holiday with my parents and my three beloved children, Allie, Sam, and Zach. My children are my world, and I was so proud of the beautiful people that they were growing into.

Zach, my baby, was 17, a high school senior at Whitney High in Rockland, a straight a student, an athlete, a self taught musician, a kind friend to all, a loving boyfriend, and an all around amazing kid. Two days after that wonderful holiday, I watched a coroner take my beautiful boy out of the home. Out of our home. Our family was blindsided by his unexpected and tragic death. Zach had no medical conditions, nor was he struggling with any substance use issues.

No drugs were found in his room. It wasn't until we were able to open his phone the next day that we began to put the pieces together in his cause of death. A drug dealer operating on Snapchat had connected with Zach. He purchased what was being marketed as a prescription pain pill, and that one counterfeit pill, made with fentanyl, killed him in his bedroom. This tragedy devastated my family and Zach's friends in ways you can only imagine.

There are no words to adequately express the excruciating pain of losing someone so precious and so young. Without warning, Zach's story is becoming all too common in our state. Fentanyl has irreversibly changed the drug landscape into the dystopian nightmare we're witnessing today. Kids are dying from youthful experimentation as self medication from deceptive drugs. Individuals who are battling substance use disorder are being robbed of a chance to regain their health because of the highly addictive and lethal qualities of fentanyl.

Brief parents like me and Zach's father are sharing our stories to warn our communities. But this crisis demands a multifaceted response. The consequences of selling deadly drugs must be commensurate with the devastation that they are causing. Law enforcement must be armed with the tools they need to remove drug dealers and traffickers from our streets. For these reasons, and in the memory of my beautiful son, I urge your aye vote today. Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am, for your testimony. We will now move on to witnesses in support of SB 237 here in room 2200.

My name is Perla Mendoza. I am the founder of Project Eli. I, too, lost my son to fentanyl poisoning. I'm asking, begging that you guys do something about this problem and support this cause.

Izzy Swindler, on behalf of Fresno County Board of Supervisors, in support. Thank you.

Susan Arnall, Vice President of Legal Affairs at the Right to Life League. We are in support. Thank you.

Tihir Kobian of Tulare County, on behalf of Tulare, Coalition for Freedom, Stand up, Sacramento County, Blessings of Liberty unmasked Tulare County, Calvary Chapel, Visalia, and Rock Harbor Church, Bakersfield. We all stand in support of this bill.

Michael Furman, on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association, in support.

Thank you very much. Do we have any other witnesses in support of SB 237 here in room 2200? Seeing none. We will now move on to witnesses in opposition. Do we have any key witnesses in opposition?

Good afternoon, Chair and committee members. My name is Jeannette Zanipatin and I'm the California State Director for Drug Policy Alliance. I am here to testify in respectful opposition to Senate Bill 237 by Senator Grove, which would increase sentence enhancements for fentanyl. DPA is a national organization promoting drug policies grounded in science, compassion, health, and human rights.

While we clearly understand the need to address the overdose crisis and assume the best intentions of the author and clearly empathize with those who have lost loved ones and their children to this overdose crisis, we know that further criminalization will exacerbate the overdose crisis instead of reducing the availability of this deadly drug, and we totally empathize with those, again, that have lost a loved one. However, there is no evidence, none, that longer sentences will result in less drugs.

The US waged a, quote, war on drugs, unquote, for over 50 years, with the primary tool being longer and longer sentences. And during that time, illegal drugs became cheaper and more potent and more widely available than ever. The introduction of fentanyl on the West Coast is a direct byproduct of the war on drugs. It has been carefully researched and the verdict is in longer sentences do not work. They don't change the amount of drugs being introduced, trafficked or sold.

If anything, each crackdown leads to the next public health disaster. Under current state law, possession of any amount of fentanyl already has a sentence enhancement of 2, 3 or 4 years for selling fentanyl or giving it away or transportation for sale. Someone currently faces 3, 4 or 5 years of enhancement and for transporting to two non contiguous counties, such as from San Francisco to Sacramento. The penalties are 3, 6 or 9 years.

So you see, we already have long sentences for possession of a small amount of fentanyl for sale. Increased spending on locking up more people will not change the realities of drugs being struggled and purchased by people of all ages.

Unfortunately, what we need is better overall education, including drug education for parents and youth that is grounded in reality based drug education, better and easier access to effective drug treatment, such as treatment on demand, and effective harm reduction strategies aimed at keeping people alive until they are ready to stop using or ready to start treatment.

And of course, there is the difficult job of addressing poverty, which is a major motivator for selling drugs, which includes providing strong social supports like education, job training, affordable housing, and health care. For all these reasons above, we respectfully urge your no vote on Senate Bill 237. Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am do we have any other witnesses? In opposition.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members, Senator Grove. Carmen Nicole Cox, on behalf of ACLU California Action in respectful opposition to Senate Bill 237. While our hearts go out to those who have lost loved ones and we share the author's goal of reducing fentanyl overdoses, we are in opposition because, as my colleague just explained, the large body of scientific evidence has demonstrated that Senate Bill 237 will not accomplish that goal. Incarceration of people who sell drugs just does not have a significant deterrent effect on drug use.

California's own three strikes law has been found to have neither had an incapacitation nor deterrent effect on drug offenses. This makes sense, considering many swept into the criminal legal system under drug laws are drug users themselves. The repeated use of addictive drugs eventually changes how the brain functions. These brain changes affect natural inhibition and reward centers. They cause the person addicted to use drugs in spite of the adverse health, social, and criminal legal consequences.

An addict's ability to exert self control and make sound decisions is often seriously impaired because the brain has become impaired. Senate Bill 237 does not offer treatment. It focuses solely on punishment, an approach that has failed many times over, resulting only in racialized incarceration. What Californians deserve is accessible, reliable, and equitable treatment, not incarceration. After all, individuals who wish to recover from addiction to drugs, they need shelters. They need medical care. They need financial assistance and treatment. They need vocational rehabilitation and access to higher education.

Incarceration in California is a six figure annual expenditure per year in state prison, according to the National Center for Drug Abuse Statistics. The average cost, on the other hand, to treat a patient for substance abuse disorder in California, just under $57,000. If it is our collective goal to address the demand for drugs, which is the only way to stifle the market, we must make treatment available.

You've reached the two minute mark. I apologize, but we're going to have you. If you wouldn't mind closing up?

Absolutely. Thank you, Senator. Because Senate Bill 237 takes the wrong approach of monopolizing scarce taxpayer dollars to fund further policing, prosecution and punishment, it takes the wrong policy approach, and we respectfully request your no vote. Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am. We'll now move on to witnesses in opposition here in room 2200.

Thank you. Glenn Backes for ELLA Baker Center for Human Rights, in opposition.

Lesli Caldwell-Houston, for the California Public Defenders Association and the San Francisco Public Defender's Office, in opposition.

Joshua DuBay with the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Do we have any other witnesses in opposition hearing room 2200? Seeing? None, is it? Madam Moderator?

Yeah.

Madam moderator?

Yes.

Perfect.

Thank you. We will now move witnesses in the teleconference, if you wouldn't mind prompting.

Let's see here.

Yes. So we're now going to move on to the witnesses waiting to testify via the teleconference service. Please just state your name, organization and position, please. And we'll be taking both support and witnesses in opposition.

To provide comments in support or opposition for SB 237, please press one, then zero. One moment. Pleased. Line 121. Please go ahead. Your line is open. 121. 121. Please go ahead. And 121. Your line is open. Please go ahead. You. It's line 115. Please go ahead.

Thank you. My name is Walid Hajj with the League of California Cities in support of SB 237. Thank you.

There are no further comments at this time.

Thank you. Madam Moderator, if you wouldn't mind, please check the lines one more time. We want to make sure that we've had the opportunity to listen to any support and opposition witnesses on the line in.

To provide comments in support or opposition for SB 237, please press one, then zero.

Thank you, Madam Moderator, and thank you to all our support and our opposition witnesses that came here today to testify. We'll now bring the discussion back to our members. Any comments or questions? All right, then. I get all the time for all my members. So I won't exceed 10 minutes.

Two minutes per member and myself. So thank you so much. I want to facilitate the conversation a little bit more and take liberty to do that. I have a question, and I understand the oppositions regard to why additional time incarcerated will not be helpful.

I want to give the district attorneys an opportunity to speak on why it is needed, what the experiences are in the field, that you believe that this is actually something that you folks need in the toolbox in addressing fentanyl crisis.

Thank you, Madam Senator. The issue here, with all due respect to some of the opposition, is that the people who are transporting and manufacturing and selling fentanyl to the youth and to the people that are dying from it and are becoming addicted to it are not pathetic users. They are not just people who are addicted to it themselves.

And this is a multimillion dollar business that these drug traffickers have. And the people that are a part of these huge operations are the people that we're targeting.

We are not looking as prosecutors to throw people who are in need of treatment in prison or jails. We are so strapped at the local level for beds in our local jails because of AB 109 and 1170 H does not even allow us to send people who traffic and sell drugs to state prison. These are all people who are doing local time.

So, as prosecutors, every elected District Attorney in this state has the obligation and the responsibility today to select who are the people that we want to prosecute. We have a strong voice in plea bargaining, and we make offers every day. 98% to 99% of our cases are plea bargained.

And we come to agreements. We work very closely with public defenders every single day with probation officers. We work with courts to determine who are the people that we need to put in these beds.

And by not giving us the tools and the discretion, we are also elected officials. We are also sworn to uphold the constitution. And we also all try to be ethical prosecutors.

And this committee is very well aware that every prosecutor has prosecutorial discretion, because we have prosecutors all over this state who are choosing not to implement laws. We have a governor who has put a moratorium on the death penalty.

When the voters forget, every elected District Attorney, whether they believe in the death penalty or they don't but the voters of the state have said that they do. So we have prosecutorial discretion to decide who are the people that we want to put in these beds.

And when we have a case that comes along where we have a fentanyl dealer who is dealing in mass quantities and is selling drugs to people that are dying, we should have that discretion.

And this is the type of bill that will send a message to these people who are selling and transporting and bringing this poison into our community that there are consequences. There is accountability.

Because my question to the opposition is if incarceration is the last tool that we use as prosecutors, when there are people who are addicted, and we know that they are simply just addicts trying to support their own habit, those are not the people that we choose to put in these beds.

These are not the people that we choose to implement these charges on. And so I ask you, what is the answer? Right? Because you can't program someone who is not an addict.

You cannot program somebody who chooses their enterprise and who chooses their business to be that of selling drugs at the cost of lives. And I cringe sometimes because I am the mother of an adopted black son. I am the mother of a black child.

And so when I hear the brown and black argument that it's always just incarcerating black and brown people. There are black and brown people dying of fentanyl overdoses every single day. Every single day. Fentanyl does not discriminate. It does not just kill rich white kids. There are Hispanic kids and black kids dying every day from this drug.

And this gives us the tools that we need to send a message to people to say, hey, if you are going to engage in this criminal enterprise, then you are going to have consequences.

Oh, no clapping in the hearing room. Sorry. I was going to say courtroom, hearing room. Thank you very much for your testimony. Senator Bradford, would you like to make any comments? Nothing. We're good. All righty. Senator Grove, would you like to close?

Thank you, Madam Chair. You heard one of the most incredible district attorneys in the State of California speak about. I mean, she's pretty tough when it comes to crime and punishment of crime, but she has the biggest heart to make sure that and every District Attorney with prosecutorial discretion, I believe exactly what she says.

She doesn't want to prosecute the kid down the street that's addicted to drugs and gives his friend a pill or that sells a pill or whatever it is. This enterprise that's coming across the border that's creating millions upon millions of dollars at the death of California children and California citizens, regardless of color, is making millions of dollars, possibly billions of dollars, on the death of these people.

Again, the governor's own report says that there's enough fentanyl coming across the border to the State of California to kill every man, woman and child twice. Twice. So those people should be prosecuted for murder because they're intending when they sell.

They know these pills. One pill and you're dead. Right? One pill. These individuals know that when they sell this product or they distribute this product or they transport this product, they know that fatalities are coming.

And to say that we are concerned about the kid down the street that his big brother gives him. We had an issue in Bakersfield with a big brother. 15 year old gave a 12 year old some fentanyl pills. They're not interested in prosecuting the 15 year old or the 12 year old.

They're going after criminal enterprises that are purposely distributing and transporting this product to kill California children and California citizens and people that reside in this state. And I agree with what the District Attorney says.

If you dive into the statistics, black and brown children and adults are dying just as fast or faster from fentanyl than their white counterparts. This is not a racial issue. Fentanyl does not look at the color of your skin. Fentanyl is killing people every single day.

5000. What was the number? 5722 people died in 2021 because of fentanyl. And not one fentanyl bill has gotten out of this committee to arrest or prosecute these perpetrators that are committing these horrific crimes.

And I would respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much, Senator Grove. Senator Bradford, would you care to do a courtesy motion to move the bill?

Do I ask for a motion?

Thank you, Senator Bradford. Madam Secretary, please call the role.

SB 237.

Grove. The motion is do pass to appropriations.

[Roll Call]

We'll leave the bill on roll call for our absent members. Thank you, Senator Grove. And we do have a second bill, SB 325. Senator Grove, are you ready to present?

Yes, ma'am. Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam Chair. Today I am here to present SB 325, which would add additional penalties for buying and selling, transporting with the intent to distribute rainbow fentanyl targeted specifically at our children.

It's different than the previous bill. The previous bill was on enhancements for fentanyl in general. This is rainbow fentanyl that looks like smarties or candy, specifically designed and created and manufactured to sell to our children.

Someone who buys cells and transport fentanyl with the intent to distribute, like I said earlier, is committing murder. They know that these pills are going to kill the people, whoever who are in taking them.

One pill can kill. And these perpetrators are buying, selling and transporting hundreds of pills disguised as candy to purposely go after our children.

As a state policy, as state policy continues to minimize the impact of fentanyl crisis, drug dealers and cartel members have found a new way to get more clients at the deadly cost of our kids.

I know as Members of this Committee, you've heard this before, but brightly colored fentanyl and these are actually posters of pictures that we made from law enforcement that was provided to us.

So as a state policy continues to minimize the impact of fentanyl crisis, drug dealers, cartel members have found a new way to again reach our kids. I know Members of this Committee that you've heard this before.

These brightly colored fentanyl pills, also known as rainbow fentanyl, has been found in many different forms, including pills, powders and candies. With the vibrant colors and candylike shapes, it has become more of a method for dealers to sell highly addictive fentanyl and poison to our children.

Rainbow fentanyl tricks them into thinking that they're eating candy or taking one type of pill, when in reality, one pill can kill them. Numerous fentanyl related bills have been introduced to help put them into this crisis. But most have not gotten out of this committee.

Why is that? Why is it that fentanyl bills cannot get out of this committee when every one of our districts that we serve, people are dying? Awareness bills have passed. Teaching people how to stay away from fentanyl has passed.

Education bills have passed. Teaching people how to use Narcan has passed, in case of an overdose. But there's no accountability for drug dealers and profiteers making this poison that is disseminating to our cities and killing California children.

As much as there needs to be resources for this dangerous drug, there also needs to be accountability for those who buy, sell and transport with the intent to distribute fentanyl to our children.

We've all been focusing on teaching young people how to save their friend's life instead of keeping this drug from getting into them in the first place. And to make matters worse, children are being targeted through social media.

Previous bill the mother of an individual, Zach, who passed away or was killed because of a fentanyl pill, got his pill on Snapchat.

Instagram used to be an app where you would put a nice photo up of your dinner or what you were eating as a meal or a picture of the sunset Snapchat was sending a silly picture of yourself to your friends.

These two platforms, along with others, are now being used to sell drugs to minors because that's what miners do. They don't read the newspaper. They don't go to events and things that promote different things on flyers and things like that.

They're using Snapchat and Instagram in order to obtain these drugs. These two platforms, along with others, are being used to sell the drugs to minors. A couple of examples. Alexander Neville went to his parents asking for their help after he was addicted to oxycontin pills.

And he bought that off a Snapchat. He then overdosed with a pill laced with fentanyl the very same night. He was 14 years old. Griffin Hoffman and Olivia Coleman, 17 and 16 years old, weren't friends.

They didn't run in the same circles, but went to the same high school. They died less than 24 hours apart due to a fentanyl overdose. Olivia told her parents about her addiction in the past, and she shared with them that she had bought pills off of Snapchat.

And the seller actually drove to her house and into her driveway to deliver the pills. Snapchat is where this young woman got these pills. Drug dealers are literally using Snapchat like a doordash to sell pills to teenagers. The Federal Government shut down backpage when they realized they had a problem with human trafficking.

So Snapchat and Instagram, like I said, are allowing these individuals, these perpetrators, these profiteers, these cartel run organization making millions of dollars on the death of our children, are using Snapchat and other platforms in order to engage our children.

Griffin took what he thought was a Percocet pill from a friend, and it cost him his life.

Dealers and sellers know exactly what they're doing to these kids. Clark Jackson Salvarone bought pills off of Instagram, and the seller told him to only take half of the pill because, quote, this is stuff as strong as hell. All of these victims have one thing in common.

They all thought they were taking something else. In 2021, 224 fentanyl related overdoses among teens from 14 years to 19 years old died in California. That is the size of an entire rural high school population.

And California's well intentioned fentanyl education efforts aren't saving them. We're not locking these individuals up that are bringing this stuff across the border and bringing them to our communities.

Dealers and sellers and traffickers are purposely making rainbow fentanyl to look different and make it look like candies and pills to market to our children. And enough is enough.

Today to testify on behalf of this bill is Lieutenant Michael Gallardo, the commander of the Alameda County Narcotics Task Force, which is one of the most successful narcotics task force in California. And Pamela Smith from PAIN, Parents and Addicts In Need.

To share her story about the loss of her beautiful son Jackson, from an overdose from a pill that was laced with fentanyl.

Greetings, Senator. Thank you for allowing me to participate in this great democratic process. My name is Michael Gallardo. I'm a lieutenant with the sheriff's office. Been in law enforcement for 25 years. Almost half of that has been with narcotics investigations.

For the last almost four years, I've been the commander of the Alameda County Narcotics Task Force. I work in the epicenter of fentanyl consumption and distribution in Northern California, which is the Bay Area.

We see all forms of fentanyl to include colored powder, fentanyl, and colored fentanyl pills. And these pills look like candy. I have communicated with law enforcement and all the in and around all the voting districts for all the members, even the ones that aren't here, and all unanimously said that these colored fentanyl pills are in their voting districts there, and they're being consumed.

Right down the road from here is where these pictures came from. Trident task force in Placer County.

Not only did they have these pills, but these pills were treated with aromatics to smell like candy, grape, strawberry, fruit flavored. And there's only one reason you do that. The illicit drug trade is estimated to make between 426 and $652,000,000,000 with the B every year, and that was in 2017.

In 2020, the American tobacco companies were estimated to make 90,000,000,000. 90. With the pandemic, all consumption and prices have gone through the roof.

Nationally as well as in California, overdose responses and overdose deaths for adults as well as children continue to rise. Like tobacco companies, these illicit narcotics traffickers are driven solely by profit.

They are designing these pills and targeting our children through the addition of these flavors, colors, and aromas, and that's solely to increase their profit margins. The adult user doesn't need these enticements. They want the drug and nothing else. They don't need to be lured into it. Our youth now have smartphones which they can communicate with.

They can pay, and they can coordinate these drug deals under the guise of all the adults in their life. Teachers, parents, you name it. Today, I am asking for the same courage that the members that aren't here had in 2020, when they took on Big Tobacco. SB 793, which was designed to protect our children from tobacco, is a great measure. However, tobacco isn't killing our kids like fentanyl is.

So I was hoping that they would have the same courage to take on these colored fentanyl pills, which are targeting our kids as they did back then. This is going to make things worse. And it's like I said, right down the road. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Do we have one more? Go ahead.

Thank you, Senator Grove, for inviting me today. My name is Pamela Smith, and I'm from Fresno. My personal connection to fentanyl is that my son, Jackson Smith, died from one pill on July 3, 2016 at the age of 22. I got the call in the early morning hours of July 3 that the person that was with him, she told me that he wasn't breathing, and she called 911.

So I rushed to the local hospital, and I met with the ER Doctor, and he told me we've been working on him for about an hour, and there's nothing more we can do. He asked me if I wanted to see my son, and of course, I said yes. So he escorted me into trauma room one. It's that room that you see on TV with all of the machines.

And this room was filled with doctors and nurses. And there was a very large male nurse straddling my son, giving him chest compressions, trying to save his life. But within seconds of me entering this room, the doctor said, "Time of death, 3:18".

Since Jackson's death, I have made it my mission to educate people on the opioid and fentanyl crisis, and I will continue to do so as long as I have breath. These drug dealers, they don't care how many people that they're killing.

They do not care how many lives they're destroying. And we must come together and work out these issues, because this rainbow fentanyl that's out on the street is obviously marketed to the young people for two reasons.

One, to get these young people addicted so they can become repeat customers and to profit off of their backs. How many more people are going to die from this crisis before we get some cooperation?

We've got to put these people away for a very long time, because that is what they deserve. We are losing a generation to the fentanyl crisis. And I ask before you vote, and I'm sure a lot of you probably have children and grandchildren and nieces and nephews. And before you vote, I hope you think about them. Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am, for your testimony. We'll now move on to witnesses in support of SB 325, here in room 2200.

Susan Arnall, from the Right to Life League. We are in support.

Perla Mendoza with Project Eli, in full support.

Laura Didier, mother of Zach Didier, Forever 17, in support.

Tee Hakobian again, on behalf of multiple coalitions that deal with children, full support of this bill.

Michael Furman for the California District Attorneys Association in support.

Thank you. Do we have any other witnesses in support of SB 325? You're in room 2200. Seeing none. We will now move on to witnesses in opposition of SB 325.

Good afternoon. Glenn Bacchus for Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in respectful opposition. We trust the good intention of the author and the co-authors and the co-sponsors. In early October of last year, 2022, the DEA issued a press release that there was brightly colored counterfeit medications, brightly colored pills that the DEA and then the media dubbed rainbow fentanyl.

The DEA reported that it was a deliberate effort to market to kids with no evidence whatsoever to support that assertion. The alert from the DEA came in early October, just in time for a media frenzy that there would be an increase in overdoses at Halloween because this candy colored drug would be given to kids.

That surge of overdoses did not happen. There wasn't a surge of overdoses amongst adults or youth related to colored fentanyl. That's what CNN, USA Today, and our own California Department of Public Health has reported.

This bill will add an additional five years of punishment if something looks like food or candy. Reflecting on the bill this weekend, I realized that many things in my medicine cabinet look like food or look like candy to a kid.

Peptobismal is an amazing color. Most of the medications in my cabinet are pastels or brightly colored. Dayquil, for example, is a beautiful bright orange. I know as a parent to keep medications out of the way of my kids because they might look like candy to them.

This bill doesn't say that selling something that looks like candy and that the seller is purposefully trying to trick someone, deceive them, convince them that it's candy, but they're really selling fentanyl.

That's not what the bill does. It only says that if a person furnishes, sells, intends to sell, or gives to a person a pill that is pink or orange or yellow, we'll get an additional five years that gives undue and unjust leverage to DAs to force plea deals. This isn't sound policy making.

The current penalties for possession, for sale, sale, transportation are adequate to deter those that will be deterred two years to nine years and to hold responsible those who are convicted. It doesn't matter if the fentanyl is the color is pink or yellow or blue.

What would matter is if they're deceiving the buyer, trying to sell them something without revealing that it's fentanyl. That's a different bill than this bill. This bill is about the color of the medication, by the way, those are counterfeit M 80s made to look like medicine. Thank you.

Thank you.

Do we have any other opposition witnesses here in this room? Seeing none. Okay, no worries. You have two minutes. We are timing.

Good afternoon again, Madam Chair Members. Senator Grove, again here in respectful opposition to Senate Bill 325, continue to appreciate the goal of the bill and also to express our heartfelt condolences for those who have lost. Not just lost, family members like their lives are lost, but lost their livelihood while they continue to be here with us.

But this is not the policy approach that will keep our family members here with us longer. We're in opposition because this bill is about over incarceration and over criminalization.

It is also about denying the court discretion to pronounce sentences that are consistent with an individual's culpability, which is inconsistent, by the way, with California law. Over the last 40 years, we've spent trillions of dollars on the failed and ineffective war on drugs.

And meanwhile, drug use has not declined. I know that what we're saying is that we have to do this because this opioid epidemic is affecting people of color. But if we actually cared about people of color, we would take a different approach.

What we know will result here is racialized incarceration. In fact, in the authors district, Kern Valley State Prison is operating at 104% of capacity. Wasco State prison at 124% of capacity. A disproportionate number of those folks are black and brown.

In local jails, in Fresno County, 16% of the jail population is black, 5% of the general population is black. 17% of the jail population is white. 25% of the general population is white.

I could go on to talk about Kern County, where there is 19% of the folks in jail are black, while only 5% of the county population is black. We know the outcome of legislation like this.

We believe it does not solve the problem because it's going to remove, in addition to the racialized outcomes, remove the judge's ability to interrupt the cycle of racialized prosecution by removing their discretion under Section 1385. Again, this is inconsistent, and I'll wrap it up here.

By just quoting the Penal Code, Section 1170 A1. The legislature finds and declares that the purpose of sentencing is public safety achieved through punishment, rehabilitation and restorative justice. When a sentence includes incarceration, the purpose is best served by terms that are proportionate to the offense.

Appreciate it.

Any other opposition witnesses in the room, please state your name, where you stand and your organization.

Leslie Caldwell Houston for the California Public Defenders Association and the San Francisco Public Defender's Office in opposition.

Thank you.

Jeanette Zanapatine, on behalf of Drug Policy Alliance, also in opposition.

Joshua Dubay, on behalf of the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice and respectful opposition.

Thank you. If we have any other witnesses, please come forward. Seeing none, we'll move to witnesses waiting to testify via teleconference service. Please just state your name, organization and position. Moderator if you'd please prompt the individuals to begin.

Yes, Madam Chair. To provide comments and support or opposition for SB 25, please press one, then zero. Once again, to provide comments in support or opposition for SB 325, please press one, then zero. Line 115, please go ahead.

Thank you, members and Chair. My name is Waleed Hojeij with the League of California Cities in support of SB 325. Thank you.

Do we have any other speakers?

One left. All right 123. Please go ahead. And 123. Please go ahead.

All right, since they're not speaking, we're going to move on again. Thank you, moderator, and thank you, two witnesses. We'll now bring the discussion back to members. Do any of our members have questions or comments? Senator Ochoa Bogh.

I guess I get 10 minutes.

I don't know about that.

Thank you, Senator Grove, for your passion on working in public safety and bills that promote the health and the safety as well as the protection of many of our most vulnerable, which are children and those who are being trafficked, human trafficking.

And I know your heart. As far as this fentanyl. It's interesting because I hear the opposition, and with all due respect, sir, with regards to the colors, based on the color of the. Undermining the color of the fentanyl and why that may not be as relevant or as important, but it wasn't that long ago that the arguments or conversations that we had here in the Legislature were in flavor tobacco and the taste on flavored tobacco.

And I'm just kind of liking it to that when it comes to here. The legislature, the body felt that flavored tobacco was aimed and marketed targeted towards children.

In this case, I'm looking at this bill as an intent to attract and target our children, which one thing is having something, a product available for adults to choose, and they can take the risk. But when it comes to our children, I think as a society, as a culture, we have to be a little more upfront and protective in marketing.

And if the Legislature felt that flavor tobacco was an assault on our children, then it should be the body's prerogative to make sure that we do have enhancements on someone that's purposely targeting our children with colored and is it aromatic or flavor fentanyl.

So based just on that principle, that the legislature body actually has a history of supporting policy that goes against anyone targeting our children with products such as tobacco.

I think that this should be, without a doubt be supported by, in policy for enhancements for people who are purposely targeting our children. I do have another question.

That is my personal opinion, and I'm just using the precedents that I've seen when it comes to colored or flavored products aimed at adults, but really aimed at children. But I do have a question with regards to trying to understand why.

I understand when the opposition is not in support of enhancements, as a general rule in this body culturally. But I want to give an opportunity to our support witnesses to explain to me and to the public and to the body of this committee and our fellow Members in the Legislature, why enhancements are necessary when it comes to individuals who are purposely targeting our children just the same way that they would in other products such as flavored tobacco. Would anybody?

What enhancements do is they offer a measure of deterrent. No problem can be arrested out of. There has to be several prongs given to this approach through education, rehabilitation. But there has to be a deterrent. Criminals know better than lawyers, district attorneys and cops the law.

The ins and outs, who prosecutes, who doesn't, where they can get away with things and where they can't get away with things. In some cities particularly, that are kind of liberal, this is where the problem is the worst.

They know that they're not going to get arrested for selling drugs. They're not going to get prosecuted for transporting the drugs into that area. So there's no deterrent. There's nothing discouraging them from this behavior. So they keep bringing it, people keep dying. And that's what happens.

To finish my thought process, there's evidence that you folks are collecting based on the investigations that you're working on with regards to fentanyl, that I think it's imperative that our members should be privy to.

And I just want you to share. And I'm not sure at what point we can share. Maybe perhaps after the investigations or after the court process.

But I think that information that you're gathering from the investigations with regards to the conversations that criminals are having, with regards as to which counties or which states are easier to do business in should be had and should be heard by this body, because that is evidence of how the criminal per se cartels or the criminal entities that are working in this state are taking advantage of the compassion and the goodwill that many individuals in this room have.

And it's got to be a balance of accountability and a balance of grace and compassion, which I also have. But I think it's important for you folks to express and put it on record what some of these conversations are by the people that are committing the crimes in this state.

I can give one quick example. So we've done a lot of investigations targeting large drug trafficking organizations. And over the last three years, and about three months ago, we heard what was probably one of the most positive things in my career.

One of our informants told us that they're not doing deals in our area right now. They're moving it out because we're taking enforcement actions and we're arresting people and we're seizing their narcotics. That's basically all you can do in those situations.

And we talk to people, we debrief people, and we can get them to talk to us informally and tell us these things. But in state prison, they're talking to each other. In the county jails, they're talking to each other. They're just figuring out who does what and where and how and why.

And all these areas that don't support law enforcement or don't support prosecution of people doing felony crimes that are hurting people. They know that and they're driven by profit, so they don't care.

It's that balance. If there's no deterrent and there's profit to be made, then what's going to stop them?

So the risk of profit actually supersedes. Perhaps I'm going to be prosecuted. Perhaps I may have to serve two or three years.

I could give you examples from our area. We've arrested people with large seizures of fentanyl, fentanyl drugs. And they're out either that day or within a day or two out of county jail. And most likely they're gone. A lot of them flee the state or the country. And yes, their reward is huge.

We'll seize half $1.0 million in cash from their apartment, but they still have enough money to build a mansion back in the country that they're going back to. The profit margins are huge.

Billions and billions of dollars are being consumed just in my area alone. And I'll tell you, in my career, 25 years, the amount of narcotics that are in our area, it's skyrocketed. You'd be very happy a long time ago to find a kilo of something.

Now we go to locations, and there's 2030 plus kilos of fentanyl, et cetera. So the demand is there, the supply is there, and the profit is there. There's nothing discouraging any of that behavior.

Okay. And one last question. I think it's important to understand why we're really focusing on fentanyl, aside from the fact that it's killing an enormous amount of people in our state.

But there was a comment that was made earlier today that it was very important and it was the regards of a regular drug versus why fentanyl is uniquely different than any other drug, because drugs as well. May I have the District Attorney just explain the history of drugs in our estate? Final comment.

And, Senator?

Yes, final comment.

Thank you.

But there's nobody else.

Yeah.

And this deserves to be discussed and fully vetted in committee. The use of drugs. People would argue that we've used it across generations. People have experiment different ways of coping with emotions and feelings and so forth, whatever it may be.

But your definition of drug use and the difference between drugs that we've seen in the past and this particular sentiment.

Thank you, Senator. So in the continuum of drug use historically, whether it's Marijuana, the cocaine of the 1980s, the methamphetamine of the 1990s, heroin, the opioid crisis, whatever drug you want to talk about, there's a continuum of use, abuse and addiction.

And for most people that go along that continuum, there is a certain amount of time. Some people become addicted faster than others. Some drugs are more addictive than others, and they do have a faster continuum.

But what we find with fentanyl is it is so highly addictive. Fentanyl is a wonderful drug inside of hospitals. It is given in micrograms in order to have medical procedures and do pain management for cancer treatment.

It has never been intended to be a street drug because it is so highly addictive. It's 50 to 100 times more addictive than morphine.

So people who are using fentanyl, and especially when they are marketing it to children with the rainbow so it looks like candy, it gets them and entices them, much like the tobacco does, is they don't have an opportunity to experience that continuum.

And they go literally from use to addiction overnight because they are constantly chasing that high. Their body wants it. Their body needs it.

And whether they are exposed to it accidentally, like many children are, like some of these mothers here, who, you've heard their stories, if you stayed in the room long enough to hear, you hear their stories of how they had children.

Mrs. Didier's son was on his way to UCLA. These are not kids who have been screwing up their whole lives. And they've had this long term drug addiction. Some of these kids, it's instantaneous. And that's the thing.

You see people wandering around the streets of Alameda County and San Francisco and Fresno and Kern and Tulare, completely disoriented because they are so addicted to this drug. And there are very few people now who are using heroin anymore.

The use of heroin has gone down tremendously because fentanyl is so prevalent. It is so available, it is so cheap, it is so addictive, and people are mesmerized by it.

And so they are not experiencing that continuum, and they are becoming literally, instantly and very quickly addicted to this poison.

Thank you very much. And one final comment, just wrapping up. The reason I was asking those questions, and I wanted them to have them in our record, is that we haven't done anything with regards to fentanyl because we're afraid to do any enhancements.

Because according to research or data, it stated that it won't be prevalent. Criminals are having different conversations in private.

They're having conversations about the fact that they're working around the system and the thought process, the compassionate approach that many Californians and organizations here in the state have because of the black and brown, disproportionate representation in incarceration.

And they're using that compassion and understanding to take advantage. And the point I want to make is that we went from two years ago, discussing fentanyl bills that related to accidental poisonings, to now.

We've evolved because we haven't done anything as a body to deter and have stronger sentencing, to now marketing children with flavored and aromatic fentanyl. It is evolving before our eyes.

And I am begging this committee to start sending a message to people that are taking advantage of the compassion that people have here in California and targeting for money and for profit.

If we can do that, and this body says it's okay to do with tobacco, then, lo and behold, we have to make sure that we address those issues with fentanyl, because it is uniquely different than anything we've ever, ever seen.

And I want to thank the author for bringing this measure forward. And I will be happy to move this measure when the appropriate time comes.

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

Yes.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It's interesting, the conversation we had. The opposition commented that there was an M on the front of these pills. And it stood for another definition that I failed to write down. So I do apologize.

I don't think a 12 year old knows what the M stands for. A 12 year old, a 14 year old or a 16 year old looks at that, and I really do see that. They see candy.

A younger kid definitely sees smarties, especially if it looks like a smarty. And it smells like a smarty because of the enhanced aromas that they put on these pills to make them smell like fruit products or fruit flavored candy products.

The piece of legislation before you basically says that if you are intentionally marketing to our children, just like tobacco products and the vaping situation, that you should have an enhancement because you're purposely trying to kill our children.

And again, the issue comes up about race, and I'm going to comment on that. I don't care what color your skin is, if you're trying to kill our children by creating a racketeering group that is in it for the money, billions, billions of dollars made on the death of our children, then you should go to prison for a very, very long time.

And I think every parent would feel that way, that has lost a child or has lost a loved one.

And I want to make one other comment. I made the comment that there have been, I don't know, several fentanyl bills that have come through this building because there's been 5722 fatalities in 2021 because of fentanyl in adults.

And 220, I believe, 222 of them are children or 224 of them are children. And nothing's been done on these committees. On this committee, nothing. We have a 594% increase and nothing's been done yet.

2500 people have died of firearm use, whether it's suicide, self inflicted, murder, whatever the case may be.

And there are hundreds of bills that pass out of this committee that violate the constitutional rights of individuals that are entitled to carry a firearm, restrict firearm use, register firearm use, increase penalties for firearm use, and two and a half times the amount of people have died from fentanyl. And we can't get one bill for enhancements out of this committee.

Again, the previous bill was for fentanyl in use because it's such an addictive and highly lethal drug. This bill is just targeting minors, our children that are dying at a higher rate now because of fentanyl. And I would respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. We have a motion by Senator Ochoa Bogh. Can we call roll?

SC 325? Motion is do passed to appropriations.

[Roll Call]

Bill's on call.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Senator Grove, do you want reconsideration?

Thank you. Okay.

Senator Bradford, we will be hearing from you. SB 449, the floor is yours.

Thank you. Madam Chair and members, SB 449 is a straightforward, just cleanup measure to a bill I passed two years ago, SB 2, my police decertification bill which passed the Legislature and is enacted in a law. Most of the provision, SB 2 went into effect on January 1 of this year. As law enforcement agencies have begun to submit information to post commission and officer decertification proceedings have begun. Additional changes have been identified to better clarify legislative intent and protect sensitive information regarding ongoing investigations. These changes were made in collaboration with post-commission and allow the commission to better implement and administer the decertification process. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Do you have any lead witnesses? Okay. Any lead witnesses? Any witnesses in support, please speak up. Seeing none, we'll move on to opposition lead. Seeing none, we'll move on to opposition as a whole. Seeing none, we'll move on to teleconference witnesses. Moderator, can you queue up the first speaker?

Yes, Madam Chair. To provide comments and support or opposition for SB 449, please press one then zero. No one has queued up, Madam Chair.

Okay, we will move the conversation to members of the committee. Do we have any questions, concerns? Seeing none. Senator, would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Senator, would we be able to get a courtesy? Thank you. So Senator Ochoa Bogh has moved this. Can we call roll?

[Roll Call]

Thank you. The bill is on call. Senator Bradford, SB 673. The floor is yours.

Thank you. SB 673 would establish what is called the Ebony Alert to address the often ignored and lack of attention for Black youth and young women who are disproportionately missing in California. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, approximately 600,000 people have gone missing every year in the United States. The data from 2019 census shows that the people who are Black or African American make up almost 14% of the United States population. However, nearly 40%, I say, are missing people of color.

Black children make up about 38% of all missing children and receive less media attention to the fact that they are missing. Black youth are disproportionately classified as runaways in comparison to their white counterparts who are classified as missing and do not achieve or receive, I should say, an Amber Alert.

Additionally, Black women and girls are at increased risk of being harmed and trafficked. The Congressional Black Caucus Foundation report on human trafficking also found that two-year study of human trafficking incidents across the country, 40% of those who are being trafficked are identified as Black women. In California, the Amber Alert authorizes law enforcement agencies to use digital messaging on overhead roadway signs to assist in the recovery efforts of children who have been abducted.

The problem with the Amber Alert system is that it's strict criteria that a case must fulfill for the message to be broadcast. If these guidelines are not met, an Amber Alert cannot be issued and a child is labeled as a runaway. When a missing child is listed as a runaway, they receive no media coverage and less police and government resources are available to help find them. Black missing children are disproportionately labeled as runaways, which ultimately means that fewer resources are allotted for their safe return.

SB 673 provides law enforcement with the additional tool, the Ebony Alert, to disseminate timely, accurate information to engage the public and the media to more effectively assist with locating Black youth and young women that are missing. SB 763 also would encourage, but not require, radio, television, cable, satellite, and social media systems to cooperate with disseminating the information contained in an Ebony Alert.

Here to provide testimony today is Ms. Herring, I'm sorry, from California, Hawaii State Conference of NAACP, and Barry Accius, Voice of the Youth. I respectfully ask for your Aye vote.

Thank you. Lead witness number one. Thank you. You have two minutes, starting now.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. I'm Taneicia Herring, speaking on behalf of the California Hawaii NAACP. The California Hawaii NAACP's principal objective is to ensure the political, educational, social, economic equality of minority citizens in California and eliminate race prejudice. We are proud to support SB 673 because it addresses a standing problem where there are severe racial disparities in the statistics of those missing.

In addition to making up a disproportionate percentage of all missing people and receiving less media coverage, Black women and girls are also at an increased risk of being harmed. Black girls and women make up a third of the 268,884 reported missing girls, women far greater than their share of the overall female population in 2020. The California Department of Justice does not keep race-based statistics.