Assembly Standing Committee on Public Safety

Committee on Public Safety. We're going to begin at the Subcommitee because all the members are here and we have a full schedule. So I want to get us started. All witnesses will be in person. There will be no phone testimony option for this hearing. You can find more information on the Committee's website at Assembly.CA.\govcommittees. Let's begin with some housekeeping items. Assemblymember Corey Jackson will be subbing in today for assemblymember Bryan and off calendar, the following have been pulled by author.

Item number two, AB 79 Weber. Item number seven, AB 762 Wicks. Item number 11, AB 851 McCarty. Item number 12, 856 S Nguyen. Item number 23, AB 1380 Berman. Item number 25, AB 1497 Haney. Item number 26, AB 1507 Gallagher. Item number 28, AB 1551 Gipson. Item number 31, AB 178 Muratsuchi. And we're going to begin as a Subcommitee. Aye have Mathis, Patterson, Ting. I think I see Mr. Ting here. Mr. Mathis, Patterson. You're up Mr. Ting.

Thank you Mr. Chair, here to present AB 642, which is our facial recognition privacy act. As you are aware, I authored a bill in 2019, AB 1215, which was a ban on facial recognition technology in body cameras. It was a three year moratorium. Unfortunately, in January, this moratorium expired, despite efforts from Senator Bradford last year to get a similar bill passed.

This year, I came back with AB 642, which I believe is a bill which is one of the most restrictive bills around facial recognition technology in the entire country. This bill in particular limits the authorization, the use of facial recognition technology to felonies. It has the highest setting, the highest technological setting to make sure that the recognition is at the highest level at 98%. It also requires that there is.

For arrest, it also requires the fact that you cannot stop anybody because of facial recognition also protects all our protected classes. It also protects our constitutional rights in terms of free speech, ensuring that we can practice that. I very much appreciate the committee and the amendments that the committee worked with us on.

We took amendments to clarify immigration to make sure that there is no coordination with any immigration agency, ensured that people can continue to get abortion care without worry about, and as well as gender affirming care without being worried about facial recognition software being used. It also limits the databases that can be used that only, these are law enforcement databases that only law enforcement has access to. It also narrows the eligible amount of crimes and provides a significant amount of oversight and accountability.

As you also know, Assembly Member Wilson is carrying a bill which this Committee passed, which is similar to the bill that I authored in 2019. This bill is not in conflict with that. Both bills could be passed and signed into law without any conflict.

Also, in addition, we also have no state preemption so that if any local jurisdictions, whether it's the City of La, City of Santa Monica, City of Berkeley, any of those cities, want to ban facial recognition, such as what has happened in my city, in San Francisco, that could occur as well. So with that, respectfully ask for your aye vote on AB 642.

Thank you. Any witnesses? You have five minutes.

Oh, staff. Okay.

She's my staff person.

We have no witnesses.

No witnesses. Are there any other witnesses in support of Mr. Ting's bill? 642, item number four? Seeing none, then we'll go to opposition on.

Good morning, chair and committee members. My name is Carmen Nicole Cox. On behalf of ACLU California Action, I am here in strong opposition to AB 642. We appreciate and are thankful for Assembly Members Ting's past leadership on this issue, where he authored the bill to ban body cam face surveillance for three years. This year, unfortunately, AB 642 does not do that. If it is intended to stop the civil rights disaster that is admittedly, face recognition surveillance, it unfortunately backfires.

Instead, it would expand and entrench it. The recent author amendments do not adequately protect against freedom from unreasonable government surveillance, wrongful seizure or dissuade misuse. Which is why the ACLU and over 50 reproductive justice, LGBTQIA, racial justice and civil rights orgs statewide strongly oppose this justice denier bill. In the case of face surveillance, regulating it is like trying to block a cannonball with cardboard. Regulations, no matter how well intentioned, will not protect Californians from the harms of this technology.

But even amongst regulation based approaches, AB 642 stands out as particularly problematic. AB 642 is not better than nothing. AB 642 invites a whole lot of bad something. This bill is a legislative endorsement of mass face surveillance. It incentivizes the police and surveillance vendors to establish in our parks, in our streets, in our malls and communities, anytime, all the time, real time face surveillance. This is not the status quo in California from which we need protection.

This is, however, the inevitable outcome of this legislative invitation. The status quo is that black and brown communities are over policed, over arrested, over abused by law enforcement. On the other side of AB 642, these communities, my community, our communities, will have their faces scanned and tracked because, as all of our racial profiling data shows, they will encounter law enforcement.

Just this year, Ripper reported that black individuals were overrepresented in stops not leading to enforcement, overrepresented in use of force relative to their population share, had the highest proportion of their stops reported as reasonable suspicion, the standard in this bill, and the lowest proportion of their stops reported as traffic violations. Law enforcement is already treating communities differently based on race, and AB 642 endorses surveillance technology that is ripe for abuse.

The system embraced by AB 642 would mirror the kind that the Chinese government uses today to target and control marginalized people, and I am not speculating. A 2022 Georgia State University report on racial disparities and police use of FRT, facial recognition technology, found that black people are more policed, are policed more punitively than white people using facial recognition technology. AB 642 also threatens those seeking refuge in our state, including immigrants and people in need of abortion and gender affirming care.

The language is just too narrow. It provides wide latitude for police to share information about who plans to seek care or have already done so and are traveling within California. AB 642 is not better than nothing, just as drinking bleach is not better than no COVID vaccine. This bill's harm is foreseeable. Its supposed benefit is unfounded, especially when we consider the recent author amendments grant both police and companies complete immunity from the foreseeable harm.

So long as there is so called, and I quote, good faith determination by law enforcement that an officer thought they were following the law. With no suppression remedy provided, AB 642 provides stronger protections for the police than for the people surveilled. I respectfully urge your no vote on this justice denier bill.

Yes sir.

My name is Chao Jun Liu with the Electronic Frontier Foundation. We are in strong opposition of AB 642. Today I speak not only for EFF, but for Robert Williams, a black man from Detroit who was wrongfully arrested because of facial recognition technology. Mr. Williams cannot join us today, but his story, in his words, will be the core of my testimony.

He writes, three years ago, with no explanation, officers handcuffed me on my front lawn when my distressed wife and young daughters watched at the detention center. Officers took my fingerprints, dna sample, and mugshot. Scared and confused, I spent the night on the cold and filthy concrete floor of an overcrowded cell. The next day, police accused me of stealing thousands of dollars worth of watches from a store I had not visited in years. I could prove I was driving home from my job 40 minutes outside Detroit at the time of the robbery, it did not matter.

Face recognition software had matched a blurry image pulled from the store's grainy surveillance footage to my driver's license photo, and a security consultant who had watched the video but who had not seen the suspect in person, picked me out of a shoddy photo lineup, even though the police were specifically told the facial recognition result was not a lead, was just a lead, and not to be used as the sole basis for an arrest for the detectives, it was enough to arrest me.

AB 642 is dangerous. It would be a grave mistake to assume that this bill will prevent what happened to me from happening to people in California. There is no acceptable standard number of misidentifications, and if the California Legislature embraces the widespread use of face recognition technology, there will be many more cases like mine. Innocent people put in harm's way and damage that can never be undone.

And they may not be as lucky as I was to avoid a conviction or worse, a fatal encounter with police. Face recognition software is flawed and dangerous. None of the provisions in this bill will adequately prevent police from abusing the technology and arresting someone simply because a racially biased algorithm scanned their face. The only safe path forward is a total prohibition on police use of face recognition. I strongly urge you to protect Californians from misidentification and wrongful arrests by voting no on AB 642. Thank you.

Thank you. Any others in opposition?

Good morning, chair and Members Elisa Arcidiacono with the League of California Cities. With the recent amendments, we will be removing our support. Thank you.

Becca Kramer Madder. On behalf of National Center for Lesbian Rights, California Immigrant Policy Center, Asian Law Alliance, Media Justice Teach, Training in Early Abortion for Comprehensive Healthcare, Anti Police-Terror project, 10th Amendment Center, Indivisible California State Strong Transgender Gender Variant Intersex Justice Project, Secure Justice, Free Speech Coalition, Positive Women's Network, San Francisco Public Defenders Racial Justice Committee, and Californians United for a responsible budget curb. All in opposition.

Good morning. Margot George, on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association, we appreciate the amendments. Thank you to the author and the committee. We're opposed unless further amended. Thank you.

Good morning. Chair and Members. Cameron Demetre. On behalf of the Security Industry Association, we're not in an opposed position. We supported the initial draft. We're still reviewing. Appreciate the work that the author's done on this bill. Thank you.

Danica Rodarmel on behalf of initiate justice in respectful opposition, thank you.

We'll bring it back to committee members. Any questions? Comments? Question? Ms. Bonta.

Thank you. I appreciate the incredible work that the author has done on this bill and the prior leadership that you've had and the current leadership that you've had on this incredibly sensitive issue, can you give us a sense of how you believe this is better than the status quo?

Absolutely. I think very much appreciate that assembly member. Right now, unfortunately, you heard about this case, about Robert Williams or anybody who's been misidentified from facial recognition. That can happen right now. That can happen right now. That's a fact. Right now there are no regulations on facial recognition. And again, my previous bill was only around restricting facial recognition in body cameras. Right now, every single one of us carries a camera every day on our phones. We have cameras in front of stores.

We have cameras that are in drones. This particular bill regulates all manners of facial recognition software technology. So to absolutely make sure that we try to the best of our ability not to have a mistaken identity, that's why we have the technology setting at the highest level. That's why we said, we took an amendment to make sure that to clarify, this is only for felonies, it's only for the most severe kinds of situations.

We wanted to make sure that there are no peace, that peaceful people can protest in the streets without being worried about being filmed, whether it's a body camera, whether it's a drone, whether it's a storefront camera, without being fearful that that could be used against them. We also talked about whether it's immigration status, gender affirming care, abortion cases, making sure that people can exercise their rights in a variety of situations.

Again, this to me, is the goal for my legislation is to make it the most restrictive, the most defining, to create the greatest number of guardrails on this technology in our state. I think for us to say I completely disagree with the logic that we should better off being, we're better off doing nothing. If that were the case, I need to find another job, because then what am I doing here? Why are we passing laws? Why are we forwarding policy?

This is about making sure that we're trying to do the best we can to protect 40 million Californians who right now have zero protection on facial recognition technology. And for anybody to say that that's better than actually having regulation, I think is fairly irresponsible.

Any other questions or concerns, you may close.

Thank you. First, let me just close by saying that I just want to note that I'm Chinese American. I'm not Chinese. And I think for the ACLU to present, and especially given their long struggle with Japanese Americans, with internment, to even present race baiting language in this Committee, I find extremely offensive. So that's first off. Second off, we talked about why we need standards. We absolutely are in a situation where this technology can be used unfettered, completely, could be used for anything, for any reason, anytime.

This provides a number of guardrails. And again, as we go through, this is the first of many committees that we're going to go through. We can make sure that we will continue to work with opposition, address any particular concerns. At this point, we haven't gotten any substantive concerns from most of the opposition, but we're happy to do that. We want to make sure that this is the best and most restrictive legislation in the entire country to protect all 40 million Californians.

We want to make sure that there are penalties. There are penalties for misuse. We put civil penalties in here. So there are consequences. This does not endorse facial recognition technology, nothing of the sort. This actually restricts facial recognition technology. So to go on and say that this actually endorses it or somehow allows the use of it is absolutely not true. This, I believe, will absolutely make California safer. It will make law enforcement more responsible. And I think that this will, in fact, make sure that when arrests do happen, that they are accurate, that they are, in fact, done with care, and that there are protections for every citizen here in California. With that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote on AB 642.

Okay, is there a motion? I'm sorry, we established the quorum.

[Roll Call]

Quorum is present. Let me go through the consent calendar. If you just give me a few minutes on the consent calendar. Item number five, AB 709 McKinner, transcripts, criminal proceedings, exculpatory evidence. Item number six, AB 750 Rodriguez, minister, public health closure by law enforcement. Item number nine, AB 798 Weber, female genital mutilation. Item number 13, AB 945 Reyes. Criminal procedure expungement of records. Item number 19, AB 1291 McCarty, law enforcement settlements and judgments and reporting. Is there a motion? Call the roll.

On the consent calendar. [Roll Call]

Okay, on item number four, AB 642 Ting. Is there a motion still moved? So, Mr. Ting, obviously this is very important, the discussion that we're having. The opposition has brought up some really good point and some valid points that I've heard from members of this committee that I want you to consider if it were to get out of this committee.

As someone who was identified in racial recognition as a felon, as someone who had law enforcement sit where you're sitting, tell him to his face in a committee meeting that he was a liar, that never happened. I know exactly how it feels to be a black man being told by law enforcement, interrogated and told that you're something that you're not. It is not a comfortable feeling. And I'm sitting up here's chair and it scared me to death.

And it was very uncomfortable. We've got to take down the temperature from both sides. Unfortunately, we weren't able to bring both authors together because it's my understanding that there may have been some way to get to somewhere. And so if it gets out of this committee, I would hope you have a commitment to working with the opposition to come up with something, because whatever way people vote now, it may not be the same as it moves forward.

And that's why it's really important to get some consensus, because you both have shared values. You both want to make sure, let me say this again. You both want to make sure that racial recognition is not adversely used on black and brown folk, on anybody in the State of California, and to that matter, anywhere in this country. You both want it. So you both should be working toward getting us there.

So if it does make it out, this committee, you need to know if that's not happening, it could jeopardize everything, not only this bill, but Ms. Wilson's bill. We've got to come together as a, to, I'm gonna say this again, we've got to come together as a body.

I implore you, I beg you, I beseech you, take the rhetoric and the temperature down so that we can protect a lot of people, millions of people who are depending on us to get something done around this, whether it's now or it's next year. But we need to do something. The Olympics is coming, the soccer, all that's coming, and we need to have all the technology we need. But most important, it's got to be good.

If it's not going to be good, then we shouldn't use it at all. If it's going to cause more havoc and more problems, we shouldn't use it. But we need to. Let's see what happens with the vote.

On AB 642. By Assembly Member Ting, the motion is do passed to the Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee. [Roll Call]

That measures on call. Thank you.

Appreciate it. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Work with the opposition. We now have Mr. Mathis AB 808, item 10.

AB 808, The Protection of IDD Survivors of Rape Act. Protecting members of the IDD community, particularly children, is very personal to me. That is why it breaks my heart that children with disabilities in this country are being targeted and are disproportionately the victims of rape. According to the US Department of Justice, disabled people are four times more likely than nondisabled people to be victims of rape.

According to the Verna Institute of Justice study, disabled children are a shockingly 4.6 times more likely to be sexually abused as children than their peers. Members, this is a crisis, but we can do something about it. AB 808 will increase the punishment for those convicted of the rape of disabled children from a minimum of three years to a minimum of seven years for those ages 14 to 17, and nine years for those ages 11 to 13. I have four main arguments for AB 808.

Each of them is alone sufficient for an aye vote. First, according to the US Department of Justice, blacks, Hispanics and females with disabilities are disproportionately the victims of violent crimes, including sexual assault and rape. For females with disabilities, the rate of violent victimization was 49.4 per 1,000, compared to 11.3 per 1,000 for females without disabilities. For blacks, Hispanics and persons of other races, the rate of violent victimization for persons with disabilities was at the least triple that of persons without disabilities.

This bill protects some of our most marginalized, particularly minority children with disabilities, from heinous crimes. AB 808 furthers equity. Second, the minimum of three years imprisonment for the rape of a disabled child is insufficient retribution. This bill poses a simple question that must be answered. Is three years imprisonment for the rape of a disabled child as young as 11 years of age sufficient punishment? Rape of disabled children is one of the most disgusting crimes imaginable. But a no vote says a small punishment is good enough.

Let's compare this to another law. The maximum sentence of stealing a car is three years, which is the same as the minimum sentence for raping a disabled child. That means currently, the law sees some instances that the rape of a child with disabilities is morally equivalent to stealing a car. Think about that. We cannot honestly believe that inflicting immeasurable trauma upon a defenseless child is morally equivalent to stealing a car.

We know that the punishment for grand theft isn't too high, so the punishment for rape of a child with disabilities is clearly too low. Thirdly, there's evidence that increased sentences for rape and sexually assault can deter crime. According to The British Journal of Criminology found in the US Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs library, the deterrent effect of longer sentences is strongest for rape and assault. Evidence suggests that criminals respond to incentives and stronger sanctions to deter crime.

We know that we must reduce the rates of rape against children with disabilities. Credible studies indicate that this bill will help achieve it. Fourthly, convicted sex offenders, including those who prey on children, are disproportionately likely to reoffend and do it often and quickly. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, released sex offenders were more than three times more likely to commit additional acts of rape and sexual assault compared to other released prisoners.

Research published in the journal of Law and Human Behavior additionally found that over 30% of children molesters studied committed new sexual offenses, with an average time between offenses being only 3.6 years. Let me remind you that sentences can be as low as only three years, meaning that another child is likely to be raped less than a year after the rapist is released. This bill will keep serial rapists off the streets. I'd like to make one final point, if I may.

It then concerns fairness and equity, both in this Committee and under California law. On March 14, this Committee unanimously passed AB 484, the sentencing enhancement for white collar crimes, by our colleague, Assemblymember Gabriel. The rationale my colleague gave to earn this Committee's unanimous approval that the perpetrators are preying on some of the most vulnerable communities. Nobody is more vulnerable than a disabled child.

If the non marginal crime victims who are the focus of Assemblymember Gabriel's bill are worthy of our protection, then so are the disabled children who are the focus of my bill. This vote will send a message to Californians about who is truly valuable by this Committee and protected by our loss. All of us agree that the victimization of children with disabilities is a problem, and I have presented four rational reasons why the solution I've put forth will rectify this crisis.

Members, I respectfully ask for an aye vote. At this time, I'd like to introduce Angela Hayes of the San Joaquin County District Attorney's office to add her perspective.

Thank you and good morning Chair and Members of the Committee. I am Angela Hayes with the San Joaquin County District Attorney's office, and I'm currently the supervising deputy District Attorney for the Child Abuse Sexual Assault Unit. I'm here to support AB 808 simply because it creates parity where it currently does not exist. Non developmentally disabled children, all minors and perpetrators who commit rape against those minors, are subject to heightened punishment already in penal code 264.

As long as they use violence, force, duress, fear, or menace with a developmentally disabled child, they do not have the same lens as their counterparts to view the world. They are more trusting of adults, and an adult perpetrator would not need to use the same level of force or menace. They simply get the child to acquiesce through trickery.

And should we reward those perpetrators and have those children fall through the cracks and not be on par with the other minors that are already currently protected by this exact same heightened level of punishment for those perpetrators? I don't believe that we should reward perpetrators. They should all be treated the same, particularly those that would prey on the most vulnerable. Those perpetrators don't have to use the force or violence to cajole their victims into performing these sex acts.

They simply can, with a developmentally disabled minor, convince them that this is something they may want, that it may be good for them, that they should participate in this behavior. And I cannot think that anyone would reward that behavior.

We simply are asking for parity among all children victims, whether they are raped by an adult, having sex against their will through force, fear, menace, violence, or some other trickery that an adult can use on a trusting, vulnerable, developmentally disabled child who does not know to what they are acquiescing. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support?

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

Kim Stone, Stone Advocacy on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association, in support.

Thank you. Are there any witnesses in opposition.

Good morning.

Good morning.

Margo George on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association in opposition to AB 808, we certainly agree that rape of any child or anyone is a horrible offense, but this bill is unnecessary. Rape of a child is already punished harshly. The author talked about the minimum being three years. In fact, without any other circumstances, it's up to eight years and under 667.6 (j)(1) and (2), depending on the facts of the case, the punishment would be life without parole, are 25 years to life.

And we have seen repeatedly in the studies that longer and harsher sentences do not deter crime but result in mass incarceration. As early as 2014, the Little Hoover Commission addressed the disconnect between science and sentencing and said that putting away offenders for increasingly longer periods of time with no evidence that lengthy incarceration brings any public benefit. And then we look again at the cost of incarceration. It costs, according to the Legislative Analyst Office, over $106,000 a year.

And that is money that instead of putting people in prison for longer and longer periods of time, should be used to provide benefits, benefits for the community, benefits for the victims, benefits that aren't out there, counseling, housing, education. We need to change this rape culture and not just see only punishing people more and more as a solution to our problems. So we respectfully ask for a no vote on AB 808. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Carmen-Nicole Cox, again, Director of Government Affairs for ACLU Cal Action and also here in respectful opposition to the policy approach of AB 808. There is no disagreement that rape of a child, particularly a developmentally disabled child, is dreadful, and that's why there's already a criminal statutory scheme to punish that conduct. However, this bill takes the wrong policy approach because our investments should actually be to hold victims, to hold them carefully, and to hold them compassionately.

AB 808 is, I'm sure, also undeniably an emotional expression of the outrage that all of society feels when a child is sexually assaulted. This is especially true because, but again, it takes the wrong approach. This is especially true because the increased penalties suggested by AB 808 or recommended by AB 808 are mandatory. They leave no room for the prosecutor or a judge's discretion to impose a punishment that is reflective of individual culpability.

That individualized consideration is necessary because while we heard discussion about adults engaging in this conduct, what we know is that the person who causes the harm may well be a minor and could be a minor with developmental disabilities of their own, and also could be a minor suffering from, who has experienced trauma from sexual assault. So to remove the ability to engage in an individualized consideration is inappropriate.

What would be appropriate would be an evidence-based policy approach that, for example, could involve more visibility of and funding for trauma recovery centers. So instead, as my colleague mentions, AB 808 monopolizing funds for further punishment. We could, for example, focus on trauma informed clinical case management, evidence based individual, group and family psychotherapy. And this is for the survivors, for the victims. Crisis intervention, medication management, legal advocacy and assistance, helping survivors file police reports and access victim compensation funds.

For these reasons, we at ACLU Cal Action believe that AB 808 proposed use of taxpayer dollars takes the wrong policy approach. And we ask for your no vote.

Thank you. Are there any others in opposition? Any others in opposition? Seeing none, we'll bring it back to Committee Members for any comments. Mr. Lackey?

Hi.

I'm sorry. I didn't see. Go ahead.

My name is Angela Chan, San Francisco Public Defender's Office. We oppose. Thank you.

I believe it's your turn now, Mr. Lackey.

Thank you. Wow. This is clearly a discussion that describes an unusually cruel act. And quite frankly, it's a unique level of evil. And I do believe that penalties should reflect the egregious nature of the actions, not only against the victim, but against our entire society. There were some comments made by the opposition about needing a study.

I can just tell you that to me, why in the world would we think that we need some kind of validation to affirm the fact that there's a moral equivalence to stealing a car and any level of an affront against a victim, a sexual assault against a developmentally disabled, that moral equivalence is so out of balance, completely objectionable. I don't care, under any circumstance. And to not think that that needs some repair isn't a front to society. I just hope we're not slipping to that point.

I mean, lady justice asks for a balance when we think against the accused and the aggrieved. And this is so out of balance. And I thank you for bringing this forward, because it shows the inequity. We talk about equity all the time in this body, and it's an important goal that we seek. There's no equity in this penalty in consideration to the level of evil that is demonstrated by this action. And I hope that we would show that emotional outrage that was expressed by the opponents.

It needs some penalty validation, and your bill does exactly that. So I thank you for bringing it to our attention.

For the author, this was to raise the minimum?

Correct.

What you're asking. Okay. For the public defenders side, you were mentioning the eight years and up to 25 to life. Were you trying to make a point with that being the minimum, or you're explaining the maximum?

No. Life without parole and 25 to life are, if there are certain circumstances in aggravation, those are the sentencing range under 667 point, I forgot. But it's basically one strike sentencing.

Okay. Because I think we're trying to raise the minimum here, and that's what his point is. And I think you were trying to make it look like the minimum was eight years or 25 to life, is what I was getting.

No, if I said that I misspoke, I was talking about the maximum. And of course, judges use their discretion to look at the circumstances of each offense and the power dynamics between the defendant and the victim when they impose sentencing.

Okay, thank you. Author. Do you have anything for that?

Yes, in that instance, it applies to, the 25 to life applies to 10 year olds and lower. But what we're talking about specifically in AB 808 is these children with disabilities, as mentioned, they don't quite understand. So this isn't a forced physical, this is trickery. The methods that are being used here are different, and it doesn't quite apply the same as what's being mentioned by the other side.

They're looking at, this is the violent beating of children versus using these trickery methods and tricking these children with disabilities. And we're trying to focus on children with disabilities here because they don't know. They don't have the cognitive ability to understand that. And I think it's important that we truly look at that.

Thank you. So the other thing I want to bring up is we're talking about this scheme or this scheme of how we do our sentencing, and then we turn it to the victims and getting them the help that they need. And I don't think that's what this bill is talking about. We're talking about the offender itself. So that's what we need to look at here.

And also, something that was brought up was we're saving, or it cost $106,000 a year, I believe is what you said as far as incarcerating somebody. And then later on, you talked about how we need to find ways to use that money to benefit the community and the victims. Well, I think $106,000 a year is benefiting the community and the victim by having them put away.

I was a crimes against children's detective, as I've mentioned many times before, and seeing these kinds of crimes and seeing that, as you've brought up in this bill, and thank you for bringing this bill up, that we don't value our children or disabled children as much as we say we do, otherwise, we would be raising the minimum on this.

And it sickens me that you brought up the point that stealing a car gets more of a penalty than it does of taking advantage of our disabled and by raping them as well. So I will definitely be an aye on this one. Thank you.

Thank you. Yes, Mr. Ortega.

First of all, as a mother, I completely appreciate what you're bringing forward today. I agree that this kind of crime is evil. But I do have a question. You mentioned children with disability in the immigrant community. Have you met with the immigrant communities in your district, and what is their position on this bill?

Ma'am, I support immigrant communities. I actually spend quite a bit of time. My district is a voter rights action seat that I won by 63.2%. Where I grew up, I was Devon Matthias from east side portals. The immigrant community are my friends, my neighbors, my family. I know them well, and they support this. They're sick and tired of being preyed upon and our laws not being enough to do justice.

Interesting, because I did just meet with a group of immigrants that live in your district who are living in fear of being kicked out of their homes, and mentioned to me that they attempted to meet with your office several times but were never able to even speak to you.

Well, we got partisan groups all over the place.

Excuse me, I'm talking. I respectfully ask for my ability to ask you questions.

Okay.

And for you to give me the respect and response. So I wasn't finished. I met with them, and they live in fear every day. So if we want to address evil, I just want to make sure that you are meeting with those communities that came to me. These children came to me and spoke about living in fear and not being able to meet with their representatives. So I'm hoping that moving forward, you will be having these conversations.

I'm happy to share who the group is and happy to be part of that conversation if you would like to move forward.

Absolutely. In response to that, it's a completely different topic. Members conversations about housing. No, Mr. Chair, please. To be accused of not talking to my constituents on a housing issue versus a rape issue are completely different, and I don't appreciate that.

Okay. Any other comments? You may close.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's brought up about these studies, and a Little Hoover Institute study was brought up, but I think, again, the Vera Institute study about disabled children.

This shows like 4.6 times that these children are more likely to be sexually abused than their peers. The study is titled 'How Safe are Americans with Disabilities?' This is a study we should be paying attention to more than a Little Hoover Institute study. Another study, and what this bill gets to, as I mentioned in point three, there's evidence that increased sentences for rape and sexual assault can deter crime. And this is from the Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs library.

And again, it states, Members, the deterrent effect of longer sentences is the strongest form, rape and assault evidence suggests that criminals respond to incentives and stronger sanctions to deter crime. Now, this is from the Department of Justice versus a Little Hoover Institute study. The fact is, it is a deterrent. We're going to talk about conversations about saving money and bettering our communities. This is a deterrent, Members. This is how we get these heinous people to curb their behavior. With that, Mr. Chairman, thank you.

We are talking about the rape of children with disabilities, Members. There are a few more heinous crimes. We know we must do something to protect them. I put forth a bill that is supported by our Regional Centers who support our children with disabilities, crime victims groups, law enforcement, and prosecutors who deal with these cases every single day. This bill is supported by the data and research. It furthers equity and ensures safety for our most marginalized and vulnerable children, children with disabilities.

Members, I ask that you protect disabled children who are the victims of rape, and I ask you for your support in your aye vote. Thank you.

Motion? Second? So I'm going to try this one more time. We're only in our second one, but try to see if we can take this down. Your outrage at this crime is justified. I'm letting you know that now.

And even the disability rights have pushed for reporting and investigation, as well as prevention programs directed at the root causes of these offenses. So I believe we're on board with getting to the root causes of this so we can stop it. I can almost guarantee nobody on this Committee disagrees with you that these are heinous acts, probably on par even with elderly abuse of people who cognitively may not know what they're doing. I think there's a philosophical disagreement on how we move forward.

I think we can get to something. I think we can get there. But first, I probably need to get all sides to kind of take it down so we can look at this objectively and come up with some solutions that will ultimately help the disabled community. As someone who has a relative who's physically challenged, I know their challenges, and I know how this society treats them. And it's difficult.

And so we need to provide them all the protections that we can to make sure that this doesn't happen over and over again. And like to see some studies. But most important, when we talk about studies, there's a discussion about whether or not judges are giving three years versus life without the possibility of parole. I would like to get that kind of data for me just so that we can make an informed decision.

And if judges are actually going after these criminals, these heinous criminals, in an effective way, because I think that's part of the discussion. Are the laws on the books already? That's handling it, that's taking care of. So I think that's where the line of disagreement is, and I can see where the DA's office is. So what I will offer, if it doesn't make it out of this Committee, that I will work with you.

I will work with you, I will work with the disability rights community and even work with the opposition so that we can do whatever we can to end this scourge on California. It's not in one segment of population, it is a scourge for all of us, period. That we do something, we do something quickly. So with that, let's take a vote.

On AB 808 by Assemblymember Mathis. The motion is due passed to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll call]

That bill's on call as soon as we get prerequisite Members. The only thing I would add, if it doesn't make it out of this Committee, are you asking for reconsideration?

Absolutely, Mr. Chair. And I'll leave this study here for you.

Okay. And then hopefully with the Members here and the Members coming in, I can take it by acclamation.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members.

Okay. Ms. Dixon? Mr. Patterson? Oh, Mr. Patterson, are you in here? I'm sorry. Oh, there you go. I apologize. Ms. Dixon. Mr. Patterson. What's up next? Mr. Patterson? 1260, item number 17.

Thank you for that. I woke up very-

Let's see how far we get with this one. zero, hey.

Only about 45 minutes. I did wake up very early to get here to go before lunchtime today. Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. AB 1260 will require advanced notification to local district attorneys of the credit calculations prior to the release of inmates from prison. The Bill would also require the notification to include various other components, such as the length of the sentences.

I recently listened to your hearing on a similar Bill by my good friend and colleague, Assembly Member Dixon, and I made changes to my Bill due to your comments on her legislation. This Bill does not make credit calculations a public record. It simply provides that info to DAs and law enforcement. Under Proposition 57, inmates can earn credits for good conduct, education, and rehabilitation programs determined by CDCR. But these calculations are unknown and are done without any oversight at all.

In other words, how can we be sure that an inmate is serving the proper length of time, and this includes potentially serving too much time without any third-party verification whatsoever? In more than one occasion, district attorneys have told me that they have been surprised by the release of certain inmates, have been uninformed of those releases, and the former inmate has gone to recidivate and often, well, not often, on occasion, heinous crimes. AB 1260 is simply a transparency measure.

It does not add on a single day to a prison sentence. It does not prevent CDCR from awarding any credits, and it definitely does not circumvent Proposition 57. I have with me Placer County District Attorney Morgan Geyer and my good friend Boomer Bennett.

Yes, whenever you're ready.

Good morning. Nice to see you, Mr. Chair, fellow Members. Morgan Geyer, Placer County District Attorney. There has long been a disconnect between the amount of time that someone is sentenced to in court and the amount of time they actually serve. Most of that is guided by statute. With the credit awarding authority granted to CDCR by Prop 57, we have an additional mysterious way that inmates are awarded credits.

Unlike the nonviolent parole system, where we are afforded an opportunity to see how an inmate has been able to achieve the opportunity for parole, under the credit awarding system, they are granted somewhat in the dark. Their minimum eligible parole date is changed and inmates are released without the victims being notified, without the DA's Office being notified, and really us finding out later.

Unfortunately, in those occasions when they do recidivate that someone was released early, these are releases that are considered full-term releases based on the awarding of credits. It's mysterious, it's not transparent. There is a need for that by CDCR. Victims should be entitled, and in the spirit of Article One, Section 28 of the Constitution, they're entitled to have some of that transparency and that notice. So there are two problems, the awarding of credits. We don't know how and why those credits are awarded.

We do not want to disincentivize programming and rehabilitative measures. We want those to occur. But victims, and frankly, the community, need to know what those benchmarks are. How and why are people achieving those credits? And two, when that minimum eligible parole date is advanced and someone is being released significantly earlier than what their sentence was, there needs to be notification.

And AB 1260 provides for CDCR to make that notification to the District Attorney's offices so that we can then prepare the victims and survivors and next of kin for that ultimate release so that we don't have the situation that literally gave rise to Marcy's Law, where family members see an offender in the grocery store or something like that.

So this measure seeks to provide that transparency without disincentivizing the rehabilitative efforts, as well as providing much-needed notice so that we aren't surprised, our community isn't surprised, and CDCR is transparent in the way they award these credits. So with that, I'll turn it over to Boomer and respectfully ask for an Aye vote on AB 1260. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hey, Chair, how are you doing Sawyer? Boomer Bennett, Placer County. I want to first say you guys have a tremendous job, and I want to make sure that I'm a resource to not only my big brother here and him, but I want to make sure I'm a resource to all you guys. I have a particular skill set and history in this background, so I want to adjust the framework a bit and go to the individual who was being released from prison.

I was released from prison a couple of times, and if my victim, the person who I victimized, if they aren't aware that I'm coming home early, then they don't have enough time. Their families themselves or the people group where they're a part of, whether they are a gang member or not, they don't have enough time to process me coming home. They got to make a mental adjustment. There's fears, there are emotions, there's outrage. They have to be able to process that before I come home.

Reason being is, if I come home, I came home two years early from prison. The victim didn't know I came home two years early from prison. So they seen me at the bowling alley. And because they weren't made aware that I was coming home, they didn't get to process me coming home early. Their family wanted to take abiding action against me.

Now, the person who was released early, not because I wanted to be released early, just because the laws made it so, now I became a victim, which is the complete opposite of what we're actually trying to do. So from an individual perspective, who wants to come home, I want to make sure when I come home, there's an environment that harbors my success, as opposed to me coming home to individuals who were surprised that I came home.

And the person who was victimized, whether it's the individual man or a woman, whether it's their father, brothers or cousins, or is whether the gang that they're a part of because they didn't have time to process me coming home, they now have to make knee jerk decisions based in fear and frustration that I came home early. So giving them a heads-up to make sure that they go to that right mental process is all that I'm asking for.

So individuals who do come home early, that we come home into an environment that harbors our safety and that harbors my success. Because what's going to happen is if I'm victimized for coming home early, then guess what's going to happen? I'm going to commit a crime. And now I got to go back to jail. You probably should have just kept me for the two years that I was going to do instead of bringing me home to an environment that was negative.

Now I caught another case or now I have to leave the town that I paroled in because the individuals who I came home to, the city I came home to, wanted to harbor me. I mean, wanted to commit harm against me. Now I have to ditch town, which I may have to ditch parole, warrant out from my arrest, so on and so forth. Thank you.

Are there any other witnesses in support?

Mr. Chair and Members, Cory Salzillo, on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association, in support.

Kim Stone, Stone Advocacy on behalf of half of the California District Attorneys Association, in support.

Stephanie Herrera on behalf of the ENR Project and the BTS Commission, in support.

Thank you. Are there any witnesses in opposition?

Good morning, Chair and Members. Danica Rodarma, on behalf of Initiate Justice, I will keep it simple and short and just say AB 1260 is not necessary. I'm not going to spend a lot of time going through how CDCR's credit calculations work because it's really covered in the analysis and CDCR's website provides plenty of information about that and a helpful facts section. Also today, a lot of the conversation centered on victim-survivors and their need for notification that already exists.

They need to be better educated by district attorneys and others about the services currently offered through CDCR's OVSRS. They can sign up for notifications and be notified about the release of people from prison already. This is the same kind of Bill and conversation we keep having around Prop 57 and CDCR's authority to do credit earning. And yes, it is complicated, but it's not impossible to understand and the resources to do so are available. I think I will just keep it at that.

We should be encouraging people to be doing programming and awarding them credits accordingly. Thank you.

Okay. Are there any other witnesses in opposition?

Marco George, on behalf of California Public Defenders Association, we appreciate the amendments. We're still opposed at this time.

Thank you. Thank you. Now bring it back to Committee Members for any questions or comments.

I'm just curious now what the opposition's point. Sir, are you guys able to sign up for that? What she's talking about?

So when inmates are paroled, there is a notification procedure for victims to be notified with the credit awarding provisions with the authority of CDCR. They can award credits that advance a parole date to make, excuse me, the release date, that makes the information on the website inaccurate. It also puts a burden on the victims and next of kin to have to randomly check the website to see whether or not the release date has changed for a particular inmate. So I agree.

There is an attempt at CDCR's website to try and provide that information. It's not effective, it's not user-friendly, and it doesn't accomplish the goal that we're seeking to accomplish today, which is specifically with regard to the credit provisions and not the parole process. The parole process is very different. This Bill seeks to bring those sort of together in harmony for an adequate notification process.

Thank you. I also kind of see this Bill, as we've had other bills presented and will be presented today, where we have other agencies that will be getting reported to, to kind of keep that in check as far as the balance goes. So I kind of see this Bill also being that and thank you, sir, for coming here and testifying and being the person you are today. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Bonta.

So this Bill, as I read through the actual language and the analysis, doesn't prohibit law enforcement agencies and district attorneys from disclosing information received from CDCR.

So while it sounds like you attempted to make a difference, a change in the language based on what you heard in terms of the conversation that we had regarding an earlier Bill, by limiting, as you said, to law enforcement and district attorneys, it actually doesn't speak at all to whether or not district attorneys and law enforcement are prohibited from providing that information to the public.

I read the analysis as well, which we're happy to consider suggestions on that. The one thing is that there are various government codes that make things not a public record.

I was looking at the Public Records Act in response to the analysis, and one of them is through the investigations or where the information, because I know there was concerns in the last analysis of there are some extraordinary credits that are awarded sometimes and for the protection of the inmate, you don't want to know why those were awarded. And so I took that into consideration.

And there are, when the privacy of an individual is overwhelming to protect them and make sure that they are not in any harm, then it is exempt from the Public Records Act.

But broad-sweeping the category of credit is still something that would be made available to district attorneys and law enforcement, and broad-sweeping that information would be eligible for sharing with whoever at the discretion of law enforcement and district attorneys.

I think right now, district attorneys, they have a lot of information that is part of investigations or part of just trials and things like that that aren't public record. And for the reasons that I just described, in terms of the overwhelming reason to keep information to themselves, they don't disclose it. I mean, they already have access to a lot of this information.

But we're talking post-conviction, post-serving sentence, and we're essentially saying that we have an ability with this legislation, as you've described it, to be able to allow for district attorneys and law enforcement to provide that information, which, by the way, would still put at risk the safety and identity and the work that a person who is incarcerated while they're inside is doing. And for that reason, I really don't see any distinction between this legislation and the prior legislation offered by Assemblymember Dixon.

And for that reason, I will be voting no.

Thank you. Anyone else? Any comments? You may close, Mr. Patterson.

Well, thank you very know, I wanted to thank Boomer for his perspective. Actually, I hadn't considered that. And I am concerned about his ability. And people that are being released, I want them to be successful. I've had these conversations in other committees and housing and things like that. We all have an interest in making sure when people are released from prison that they are successful and can get on with their lives as well. I actually, I do disagree with the opponent of the measure that victims are notified.

As the District Attorney said, that doesn't always happen. But in addition, I mean we actually, there was an instance in Placer County. This has to become a systemic thing of CDCR to be making notifications to our district attorneys. There was a case in Placer County where actually, I think our District Attorney didn't receive information for six months until this legislation was introduced and this individual went out and actually committed a heinous crime. And the response from CDCR was, oh, it was human error.

Well, human error resulted in a death and you know. So all, I'm not trying to change his sentences or anything like that. And by the way, I'm more than happy to work with the Committee on providing this information and also Assembly Member Bonta on securing that information to make sure that the inmates are safe as well. We just want to bring transparency to the process. And I think it does need that checks and balances at CDCR so we know and we can create policies. And with that, I ask for your Aye vote.

Okay. Is there a motion? Is there a second?

Assembly Member Lackey left me hanging.

Don't say that, please. The last time that happened, that person never came back.

I hope he does.

Well. Let me make some comments. We can stall for time. So one, I want to thank you. You're the third one up. And you kept it at a nice professional.

We're friends here.

Keel and I really, really do appreciate that. And Mr. Lackey seconds. So there's a couple of things. One, I believe we did offer some amendments because I think were in agreement on some things. For example, CDCR has to be a little more transparent about when they release individuals.

I do believe they need to be a little transparent about the programs and what they do and how they serve and their impact. We do have to also. This sounds unprofessional, but your mama didn't name you Boomer. What's your name? Mr.

Excuse me?

What's your name?

Eric Boomer Bennett.

Eric Boomer Bennet. Okay. Mr. Benny. There's a term in the hood, snitches get stitches.

Oh, I know.

Okay. And so if inmates are cooperating with law enforcement, especially our prison guards, to make it safer, I don't want that information because it may result in them getting credits so they can get out. So we don't want their lives at stake or the place to become a place where you can't manage it in a safe and sanitary way.

So I want to make sure we have some safeguards in that. That's part of the reason why you don't want to do that. And there is a concern about if you have drug abuse, mental health, that you may not want the world to know that, but you do need to go get your mental health. And then for people of color to say that you're bipolar or have some kind of mental health problem, we are averse to letting the world know that.

Again, as you know, there are probably a lot of people that are incarcerated that need that kind of counseling and help. And so we don't want to deter that. It's more that than anything else. Mr. Patterson, I think you're on the right track. You don't hear that often from me. I just think it comes just a little short in that we could, because I am curious whether or not these programs work. And maybe if it doesn't make out this Committee.

Maybe it's a way we can work to show the effectiveness of these programs. And even if they're lacking somewhere, and this is where I would need your help, to help guide us on what to look for on programs that work and don't work so that we can make them better. Not that we eliminate it. And I'm just going to be upfront, not that we're trying to eliminate Prop 47 or 57, but to make it better and more effective and impactful. Again, I think you're onto something.

You're onto something that could really be helpful for both sides because it may also prove that there are some major glitches that we may have to make some changes in the law and what we're doing. But we need to look at those programs and see what really works. Again, I think that works for both sides. And so if it doesn't make it out of there, maybe we work on something where we can actually dive into the programs.

Because I honestly believe CDCR has to be more accountable and especially transparent because that's what I'm hearing. Bleeding through the transparency part is not good. Lastly, with my amendments, look, Mr. Ting's Bill, 642. The first version. I was a no. I was a definite no. But he took some amendments from this Committee which got me to a good place. I believe we gave you some amendments and it didn't work out. Let's just say that. Didn't work out.

And some of it involved giving notice six months ahead of time, even to victims and their families. So they have that comfort level. So if it doesn't make it out of here, I think we're thinking the same thing. We just need to talk about it maybe a little bit more. With that, call the roll.

On AB 1260 by Assembly Member Joe Patterson. The motion is do passed to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll calle].

That measures on call. And I guess you want the same.

Reconsideration, please.

Reconsideration with no. When the time comes.

Trying to keep your April gone.

Yeah. I guess we should have an A roll in this group now.

Thank you.

You're welcome. Ms. Dixon. Item number 1582. I mean, Bill number 1582. Item number 29.

Good morning.

Good morning.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. I'm here today to present on Assembly Bill 1582. AB 1582 will remove the requirement that a juvenile's triggering offense, qualifying them to be committed to a secure youth treatment facility must be the most recent offense for which the juvenile has been adjudicated. The law, as written, interferes with the youth rehabilitation when they are adjudicated of subsequent non-qualifying offenses. We have made it a goal in California to reform the criminal justice system to focus on rehabilitation.

However, that is not the case for juveniles. Judges should have perspective of the individual's whole record, not just the last crime committed. AB 1582 allows judges flexibility in their disposition to tailor the outcome to best fit the need of the juvenile to have the highest chance, chance of being successfully rehabilitated. AB 1582 is needed to get to the true intent of SB 823, fostering positive youth development, promoting public and community safety, and offering fair and flexible terms of commitment.

My primary expert witness this morning to speak in support of the Bill is Joe Koller, Deputy District Attorney, Orange County District Attorney's office. Thank you.

Hi, you've got five minutes.

Good morning. Thank you, sir. Thank you Chairman and Committee Members, my name is Joe Koller and I'm the Orange County Deputy District Attorney. I've been a prosecutor for 12 years and specialized in juvenile law for the last five. On behalf of Orange County District Attorney Todd Spitzer, we enthusiastically endorse AB 1582 and ask for your Aye vote. The bill's intended purpose is to eliminate a needless obstruction to youth who have been adjudged towards from getting the appropriate level of services in the most appropriate setting.

The Welfare and Institutions Code mandate that all parties consider the best interest of a system-involved youth and facilitate their rehabilitation. However, as written, The Welfare and Institutions Code creates an illogical roadblock not just for system-involved youth, but also the victims of crime. An Aye vote removing 875 A2 from the code comports with the intent of SB 823 and the juvenile justice realignment of 2020. A failure to take this action will have the unintended consequences of negatively impacting California's youth.

It will promote net widening and juvenile transfer motions, it will prevent meaningful and successful rehabilitation efforts in our juvenile system, and it will negatively impact victims. The law is written, while intended to prevent commitments to the secure youth treatment facilities, has two major sentencing consequences. It interferes with the adjudication of unsolved crimes and it does not allow for the meaningful resolution of crimes committed while a youth is committed to a secure youth treatment facility.

The adjudication of new crimes or offenses which predate the current commitment will result in the youth being expelled from the secure youth treatment facility. And this is the only place, a court has determined, that is suitable for a youth to receive the rehabilitation services from our state. It is important to note that an Aye vote does not increase youth's custodial commitments. It preserves the rehabilitation services they're currently receiving. A No vote, on the other hand, will increase transfer motions to adult court for juveniles.

It will also not afford victims sufficient due process under the California Constitution. Eliminating 875 A2 from The Welfare and Institutions Code would remedy this problem. It would afford victims their due process and preserve youth services. In conclusion, if approved in its current form, AB 1582 would further the goals of the juvenile rehabilitation. By maintaining a youth's continuity of services, it will reduce net widening and preserve the rights of victims. But I think importantly to this Committee, it's important to note what 1582 will not do.

It will not increase the number of youth committed to secure youth treatment facilities. It will not increase the length of commitments of youth serving sentences at secure youth treatment facilities. It will not promote net widening and it will not increase transfer motions. In my opinion, it will actually reduce them. For these reasons. Orange County District Attorney's Office endorses this Bill and asks for your Aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support?

Good morning. Chair and Members of the Committee, Danielle Sanchez, on behalf of the chief probation officers of California, in support. And just briefly, we support this general discussion around how we address instances of multiple offenses and addressing instances of.

Name an organization, please.

Thank you, Chair. Danielle Sanchez, CPOC, in support.

Kim Stone, Stone Advocacy, on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association, in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Audrey Ratajczak, on behalf of the Placer County District Attorney, in support.

Thank you. Any witnesses in opposition?

First, SB 823 and SB 92 demonstrated California's commitment to changing the juvenile justice landscape by closing DJJ and trusting our counties to support youth. These bills were crafted carefully and collaboratively and passed through this very legislative body with two critical goals in mind, to reduce the number of youth in long term detention and to keep young people close to their families and homes in their counties for ultimate reentry back into the community.

AB 1582 would serve to undermine and undo these very goals by increasing the number of young people eligible for local secure youth treatment facility commitments. Second, this bill is unnecessary because there's a very simple solution to the issue of whether a youth is eligible for SYTF. The prosecution always has the ability to dismiss an intervening non 707b petition in order for a youth to be eligible or maintain eligibility or status in an SYTF program.

For the past 16 years, the most recent offense requirement has protected youth from having their past behaviors be used to impose the most severe disposition in the juvenile justice system, which was formerly DJJ, now SYTF. The Legislature has thoroughly contemplated this rule on multiple occasions. There is no inaccuracy in the current code that needs to be remedied. This was a deliberate choice by the Legislature in both 2007 and 2021 and does not now need to be changed.

There is no data or evidence that the current system produces poor outcomes or is counter to public safety. It has worked justly for 15 years, functioning as a safeguard against widening the number of young people committed to DJJ and now to SYTF. The most recent offense rule should continue to operate as a safeguard against widening the pool of youth eligible for SYTF.

It was never the intention of the Legislature to expand the category of people eligible for SYTF and that that's exactly what this bill would do. We believe that the focus should be on improving programming and rehabilitative opportunities for young people in SYTFs, not increasing the numbers by seeking to make it easier to commit more youth into SYTFs. We respectfully ask for your no vote on AB 1582.

Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in opposition.

Danica Rodarmel on behalf of the San Francisco Public defender Marco George on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association, in respectful opposition. Thank you.

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

Thank you. We'll bring it back to committee members for any questions or comments. Mr. Lackey?

Yeah, I just have a couple questions. We talk about SYTF. For people who are listening, don't know that stands for secure youth treatment facility. Will this bill, this is for the Assembly Member. Will this bill, is it likely to result in net widening? Or in other words, will more youth be committed to this SYTF who are otherwise ineligible?

Well, let me just briefly say, no, it will not. And I'll let Mr. Kohler explain because he has the experience to answer this question.

Thank you. Assembly woman. Thank you, Committee Member. Functionally, it will not result in net widening. There are very specific provisions within 875 of the welfare and Institutions Code, aside from 875 a two, that would preclude commitment to the SYTF on the basis of a non serious and violent offense. Looking to the code, specifically 875 B1 requires that the court commit them on the most recent serious offense.

So a subsequent law violation, whether it be a misdemeanor or a nonviolent felony, cannot result in their commitment to a secure youth treatment facility. So, to answer your question, no, it will not promote net widening. And I think to add something to that. It additionally will not increase the length of commitments for youth currently serving incarceration sentences at the secure youth treatment facility.

Section 875, sub e, sub 1 of the welfare and institutions code outlines that a youth's commitment to the SYTF cannot be extended for new violations. So it is a legal impossibility to increase youth's commitments. All this is doing is preserving our ability to adjudicate offenses that occur while the youth is committed to the secure youth treatment facility or offenses that are discovered or crimes that are solved that predate their commitment.

Okay. And further, wasn't a similar rule in place when DJJ existed?

Yes, and the opposition highlighted that that provision was 733 sub c of the welfare and institutions code. But I think that this Committee and our state would acknowledge that the DJJ system was an antiquated system and was not the appropriate way to rehabilitate youth in the State of California. And I'm proud to see California evolving in that sense. So with that said, this was a broken rule for a broken DJJ system.

And while this Committee and AB 823 and Amendment 92 wanted to establish parity when they created the commitment guidelines for SYTF, we had an opportunity to fix something that was wrong with the system, and that was missed.

So I'm asking this Committee to take some proactive approach now to recognize that if we do not eliminate 875 a2, it will result in youth being expelled from the SYTF and ensuring that they do not get the continuity of services and rehabilitation that SYTF is specifically designed to facilitate. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other questions?

I would just like to hear the opposition's response to that question.

Thank you. Well, first of all, there's a provision in 875 e two that for any conduct that a young person that happens while a young person is in the SYTF, that those behaviors or infractions should be addressed by alternative means, not a new charge. 825 e two specifically says that that can be graduated sanctions adopted by the operator of the SYTF or subject to any of the standards of the facility or program.

So it simply doesn't seem accurate that it would mean that a young person would lose eligibility or their status in a program if they were to commit a new offense, that those offenses should be handled within the program already so that a young person can learn and rehabilitate from the providers of the rehabilitative programming itself.

Alanis.

Thank you. I'm just a little confused because I'm hearing just the opposite. I don't know. You're in the same thing, right? Do you have a response to that as well?

Yes. Thank you. The opposition articulated that the remedy that has been in place for the last 16 years, I believe, was for district attorneys to dismiss petitions or simply not file petitions against youth where a case can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

And prosecutors in the State of California have an ethical obligation to efficiently, effectively, and judiciously prosecute offenses where there are righteous victims of crimes. And the remedy of dismissing a case does not comport with the due process requirements of the California State constitution. So I do not first and foremost believe that the dismissal of a case is an appropriate remedy.

But with respect to the eligibility criteria, many, many times since DJJ's existence, and even now, as we've matriculated to the secure youth treatment facility track, courts have held that subsequent petitions that are not eligible under the current criteria, if they are adjudicated, make that youth no longer eligible for commitment to the secure youth treatment facility.

And what's important about that is if these youth are then expelled from the secure youth treatment facility based off of a technical criteria, they're being deprived of the access to resources, which is the only place that a court has already determined that is the highest probability for success. And that's what this bill aims to avoid.

Thank you. Any more comments? You may close.

Thank you. Thank you, chair. If we are truly, I believe if we are truly committed to rehabilitation of our juvenile offenders, we must change how we address youth in our system. And this is a technical change, but as you've heard Mr. say, it is addressing a weakness in the existing law and AB 1582 is a step in the right direction. Again, we are all focused on rehabilitation and especially for the youth in our communities, so that they return to their communities having been rehabilitated.

And this little quirk in the law is preventing that. One last thing. Because of the last crime committed being not considered or to be considered, it's like an individual is judged just on the last action. If we were all judged on our last vote, is that really a reflection of our whole careers? I mean, sometimes those, you have to take the whole to get to the real need for looking at the entire history.

And that is what this bill would do is to make sure to ensure, and Mr. has his direct experience in Orange County, that the juvenile is rehabilitated correctly and will return to society in a productive capacity. And that's why I've introduced this bill. So thank you very much.

Thank you.

I encourage your aye vote.

Thank you. Is there a motion? Call the roll.

On AB 1582 by Assembly Member Dixon. The motion is do passed to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

That measure's on call.

So I would ask for reconsideration, respectfully.

If it doesn't make it, if no one objects, we should be okay.

Okay. Thank you very much.

Mr. Essayli. Item number 13. I mean, bill number 1378. Item number 22.

Good morning, Mr. Chair, members of this committee. Good morning. Today I'm here to present Assembly Bill 1378, which is aimed at strengthening the enforcement of criminal protective orders in order to keep victims safe and hold individuals who violate the law accountable. Criminal protective orders are a vital tool in breaking the cycle of violence in domestic violence cases and are issued to protect victims from further harm and harassment.

However, the effectiveness of these orders is often undermined by the lack of enforcement and inadequate punishment for violations. Courts are currently authorized under Penal Code section 136.2 to issue what is known as a CPO, or criminal protective order when there is good cause, belief that harm to, or intimidation or dissuasion of a victim or witness has occurred or is reasonably likely to occur. Under current law, a violation of this criminal protective order is punishable as a simple misdemeanor contempt of court under Penal Code section 166.

The way the law is currently written does not do anything, does not meaningfully deter future criminal activities. For example, Mr. Chair, those of us that worked in these cases, domestic violence cases, when the case is filed, it could take many months or years to resolve the underlying conviction. But we issue this criminal protective order at the beginning of the case to intervene and interrupt the cycle of violence.

Because anyone who knows anything about domestic violence is there's highs and there's lows, and it's a never ending cycle. And in the 90s, there was a change in the law to provide more protection for those victims. But what's happening now is that those orders are basically meaningless because the police say they're simple misdemeanors, they don't have any teeth to them, and as currently written, they're treated as a simple crime. This lack of deterrence emboldens offenders and puts domestic violent victims at risk.

According to the US Department of Justice, most female victims of domestic violence were previously victimized by the same offender at a rate of 77% for women aged 18 to 24, 76% for ages 25 to 34, and an astounding 81% for ages 35 to 49. What we're doing now is not working. By allowing judges the discretion to strengthen punishment for those who violate CPOs, this bill will enhance the effectiveness of these protective measures and provide victims with more security.

This bill, really all it does, Mr. Chair, is provide discretion to the judges and the prosecutors where they have the ability to file this as a felony if needed in their discretion. It doesn't require that it be filed a felony unless there's a firearm used in the commission of the violation. So I respectfully ask my fellow members to join me in supporting this bipartisan bill. My principal co-author is not here to present, but Assemblyman Blanca Rubio is well respected in this area for her expertise. And I have with me today two witnesses in support, Ms. Kim Stone from the California District Attorneys Association, and Nicole, who is a victim herself of domestic violence.

Good morning, Chair and members. Kim Stone, Stone Advocacy, on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association in support of AB 1378. As the Assemblymember said, California has long recognized that intimidation of victims and witnesses poses an unacceptable threat to the pursuit of justice. This bill recognizes that in some instances, even a first-time violation of a criminal protective order could be sufficiently strong to justify either prosecution as a misdemeanor or a felony. Therefore, AB 1378 would allow violation to be prosecuted as a wobbler. It recognizes that violation of a protective order with a gun is worse and would therefore have the filings of those violations be felonies. Protecting all victims and all witnesses is vital to the pursuit of justice. If people are intimidated or dissuaded from participation in the criminal justice system, it becomes meaningless. We urge your support.

Thank you. Yes, ma'am.

Thank you. Mr. Chairman and members, my name is Nicole. As a victim of domestic violence, I strongly support Assembly Bill 1378 by Assemblymember Bill Essayli, which helps add much-needed teeth to criminal protective orders by increasing penalties for those who violate them. These orders are issued to protect victims from potential harm or harassment by an offender. However, without strict enforcement and our adequate consequences, they are just useless pieces of paper and the offender knows it.

By all accounts, I had a good childhood with supportive parents. I was afforded a good education. I have a successful career. Despite all of these resources, I still stand before you a survivor of domestic violence. It can happen to anyone. I ask you to close your eyes and imagine escaping domestic violence by running out of your home barefoot with nothing but the clothes on your back.

You are carrying your five-year-old child in your arms while clutching your oldest hand, and you are terrified that your abuser is going to follow through with the threat of killing you. You finally get the courage to run and not look back. You obtain a protective order. You do everything you are told to do by law enforcement and victims advocate services. You have this piece of paper that is supposed to keep you safe, and then your abuser shatters a window and breaks into your home against a court order. Your abuser destroys your personal property, punches holes in walls, shatters pictures, and crosses your face out of photos. Your abuser runs before the police can arrive so no arrest can be made and a police report is forwarded to the DA. Your abuser continues to contact you against the order on that little piece of paper that says you are safe.

Your abuser threatens to kill you, threatens to kidnap your children, threatens to get you fired from your place of employment, and continuously stalks and harasses you against the order on your little piece of paper that says you're safe. Then imagine your abuser is arrested and charged with 15 counts of violation of a criminal protective order. Your abuser goes to jail for a brief period, and upon release, with probation terms in place, your abuser continues to violate the criminal protective order.

Now imagine this cycle repeating itself for three and a half long years. Violations, arrest, jail, then release, then repeated violations, arrest, and jail. It has been four years since we escaped domestic violence, and to this day, I still live in a state of constant hyper-awareness because my little piece of paper that says I'm safe does not stop my abuser. Police received more than 164,000 domestic violence related calls for assistance in 2021, and nearly 88,000 of them involved a weapon.

There were also 72,000 domestic violence restraining orders filed that fiscal year. Once filed, the person is obliged to turn over their firearms. However, there are no data on how often alleged abusers surrender their weapons after a restraining order, and the State Court Administration doesn't track such information. AB 1378 allows violations of protective orders to be prosecuted as felonies, not just misdemeanors, and allows for further consequences if the violation involves a firearm. AB 1378 doesn't fix all the problems within the system, but it's a good start, and it's the least you can do for victims like us. Thank you for your time and consideration. Our safety and even our lives are at stake.

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

Mr. Chairman and members, Carl London, on behalf of Crime Victims United, in strong support.

Hello, Mr. Chairman. Matthew Greco, on behalf of the deputy District Attorneys Association of San Diego, as well as the San Diegans Against Crime, in support.

All right, we'll bring it back to witnesses in opposition.

Good morning, and I'm Margot George on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association in respectful opposition. I'm sorry for what you went through. I think there are many, many people, women and men, who have undergone similar experiences, and I don't think 1368 is the answer. 78 is the answer. First, I'm not surprised that you would currently think that a felony is unavailable to charge people who violate this offense. But it says already under 13 that a protective order pursuant to 13.

I'm sorry, 136.2 says that a protective order issued under this section is punishable as a substantive offense under 136.1 or a contempt of court. A substantive offense under existing 136.1 is already a wobbler, punished either by one year in county jail or state prison. If the prosecutor elects to charge it as a simple contempt of court, that is true. A first violation of that would be a misdemeanor. But as it exists now, this behavior could be charged as a felony.

What this bill does is take away the prosecutor's discretion to charge this as a mere misdemeanor. And I say mere misdemeanor, misdemeanor is not without consequences. It carries six months in jail potentially. People who are subject to criminal protective orders have their right to bear firearms taken away. They're listed in their rap sheets that they have this protective order, and it can affect their housing and their employment.

But first, I just want to say that in many cases, the people who are the subjects of these protective orders, this is their first contact with the criminal justice system, and they may be in crisis. And usually a simple protective order is sufficient. I think, prime, you've really pinpointed the issue here, is that the police are not responding appropriately to violations of protective orders or taking them seriously. In the example that you mentioned, you basically were the subject of a burglary, which is a serious felony. The answer is to use the law as it currently exists and to educate and train the police. We respectfully ask for your no vote on AB 1378.

Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in opposition?

Danica Rodarmel, on behalf of the San Francisco Public Defender.

Carmen Nicole Cox on behalf of ACLU California Action.

Thank you. Now we'll bring it back to committee members. There's any comments? Mr. Alanis?

Mr. Chair, just real quick, could we go over criminal protective orders and domestic violence restraining orders? Could you just tell me the difference between those two, please?

In my case, I obtained a domestic violence order. It was violated numerous times. After the crimes were committed, I was issued a criminal protective order. In all, as recently as October of last year, that criminal protective order was violated because the consequences were such brief stints in jail. There was no consequence. There's no reason for my abuser not to feel emboldened to do it again.

And was this referenced by the DA's office? Was there a group that maybe pushed for you to get one or the other, or how did that go about?

I'm sorry. Once the prosecution charges someone with a crime, a criminal protective order can be issued by the criminal court.

Thank you. That's right.

Mr. Lackey.

Yeah. I just wanted to thank the witness for coming. Very sorry for your very troubled experience, but you gave very compelling testimony and it takes guts to do that. So thank you for your courage and I will be supporting this measure.

Thank you. Any others? You may close, Mr. Essayli.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And just to respond to the opposition, what they're referring to is a substantive witness intimidation statute, which is not really what we're talking about here. What we're talking about here is a violation of a court order that's designed to protect the victim and to interrupt the cycle of violence. And right now, those orders are not being taken seriously. And the reason they're not taken seriously is because the defendants know they're a joke. It's a misdemeanor.

And I have personally experienced this, where I've issued these orders, and the victims come back to me and say, he's shown up at my work, he's calling me, he's sending me text messages, and the police, all they can do is side him with the misdemeanor, and it has no teeth. What this will allow the police and prosecutors to do is we know these guys, and if they are particularly egregious or they're clearly flagrantly violating this order, we can hit them with a felony.

We have to interrupt that violence. Early on, I had a deputy in my district, Deputy Cordero, shot and killed responding to one of these calls where the woman had made multiple attempts to get these orders and was not successful in interrupting the cycle of violence. It went on for years. They got in another argument. When things went down, she called the police for help, and the guy shot the police officer. These cases continue to escalate. We have to interrupt a cycle of violence.

So I implore this committee to listen to this victim and to consider what we're trying to do here, which is to protect victims of domestic violence. And really, there's no excuse for ever violating these court orders. When you've been charged and the judge has said you are to have no contact, that is unambiguous, no contact. You cannot call them, text them, harass them, and they do that. That is an indication of their mindset, their disrespect for the law, and their intention to continue victimizing their spouse. So with that, I ask for a aye vote.

Thank you there. Motion. Second. And thank you for bringing this forward and thank your witness. This is not easy from someone who's come from a home with domestic violence, who was that five-year-old that was run screaming from a home because of a father who was abusive. It's not only you. It also is embedded in the kids for a very long time.

Even when they get as old as me, it just stays with you, and it never goes away. And so I definitely feel for you. And it bothers me that either law enforcement isn't acting on it because they don't think that the misdemeanor is enough. But thank you for bringing this, because we probably do need to look at this and figure out what is really going on. Are people not taking our laws seriously?

Whether it's a misdemeanor or not, whether or not the first strike is being taken seriously. And I'm concerned whether or not law enforcement is actually coming to the rescue and then bringing it to the DAs and if they're actually prosecuting. And so I really would like a little more information. I think you may have something here. Again, I said that to one of your colleagues, that you may be on the right track on something, and we do need to delve in it more.

I have a bill trying to get more money for domestic violence victims so that they're protected, and maybe we can weave that into something in the future, especially if this doesn't get out of this committee With that, call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would respectfully ask for reconsideration if it does fail, and I appreciate the chair's comment, and I, and I know my colleague, Ms. Rubio, would love to work with you on this issue moving forward. So thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. With no objection, we will grant reconsideration, and we'll do this with unanimous consent. Mr. Kalra, just going to be long. Item number 32, AB 1726.

Thank you Mr. Chair. I want to start by thanking you and your committee staff for working with my office, and I'll accept the committee amendments. AB 1726 clarifies that the record clearing provisions enacted under SB 357 and SB 239 are workable for immigration purposes. Last year, and in 2017, the legislature appealed and dismissed former convictions for loitering with the intent to commit prostitution and prostitution with a prior conviction by someone who knew they had HIV AIDS.

However, under federal law, deportation proceedings can still be based on a vacated conviction, unless the reason is due to a legal or procedural defect at the time it was entered. In cases where state law does not explicitly use specific language, a conviction can remain for immigration purposes even though the state erased it.

As such, immigrant populations are inadvertently subjected to a two tiered system where they unfairly face additional consequences, such as deportation for convictions based on outdated laws, and are denied the relief they are entitled to. AB 1726 corrects this oversight and ensures everyone has full access to the post conviction relief intended by the legislature. Here to testify in support is Minouche Kandel, Senior Staff Attorney at the ACLU of Southern California.

Good morning. Good morning. My name is Minouche Kandel I'm a senior staff attorney with the ACLU of Southern California, testifying on behalf of ACLU California Action and the D Crim Sex Work California Coalition, which is sponsoring this bill. AB 1726 is a technical fix to ensure that record clearing provisions that have been enacted in recent years are also able to benefit persons with immigration proceedings.

Existing law provides expungement relief for persons convicted under former Penal Code sections 653.22 and 647F. The broad subjective nature of Penal Code Section 653.22 created opportunities for law enforcement to engage in discriminatory policing that targeted black and brown women and members of the transgender community. Penal Code Section 647 F was based on fear and limited medical science at the time and penalized sex workers who were living with HIV.

Recognizing the prior law's disparate impacts on vulnerable communities, reforms allowed individuals to vacate their convictions. However, the laws which repealed these penal code sections did not include language that is needed for a criminal expungement to assist persons seeking immigration relief. Many sex workers, particularly in California, are subject to immigration enforcement and deportation. Criminal convictions can be a bar to immigration relief, and for immigration purposes, a conviction is considered vacated only if it was legally or procedurally defective at the time it was entered.

AB 1726 simply clarifies that convictions under the laws that were repealed were defective due to constitutional error. AB 1726 ensures that vulnerable immigrant populations can benefit from the reforms that resulted from repealing penal code sections 647 F and 653.22.

In the same way that we have removed the other consequences of past criminal convictions, AB 1726 corrects a statutory oversight and explicitly states that vacate your relief for formal penal code sections 653.22 and Section 647 F are legally invalid due to constitutional error. For these reasons, we ask that you support AB 1726.

Thank you. Anybody else in support?

Danica Rodarmel, on behalf of Initiate Justice Nella Baker Center, in support.

Carmen Nicole Cox on behalf of ACLU Cal Action and also the California Public Defenders Association, in support.

Craig Pulsipher on behalf of Equality California in strong support.

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

hi Angela Chan with the San Francisco Public Defender's office in strong support.

Alicia Benavidez Lewis on behalf of Drug Policy Alliance and Immigrant Legal Resource Center in strong support.

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

Anyone else? Okay, anyone in opposition?

Hi Kim Stone, Stone Advocacy on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association. We have an opposed, unless amended position. I believe that the proposed amendments address some of the DA's concerns, maybe not them all. We'll continue to work and talk as it goes through the process. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else in opposition? Hearing none. Turn it to the committee.

If I could just ask some clarifying questions. We're talking about 647 F of the penal code, is that correct?

Well, former 647.

Okay. And that charge of 647 F, that was formerly. What do you have that on record as being?

That was criminalizing, engaging in sex work while living with HIV.

Okay. Not public intoxication?

No.

Okay. And 647 B of the penal code. B as in boy?

That was not addressed by the bills that were repealed.

I just. I've been in law enforcement for quite a while, and 647 F has been something that I've charged public intoxication with for people. And I don't want us to be making an error or anything like that, making sure we have the right penal code sections on this, because 647 B boy was usually for prostitution, and 647 F was public intoxication.

It was 647 F without the subsection F. So I think that's what makes it okay.

So we just need to make sure that that's indicated on that as well. Please, Mr. Zbur.

So I just want to thank you for bringing this bill. I want to thank the ACLU and thank Equality California. The underlying bills were passed when I was at Equality California, and we supported them because of the really important principle of making sure that we were addressing discriminatory policing that affects not only brown and black communities, but transgender folks.

And one of the underlying bills was aimed at really addressing the problem of discriminatory policing that's known as Walking Well Trans. Where trans women in particular often were the focus of policing based upon very limited information, often when there wasn't even sex work occurring because of the profiling that occurs. And so that underlying law was an important one.

It's important that I think this bill takes the next step and make sure that those folks that got relief under those bills get the immigration relief that they deserve. And so I just want to thank you. I'll be supporting these bills and want to thank all of the folks that worked on this.

Any other comments or questions from the committee? Okay, you may close.

Thank you. I appreciate it. Assemblymember Zbur, for his work on this.

I know for many years and now as a colleague and appreciate the comments from the Vice Chair on the clarification. When I was a public defender, I definitely remember 647 in parentheses, F and so thank you for asking the clarification question. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

We can take the roll.

On AB 1726 by Assemblymember Kalra. The motion is do passed as amended. [Roll Call]

[Roll call]

Message will be on call. We'll get a hold of you as soon as you can. Assembly Member Hart, you're up. AB 1412, item number 24.

Thank you. Thank you, Vice Chair Alanis. I'm pleased to present AB 1412 to the Committee today. Is this microphone on? I got to get closer. AB 1412 will expand access to mental health services by allowing defendants diagnosed with borderline personality disorder to be eligible for pretrial diversion.

Current law provides defendants with mental illnesses the ability to receive services and care through pretrial diversion programs. Individuals with borderline personality disorder, however, are not eligible. This exclusion creates a barrier for proper treatment and perpetuates a harmful stigma for those living with the disorder. By expanding eligibility for pretrial diversion programs, AB 1412 will ensure defendants receive the critical mental health services they need.

Speaking in support of the Bill with me today are Dr. Leandra Clark Harvey, on behalf of the California Council on Community Behavioral Health Agencies and Harry Burrell, the CEO of Pathpoint.

You both have five minutes.

All right, I'll be quicker than that. Greetings, esteemed chair and Members. I'm Dr. Leandra Clark Harvey, a psychologist and the Chief Executive Officer of the California Council of Community Behavioral Health Agencies. We're an advocacy organization representing mental health and substance use disorder agencies across the state, and we're the proud sponsor of AB 1412. I want to thank Assembly Member Hart Gibson for championing this Bill and also the council, Ms. Burnley, for the excellent synopsis of the current research on this issue.

For reasons not supported by psychological science, borderline personality disorder is included in a list of diagnoses that make an individual ineligible for pretrial diversion, including pedophilia. This is highly problematic. As a psychologist who has trained and worked in a variety of treatment settings it is important to clarify that individuals with borderline personality disorder can improve with appropriate intervention.

In addition, we believe that including this disorder in the pretrial diversion program will reduce the backlog in the courts, lower cost of incarceration, and reduce recidivism, which these are savings that, as you all know, our state is in desperate need of. People with borderline personality disorder make important contributions to society, and they deserve equitable and just treatment and compassion. Thank you for your favorable consideration of this Bill.

Hi, thank you. My name is Harry Brol. I'm the CEO of Pathpoint, a behavioral health agency in Assemblymember Hart's district. I'm also a father. My daughter Taya died when she was 14 from suicide, and we believe she had borderline personality disorder. But she was never diagnosed because of the stigma around borderline personality disorder, so she never got the treatment that could have saved her life.

I have here a letter from a woman named Joanna from San Luis Obispo who has borderline personality disorder and went through the court system for a minor charge. She wrote to us, "Sitting in a cell would not have fixed my problems. Paying the city a lawyer and fines didn't make me any less violent. Therapy is the single most important factor that created real change in my life." Here are four quick reasons to support this Bill. First, there's no scientific or medical rationale for excluding BPD.

Second, the two other conditions excluded are essentially defined by criminality. BPD is not and is no more dangerous than the conditions that are included. Three, BPD is treatable and treatment reduces the risk of recidivitism. Four, the exclusion of BPD perpetuates stigma and limits access to care. So I urge you to support AB 1412 to save the lives of people like my daughter Taya, and to end and reduce for people like Joanna. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in support?

Hi, my name is Angela Chan, San Francisco Public Defender's Office, in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

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

Thank you.

Hello, Gregory Cramer, on behalf of Disability Rights California, in support.

Thank you. Are there any witnesses in opposition? Any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Bring it back to committee members for any questions or comments. We have a motion. We have a second. Don't see any comments. You may close.

I just want to thank Dr. Clark Harvey and Mr. Bruell for being here today. They told the story very well, and I respectfully request an aye vote.

Thank you. And thank you for bringing this to us. It looked like you've convinced everybody, so this should be good. And, Dr. Harvey, say hi to my former employee. All right. Call the roll.

On AB 1412 by Assemblymember Hart. The motion is do passed to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll call]

Measures on call. Need one more. Thank you. Next we have Ms. Carrillo, item number 1306. I mean, Bill number 1306, item number 20. It's been a long day.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members, I accept the committee amendments and I am proud to present Assembly Bill 1306 Harmonizing Our Measures for Equality. Otherwise, the HOME Act. The bill will ensure that immigrant Californians are not excluded from recent criminal justice and compassionate release reforms passed by this very legislature. In recent years, the legislature has recognized that our over-incarceration hurts our state and our communities. And we've given individuals who have received harsh sentences as young people the opportunity to earn parole.

The legislature has recognized that there should be avenues for those who have convictions that were tainted by racial bias or those who were convicted under statues that we have now reformed to have a new day in court. The legislature has also recognized the need to give incarcerated individuals the dignity to live out their final days and months with their loved ones and with adequate access to medical care. As a state, we have recognized those needs.

But immigrant Californians are arbitrarily left out for no other reason than because of where they were born. As a state, we have recognized those needs. But when immigrant Californias have earned release under these reforms, rather than be united with their family, our state prison system turns them over to Immigration and Custom Enforcement, otherwise known as ICE, for double punishment, indefinite incarceration and immigration detention, which is a sentence that was never handed down by a criminal court or a judge.

This is an arbitrary sentence served in facilities beyond California State oversight, where abuses are well documented and when there is no right to legal counsel or to bail. The HOME Act AB 136 will bring an end to the double punishment of immigrants whose convictions already aligned with criminal justice reform policies signed into law. Here to talk more about the reform for the bill is Tin Nguyen, immigrant justice coordinator with Viet Rise and Sandra Castaneda, who is currently a trainee at Homeboy Industries.

Both their personal testimonies as to what they have experienced with the criminal justice system and the California Department of Corrections, as well as Immigration Customs Enforcement, is the very reason why we're moving this bill forward. Angela Chan is the assistant chief attorney with the San Francisco Public Defender's Office, who is also here available for any technical questions. With that, respectfully request an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Whenever you're ready.

Good morning Chair Jones-Sawyer and committee members. My name is Tin Nguyen and I am a justice coordinator at Viet Rise, based in OC. After the Vietnam War, my family fled from Vietnam because of persecution. I was a victim of abuse by a father that couldn't cope with the new environment. Violent bully. Because I was different. I didn't feel safe at home nor in school. So I took to the street and found protection in the gang. This led me to at age 20 something.

I took somebody life and I was sentenced to LWAP. During my 23 year, I'm sorry, I took responsibility for my actions. I wanted to take responsibility for my actions. So I took numerous self-help programs. I earned an AA and a BA degree, graduated summa cum laude. I joined Paw for Life to train shelter dog to become service dog for veterans with PTSD. I have a few of them under my belt.

Proud to say I'm sorry, but that's led to my commutation by Governor Jerry Brown and my suitability for parole, where the commission say that not only I was no longer a threat to society, but also was an asset. Upon my release, as I watched my peers walk out the gate of freedom, joining with their family and loved one, I was shackled, handcuffed and transferred to ICE detention center, where I spent the next 10 months in fighting for my freedom again and not knowing I was going to go home.

It was the height of COVID but with the support of it Viet Rise and our community, I was able to be released. This is. I'm kind of lost for word, but it was really discouraging for me. My transformation, my progression of my transformation. And this is what the home access is about. It's about protecting people like myself. It to for that wasn't born here and that qualified under existing reform because they want to be part of productive member of their society from the double punishment and I urge the community to support the Home Act because it's fair and just. Thank you.

Good morning Chair Jones-Sawyer and committee members, my name is Sandra Castaneda. I came to the United States from Mexico at the age of nine to live with my aunt and uncle for a better life. Due to feeling abandoned by my parents and my aunt and uncle. Working hard and not having structure at home, I sought love and belonging elsewhere. As a young person living in South Central LA, it was easy to get pressured into joining gangs.

Unfortunately, at the age of 20 years old, I got arrested for a murder I didn't commit. Going to prison with a 40-year to life sentence really changed my life. Knowing that dying in prison was the only future I had made me think and want to change my life. I started getting involved in self-help groups and eventually started facilitating them. That really gave me a purpose in life.

I worked hard throughout the years, still knowing that I was a lifer and that prison was the only life I would ever have. But a miracle happened. In 2021, Governor Newsom committed my sentence, and I was granted a chance to go to board. My sentence also got vacated through SB 1437, and I got released July 27, 2022. But rather than reuniting with my family, I was transferred to ICE. I was sent to Lumpkin, Georgia, thousands of miles away from my family and support system.

It was a nightmare getting transferred to ICE. I was still being treated less than human. The way ICE treated non-English speaking immigrants was so frustrating and heartbreaking to me. Fortunately, I was released from ICE August 32022. After fighting my case for one year and six days, my legal team and community was able to get me a bond. Please pass the Home Act AB 1306 to prevent ICE from separating people from their families, especially when people serve time and qualify for reforms.

Getting handed to ICE was a heartbreaking experience for me and my family. Please vote yes on the Home Act to ensure equal treatment in our justice system. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support? Name and organization, please.

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

Danica Rodarma on behalf of Initiate Justice, Grip Training Center, Transformative In-Prison Workgroup, and Ella Baker Center.

Jeronimo Cuauhtemoc Aguilar here on behalf of Legal Services for Prisoners With Children. All of us or none. Proud co-sponsors and strong support. Thank you.

Faith Lee with Asian Americans Advancing Justice, Southern California we're in strong support. Thank you.

Joshua Dube with the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice in strong support.

John Vasquez on behalf of Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice proud co sponsor and strong support. Thank you.

Chloe Steck with the California Immigrant Policy center in Strong Support.

ACLU California Action, Carmen-Nicole Cox on behalf of the organization in strong support.

Andrea Bolanos, Services Immigrant Rights and Education Network, co-sponsor and strong support.

I'm Miriam Scheetz from Inland Coalition for Immigrant Justice and I'm a Brazilian Voices organizer supporting the Home Act.

Carl Takei with Asian Americans Advancing Justice, Asian Law Caucus, co-sponsor and in strong support.

Melissa Cosio with California safety and justice in support. Thank you.

Espan Nunez with the Anti Recidivism Coalition, Social Change and Insight Garden Program in support. Thank you.

Hello. Salvador Salmiento with the National Day Laborer Organizing Network Andilon in support.

Hi Hien Nguyen with Asian Prisoner Support Committee in support. I also share the support from 18 Million Rising, Aliance for Boys and Men of Color Alliance, San Diego API Rise, Bend the Arc, Buen Vinceino, California Collaborative for Immigrant Justice California Coalition for Women's Prisoners, Californians for Safety and Justice, Center for Empowering Refugees and Immigrants, Contra Costa Immigrants Rights Alliance, Council on Immigrant Council on American Islamic Relations, Council on American Islamic Relations California, Courage California, the Drop, LWAP Coalition, Freedom for Immigrants, Harvard Institute for Immigrant and Economic Justice, Homies Unidos, Human Impact partner, ICE out of Marin, Interfaith Movement for Human Integrity Immigrant defense, advocates legal justice for prisoners with children, Murege Unitas y Activas, County Congregation, Community Organization, Orange County Equality Coalition, Orange County Rapid Response Network, People's Budget OC, Prison Yoga Project, Santa Cruz Barrios Unidos, CRAC and Suaru Solidarity. Thank you.

Alicia Benavides Lewis on behalf of Immigrant Legal Resource Center in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you. Any witnesses in opposition? Any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. We'll bring it back to committee members. Any questions, concerns, comments? Mr. Zbur, we have a motion.

I'll second.

We have a second, and Ms. Bonta wants to say something.

I just want to thank the author and particularly the advocates who are here in the space and the witnesses who offered testimony about the real life impact of providing a dual equity or inequitable carceral system. And I just want to thank the author. I know that this has been many years in the making for you, and I very much appreciate that we have an opportunity now to write at least a part of the wrong that we have committed for our undocumented community members.

So thank you for taking the time and being with us today.

Thank you, Ms. Ortega.

I also want to thank the author and the witnesses today.

As an undocumented immigrant myself, who came to this country when I was three years old and my parents were able to get amnesty, I am now a citizen and sit here and I'm really excited and supportive of being able to not just see you and see you and have a voice, have a seat at the table, but actually have policy and legislation that's going to make a difference for hundreds, if not thousands of undocumented immigrants who come here looking for a better life and that American dream. So thank you.

Thank you. Any other comments? You may close.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you to the committee. And also just, I want to say thank you to your team and the committee as well, the committee consultants, for working with us to ensure that we're moving a piece of policy forward that ultimately aims to end the double punishment of immigrants across the State of California and through the California Department of Corrections. The bill does not change anything related to sentencing, anything related to a judge's decision.

It simply empowers the Department of Parole in their decision to say, we believe this individual should be able, is rehabilitated and has the opportunity to return home, whether they are a citizen or a noncitizen, a permanent resident, a refugee, whatever other immigrant status they may have.

In the last 10 years, the legislature has eased the path to parole for individuals who receive convictions as young people, offered resentencing for convictions under the felony murder rule, codified and created several paths of compassionate release, and provided post-conviction relief for people who were prosecuted with clear racial bias or had no consideration for their status as survivors of human trafficking and partner violence. In all the policies that this legislature has moved forward, it was never the intent of anyone to exclude immigrants.

The very mere fact that the Department of Corrections is collaborating with immigration enforcement and ICE creates a dual system of justice that is inequitable. It is not democracy, and it is not the values of California. Respectfully request and aye vote thank you.

Okay. I want to thank you for bringing this forward, and thank you for working with our committee. Once we all realized we were working for the same thing, it became really easy to get to where we are right now. And I think the legislation that we're moving forward has the best chances of passing and getting through this time. So I commend you for sticking with it and moving forward. Chair is recommending aye vote.

On AB 136. By Simon McCurrio the motion is do pass as amended, to the Judiciary Committee. [Roll Call]

That measure on call needs one more. Thank you. Next we have it says Mr. Maienschein, but I don't see him in here. He's still in judiciary, so it's Ms. Bauer-Kahan in the shiny shoes. Whenever you're ready.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So we are presenting AB 1643. I'm going to be incredibly brief because I know you have so much to do today, but this Bill is incredibly simple. It merely raises the amount of restitution that is applicable if a youth may be eligible for diversion programs. This is a decision that is made, and they currently are ineligible, and they cannot have the discretion to give them this diversion if they have a restitution of $1,000. And that was said in the 80s.

We're raising it to 5000 to make more youth eligible for this program. And we think that it's good for both the youth to have the opportunity as well as for the fact that there is less recidivism when that happens. And with me today, I have two witnesses to help support the Bill.

Good morning. My name is Nisreen Baroudi and I'm an advisory board member with the Pacific Juvenile Defender Center, PJDC. I'm also the Supervising Attorney of the Juvenile Division at the Santa Clara County Public Defender's Office, and I've been in that role for six years. I'm testifying today on behalf of PJDC as a proud sponsor of Assemblymember Bauer-Kahan's Bill.

Your yes vote today will positively impact thousands of California youth by making more youth simply eligible for diversion opportunities by our juvenile courts and our probation departments for low level offenses. Current law presumes youth to be ineligible for these diversion programs if the restitution amount happens to be $1,000 or more. This $1,000 threshold has not been revisited since 1989- great earthquake- some 35 years ago.

Not only is the monetary amount outdated as it fails to account for inflation, but think about the advancements in technology since that time. Today, the theft of any one iPhone automatically makes a youth presumptively ineligible for diversion. A yes vote today will help ensure that our juvenile laws continue to catch up to the science.

When we did research into where the original $1,000 threshold came from, we were surprised to learn that the goal was in fact to bring more kids into the juvenile justice system based on the belief back then that court involvement would help kids early on, even for low level infractions such as curfew violations and truancy, so that they do not become habitual criminal career offenders. Now in 2023, of course, we know better.

We know that youth who commit low level offenses are more likely to succeed when they are actually diverted out of formal court involvement. System involvement, for those who actually need diversion as an intervention, actually leads to recidivism and contributes to the public safety problems. Raising the $1,000 threshold to 5,000 is a simple and common sense change that is sorely needed. It will keep our communities safer.

It will also operate to keep more Black and brown youth eligible for diversion opportunities, as we know that they tend to disproportionately be represented in our systems. And it comports with modern day science that says sometimes with youth, less is more. Again, this only opens the opportunity for eligibility. Judges and probation departments still need to determine if the youth is suitable, so this is simply allowing them to be eligible.

With that, we thank you for your support for opening more pathways for our youth and ask respectfully for your yes vote.

Thank you.

Hello, everybody. My name is Sophia Hawkis. I am from Santa Clara County. I help run a youth led nonprofit and I sit as a senior leader with that organization and I advocate for opportunity youth in my community as I am an opportunity youth myself with lived experience. I'm here to speak on behalf of my community in support of this important Bill. I'm here to represent those who cannot speak for themselves today.

I would like to tell you about a friend's personal experience who is also a youth leader from San Jose and has experienced the juvenile justice system himself. Here is what he would like for you guys to know as you consider the important change for youth. "Informal probation meant that I didn't get incarcerated. Instead, I was introduced to beneficial community based programs like FLY's Law Program and the National Compadres Network's Hombres Nobles Sacred Circle. They introduced me to a sense of community.

My cousin, who was denied the opportunity for informal probation due to the amount of money involved within his case, never got those same opportunities. He, like so many others that became entrenched in the system, suffered trauma and stigmatization, coming out worse than how they were before they went in.

I hope my support of this Bill, AB 1643, will allow future youth walking the same streets, surviving the same traumas and experiencing the same oppression as I did have the opportunity to change within our communities rather than being stigmatized for the rest of their lives as wards of the state. You see, no one in this world gets to choose where they are born, who their parents will be, or what economic situation they will be born into.

Unfortunately, so many youth are never given a chance in life because of the factors such as lack of parental supervision, guidance and negativity, peer influences. They face a very intimidating and frightening system where if you make even the slightest mistake, it could alter your future. There is an immense amount of trauma that is inflicted upon the youth who are processed through the formal court system.

It is time for us to reform the law from what it was to provide more diversion opportunities for youth who are struggling out there. Young people take risks. Young people do things that they regret, and young people sometimes are just caught up in the wrong crowd. And I don't think it is fair for us as a society to force our young people into the juvenile system unnecessarily.

Whether a youth steals an iPad, a laptop, or an item worth 2,500, it should not dictate the difference between diversion and formal court involvement because the conduct is the same. I advocate for a hope for change. As Tupac said, 'If there ain't no hope for the youth, there ain't no hope for the future.'" Thank you.

All right, we got a Tupac today. Do we have anyone in support?

Danica Rodarmel, on behalf of Ella Baker Center.

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

Thank you.

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

Thank you. Now, are there any witnesses in opposition? Any witnesses in opposition? We'll bring it back to Committee Members for any comments or questions. Yes, Ms. Bonta.

Thank you. First, I'd like to move the Bill.

Thank you.

And just share that I'm incredibly thankful to the author for bringing forward this legislation and for the witnesses and particularly those directly impacted sharing your testimony about what it means when our youth restitution system is not geared towards ensuring that we have access for every youth.

This Bill is very much in alignment with my Bill, AB 1186, which really addresses the existing system of youth restitution and really provides an opportunity for us to recognize that we need to increase the amount of informal access and supervision that we provide for our youth in this. So I want to thank you, the author, for putting this forward. I would love to be a co-author if you're considering co-authors, and with that, I move the Bill.

Thank you. Okay, Mr. Alanis.

Thank you.

In the mid 90s, I was involved in our juvenile diversion program in my county. And I do believe in getting to them early, getting them the resources they need to make them successful. They're young, they make mistakes, and they need our help. And so I was just wondering on the price for the 5,000. With my calculations, with the consumer price index, it was around 2,300 or so. I just wonder if you can elaborate on the 5,000.

Yeah, of course. And we tried to do a calculation as well. We got as high as 2,700, but to your point, it's not 5,000 with inflation. Inflation is obviously an important piece of this. It would more than double with inflation. But part of what we're trying to do here is, as you heard from the witness and I can have her elaborate if you want. There's still discretion here, right? This is not mandatory diversion. It is merely making it possible for youth to participate.

And so we really wanted to set this at a value that made sense, that allowed more youth into the diversion programs where probation recommends, it where the DA does not charge, where the judge allows it, and that's what this does. And so we did want to raise it higher than inflation to increase opportunities where it was appropriate. Again, these are all low level offenses, and it's one factor in deciding whether they're eligible.

But we think it's an important one that we wanted to raise, and so we did it at 5,000. But open to conversations about that if it were to become an issue.

Thank you. And I guess I need to get familiar with the Tupac. Thank you.

Thank you. Nothing else. You may close.

Thank you. I really appreciate it. I also want to thank our witnesses for being here and for you sharing the voice of the youth who are impacted by this. I think it's so incredibly important that we give youth a second chance and give them the opportunities to rehabilitate and be part of the society that we want them to be, which is our future.

And so I appreciate that voice being here and I respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you. Chairs recommend an aye vote. Let's call the roll.

On AB 1643 by Assemblymember Bauer-Kahan. The motion is due passed to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll call]

That measure passes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

So we have 20 minutes before we recess at noon, and in order, I have Maienschein-Hoover, Gabriel-Schiavo. I don't see a Maienschein. Going once, going twice. Mr. Hoover.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Whenever you're ready, Mr. Hoover.

Okay. Appreciate it. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. I know it's almost lunchtime. Thank you for the opportunity to present AB 1746. I just want to start by saying I understand the Chair's recommendation on this bill, but I would just ask that everyone keep an open mind, including you, Mr. Chair. When this story was shared with me, it was something that told me that I needed to introduce a bill on this topic.

This bill is very specifically targeted at something that happened in my district, and so I really appreciate the opportunity to present it for you today. To my right is Ryan Strange. He is a constituent of mine. I met Ryan a few months ago when he approached me with his heartbreaking story that he's going to share with you momentarily. To summarize, in 2019, Ryla Strange lost her life at the hands of a daycare worker in my district when she was just one year old.

Ryla's father, Ryan, is here because he's trying to advocate for all kids that die at the hands of a child abuser. And I just want to briefly, before I turn it over to Ryan, share why I brought this forward, why I wrote it the way that I did. I wrote it very narrowly, to only apply in cases where child abuse results in the death of the child.

So, very simply, AB 1746 prohibits a person whose abuse causes a child's death from being eligible to earn two thirds off their sentence when participating in a fire camp. Now, I think it's really important to clarify what my bill does not do, and I was very specific to make sure it did not do these things. It does not make a change to Prop 57 that requires approval by the voters. It does not reclassify the crime in question.

It also does not eliminate the ability for the inmate to still earn early release credits. I just want to make those three things very, very clear. I also want to commend the Strange family for their advocacy and their willingness to put forward this bill, which we are calling Ryla's Law, in honor of Ryan's daughter. That provides more accountability while also respecting and acknowledging the views of many Members of this Committee. We did try very hard to strike the right balance with this bill. And so I respectfully urge your aye vote, and I would like to turn it over to my witness to share his story.

Thank you.

Good morning, everyone. Before I state my testimony, I do want to make sure, because I understand you guys want to oppose this bill, that I wrote for my daughter and for the future of children. But before you do that, I ask you to think about three questions. Is it okay to strike a child, is it considered a violent action, or is it nonviolence? Is it okay to do great bodily damage resulting in the death of a child? Is it a violent action or a nonviolent action?

Also, this is the last question I ask of you when you think of my story and when you hear what I got to say today. If this happened to you, your child, your grandchild, when you're here working, like every Californian, would you want this to happen to you? And are you okay with it? On February 6, 2019 my daughter Ryla, first and foremost, my world changed. I got a call. I was in Hanford, California, over 3 hours away.

I got a call from my sister in law and my mother in law to tell me something happened to my daughter. I drove. Luckily, my brother is in the US military at the time. He drove me back. I went to UC Davis, got escorted by the Sacramento County Sheriff's and detectives to watch my daughter. Hooked up a lot of machines. Brain dead. Brain dead. Now let's back up a little bit. How did this happen? How did we get to this?

My wife went to pick up my daughter from daycare. She handed my child brain dead. She lifted her arm. It fell down. They called Rancho Cordova Fire Department, the Police Department. They said, oh, this is a seizure. This happens to children sometimes. When she went into the paramedics on the way to UC Davis Children hospital, she had another stroke. Actually, sorry, she had another seizure and a stroke.

I asked each one of every one of you, when's the last time you heard of a child less than two years old having a stroke? Is that normal? It's not normal. Not in a two year old child. That very next day, luckily, they were able to leave her on life support so our family can have time to say bye. That same day, me and my wife held my child until she was... Her heart stopped.

And I got to see what it looks like for to have a less than two year old baby turn blue. Like millions of kids that get injured. These are things you do not want to see ever. I did not envision my life. I'd seen my child, what it looks like to be dead. Shortly after that, later on, she got charged. She got arrested. She was here in Sacramento County Jail. Two days later, she went in front of a judge.

She automatically got released while being charged with great bodily injured injury resulting in death of a child. Released. Shortly after that, on April 9, 2020 she pled guilty. She pled guilty to abusing and killing our child and doing the great bodily harm that resulted in her death. She pled guilty. Before the sentencing hearing, the Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections, who reviews before a judge to give a recommendation, they said very clearly on record in the document, she was a danger and threat to society.

The Department of Corrections, who have to take care of her, stated this. She got charged with this for 10 years. After that happened, she went to Tracy Detention Facility to be determined where she's going to go. About approximately a month later, she went to Chowchilla State Prison. A couple of weeks later, she applied for CAL FIRE's Rehabilitation Program. She automatically walked out, went into a fire camp.

Minimum security, took advantage of the system, and a little over a year, approximately 12 months later, walked out of there into rehabilitation center. To this day, she's right here in Sacramento County. When Proposition 57 was passed... And by the way, just to let you know, this bill is not tied to Proposition 57, but just, sorry, real quick. I'm so sorry, real quick. In 2016, it was designed to not let DA's offices go and stack upon charges upon charges. This was not intended to happen. This bill.

I hope you strongly encourage to not oppose this bill. This bill is specifically geared towards child doing great bodily damage resulting in death of a child. Thank you so much for your time. I'm sorry I went over.

Any others in favor? Any others in favor of the bill? Mr. Hoover's 1746, item number 34. Is anyone in opposition?

Danica Rodarmel on behalf of Initiate Justice. There's nothing harder in my job than hearing a story like yours and having to come up and say that we don't think this is the right policy choice. I sat next to your wife all day so far, and I just want to say I'm personally committed to providing any support and resources and information to you and your family and community that I can. All of the organizations that I work with and on behalf of, and my personal commitment is to really try to end violence and things like what happened to your daughter and your family from happening. 1746 will not prevent something like that from happening again.

And because of that, our position is that creating policy based on blanket exclusions for types of convictions is just not the right way to try to fix these problems that we have in our society. And then we have to find some other ways. And so we are opposed because we believe that people that are eligible for fire camps should be earning credits at the same rate as everybody else serving on those fire camps. I'll also just note, I'm from Sonoma County.

In 2017, many people in my community lost homes to fires and my family nearly lost our property. And everybody in my community who learned that incarcerated firefighters were fighting on their behalf really wanted to make sure that those people earned credit for their service of saving lives and buildings. And so with that, I think I'll just close and say again, I'm very, very sorry, and we just don't think this is the right solution to try to prevent things like this from happening again. Thank you.

Any other comments or questions? Seeing none. Mr. Hoover.

Okay, thank you.

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

Sorry, I cut off opposition.

Esteban Nuñez on behalf of the Anti Recidivism Coalition and opposition.

You may begin now, Mr. Hoover.

Thank you. Thank you. Again, I just want to reiterate that our goal with this bill, and we're open to continue working on it, as well, with the opposition, if there's another path here. There were many options that we were considering when we were looking at how we could put together legislation that would pass this Committee that would not tread on your priorities, Mr. Chair.

We wrote this in a very specific way, and we're very open to continuing to work on Ryla's Law to make it, to fix any problems that are there. But we do believe very strongly that it is not okay for the person that committed this crime to have access to the credits in this specific program. Any individual in this situation would still be eligible to earn standard early release credits. This does not affect that in any way.

It only impacts the specific credits earned in the fire program. And so that is why we kept it very specific to that program. I strongly urge your aye vote, and if there's any path forward here, we would certainly appreciate any suggestions as well. Thank you.

And thank you. You have a first and a second. And I, too, want to obviously offer our condolences. But also, as a father and a grandfather, I know that what you just did was extremely difficult. I don't know if I were sitting in the same place, if I could come before this Committee and have the bravery and the strength to bear your soul to everybody. It's not easy.

You're a better man than I am, and I commend you for coming here today and opening our eyes to what has happened. I'm going to abstain, so I'm not going to vote no. And then if it doesn't make it out, we can continue the conversation, mainly because I want to figure out a way to ease your pain.

Thank you so much. Thank you. You don't know how much that means to me. Thank you.

On AB 1746 by Assembly Member Hoover, the motion is do pass to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

Measure didn't pass, but...

Would appreciate reconsideration if possible. Thank you.

There's no objection.

Thank you.

Done by unanimous consent.

Thank you.

And again, thank you for being here today.

Thank you for keeping Ryla's Law and hopefully we can make sure this is a staple and figure out a way. Thank you.

Thank you. It is now 5 minutes to 12, and I know it's going to be a long one, so I'm going to have us recess and come back at 1:30pm in Room 127, which is right across the hall. She tells me what to say. I still need a gavel.

Thank you for coming back. We're going to reconvene the Assembly Committee on Public Safety. I had Mr. Maienschein, then Mr. Gabriel, and we have an author. Ms. Schiavo, can you come up? Did we provide you a chair, or did we turn the chairs the wrong way?

I don't know. There's something going on.

Yeah. Something's going on.

Thank you. Do this here. So thank you so much. I really am grateful for the opportunity to present AB 1133 to you today and really appreciate the Committee's staff work.

We are happy to accept the amendments. AB 1133 will establish a statewide curriculum for concealed carry weapons permits for the applicants. And this will improve and equalize standards to make our communities safer. You know the Supreme Court decision that happened last year has increased the demand for concealed carry weapons permits. And so there's a real need for us to standardize the training that is surrounding concealed carry.

And when Mr. Grossman brought forward this Bill idea to our office, who's a former police officer himself, and concealed carry trainer, I was really surprised to hear that there was no standard in California when it comes to really what is included in the training for concealed carry weapons. We know that some of these trainings end up being getting coffee and having some pancakes and someone signing off on your permit, and that's how some people get permits renewed or even permits in the first place right now.

And so we want to make sure that we're bringing forward something that will be a consistent policy and standard so that everyone is trained on both the laws, safe handling, and actually have training shooting a gun and know how to use a gun as well if they're going to be having a really serious permit like this. There's over 121,000 Californians that have concealed carry weapons permits, and it's growing. And an improperly taught permit holder can cause injury or even death.

We know that less guns on the streets are the solution, however, for those who do obtain a permit to carry that the state must ensure that we have properly trained individuals. AB 1133 directs the Department of Justice to develop a standardized curriculum and make standards free and easy to access. The Bill sets a bar for the same for all and ensures proper training regardless of where someone lives in California.

And as I mentioned, joining me today is firearms instructor and author of Concealed Carry Weapons in California, a book that he created because nothing exists, and former law enforcement officer Robert Grossman, who's also here to testify.

Okay, whenever you're ready. You have five minutes.

Yes, sir. Thank you. So, my name is Robert Grossman. I'm a firearms instructor past law enforcement, Top Gun, that means nothing except bragging rights, and author of this book. The Bill, AB 1133, does not impose anything that's really controversial or new.

Barbers, boaters, beauticians, real estate agents, contractors, even people who want to drive a car have to take a state-mandated curriculum and pass a state-mandated exam. So this is nothing new. And many other states include this. This Bill does not impose any restrictions on firearm ownership. There's already a law in California that says you have to take a class. AB 1133 says you actually have to learn something in the class.

Currently, there is no standard statewide exam of any kind, and there is no standardized curriculum of any kind. A CCW permittee may have taken a class in, say, Modoc County where they learned absolutely nothing, and then they're free to carry their firearm anywhere they want to, in L.A. Parks, playgrounds, anywhere they want to, really, without any training. You can see I've shared with you one of my pre-instruction surveys that I give to applicants when they come to my class.

If they're renewal applicants, I give them the survey to see if they've actually learned anything so we don't have to waste time on stuff they already know. This is very typical of what I see, where they get everything wrong. In other words, they don't know any basics at all that have been given to them by other instructors. So my class takes quite a long time.

California right now is unwittingly incentivizing instructors to offer easy classes, because offering easy classes is a great way to attract paying customers. And right now, California is also incentivizing applicants to look for those easy instructors because that offers the easiest pathway to get one of these coveted certificates of completion. Some instructor's classes, my old instructor's class, for example, consisted of nothing more than going out and having coffee.

I've given you a copy of my core syllabus, which is much better than just having coffee, but it just covers the basics. Right now, the basics are not covered, and there's a reason for that. For instructors, assembling information that is evidence-based, that is verifiable, is super difficult, hard to assemble, time-consuming. They're not going to do the work. The instructors now get their information from the Internet, YouTube videos, inflated claims by manufacturers.

Those types of unreliable sources. Subjects that are not commonly taught in these classes, but I feel should be, include how to interface with law enforcement. When is shooting justifiable? What types of cartridges are inappropriate for self-defense? Why certain firearms are problematic for self-defense? When are firearms not the best option for self-defense? And many other critical subjects that instructors and applicants right now might find unpalatable. So they're not teaching that. I should really have not had to write this book.

I really shouldn't have had it. I should have been able to go to a California State website, ccw.ca.gov, or something like that, and download a PDF with all of the pertinent information that anybody who carries a gun in public should know. But that doesn't exist. I do have an endorsement from the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department. That's awesome. They're the biggest Department in the United States.

I've given you also a map that shows you what other states are up to as far as requiring curricula, and that's all I've got for you.

Thank you, sir. Are there any other witnesses in support? Any witnesses in support? Any witnesses in opposition? We can move a chair around. We move a chair around on that side.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members Cory Salzillo on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association, in opposition to the Bill.

With respect to the author, we think this is a solution in search of a problem. The discussion thus far has seemed to indicate that there's inadequate training or maybe even a lack of training. The existing law sets forth minimum lengths for the courses, requires courses to include, and I'm reading from the statute, instruction on firearm safety, firearm handling, shooting technique, and laws regarding the permissible use of a firearm.

All things identified by the author as worthy of training, which they are, and they're identified in the statute. The law requires the course to include live fire shooting exercises on a firing range, a demonstration of safe handling of the firearm, shooting proficiency with each firearm that the person is going to be licensed to carry.

The law also requires licensing authority, the Police Chief, or the sheriff to establish and make available to the public the standards it uses when issuing licenses in regards to the live fire shooting exercises, including the minimum number of rounds that are fired, the minimum passing scores from specified firing distances.

In the end, the sheriff or the licensing authority has to put his or her name on the license, and they're going to be cognizant of what training is provided and the expertise and the ability of a person to safely handle a firearm and to be aware of the laws and the propriety of what they are and are not doing. We've not been made aware of any issues that necessitate this Bill. There's a fairly standard set of criteria.

We're not familiar with any indication that the existing training is resulting in poorly trained licensees, or that there have been incidents from people who are ill-trained who are carrying CCWs. In some of the supporting materials. The proponents point to the terrible mass shootings that we've seen as a reason to support this Bill. But we're forced to ask, likely rhetorically, which mass shooting was perpetrated by a CCW holder or a CCW holder with insufficient training.

We believe this Bill is overly burdensome towards little discernible benefit that creates costs and workload for DOJ for which they're unlikely to be funded. For those reasons, we ask for your No vote. Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, Members of the Committee. For the record, Dan Reed, Western Regional Director of the National Rifle Association. I'm also here for Gun Owners of California and California Rifle and Pistol. Today I'll echo the sentiments of Mr. Salzillo. I think he said it quite eloquently.

We think this is a solution in search of a problem. We have not identified any problems with training when it comes to CCW holders in the state, and we're concerned that, given, if there is a statewide exam required, how this could be utilized. The Bill is very vague as to the content and how that could be discriminatory towards someone who might have challenges taking tests, et cetera, with the durations between testing availability, et cetera.

But again, you don't see law enforcement up here saying that we have a problem with concealed carrier permit holders in this state, and with that, we're in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else in opposition to the Bill? Anyone else in opposition? We'll bring it back to the Committee Members for any questions or comments.

I did have a question and it goes back to your guys', too. Was there an issue? I'm sorry I came in late, so I got to miss the beginning of this, but was there something that made this be a standardized thing across the state?

Yes. So I'm not sure if you heard the testimony from my colleague here, but he basically said that he goes in. We had a conversation right before the hearing, and we're talking about the issue that currently exists.

He'll go in to renew his permit and have coffee with someone and chat with his trainer for a little bit, and then the trainer just signs off on his permit. He also shared, and I don't know if this got passed around. I think my staff may have had these and didn't make it back for the hearing, but this is a test that he does when people come to him for training, and it's basic information asking if they know any of the information.

The X's indicate they got it wrong. Correct? They got like everything wrong. And he said this is normal for people who come to him who already have a permit and are coming to renew their permit. So I don't think that a lot of people are going to be coming forward saying, we don't know enough to carry this gun that we have. I don't think that people are going to offer that information.

But you can't, with all due respect to the opposition, you can't say that we're already doing this, and then we oppose you for wanting to do this. If you're already doing it, then cool, everybody's fine, and it's not a big deal.

But if we are not already doing this in a whole bunch of areas in the state, as is mentioned here today, and one of the big differences is that while there are things laid out in the current law that say you should train so long on this and you should cover these things, there is no test. There's no actual check to see if people learned any information, absorbed any information, or got the information that they were supposed to have.

And so I think one of the big differences that this does is it actually has a test to show and verify that they actually got the training they were supposed to get instead of coffee and pancakes.

Copy. And, sir, are you an instructor?

I am, yes.

And this is your guys' test?

Well, I came up with that test, so it was to avoid wasting time with renewal applicants. If they already knew stuff, I didn't have to cover it. I only have 4 hours to get information out.

The problem, as you can see, that applicant after applicant comes to me from other instructors, and they haven't learned even the basics. When I approached my sheriff, Shannon Moon, with this, the attitude of the Nevada County Sheriff's Office, and this might explain your position, is that, hey, as long as CCW instructors are obeying the law, which means they have their ticket from the NRA by taking NRA classes. And as long as they're touching on these three or four subjects mentioned, we're good.

We don't care, we stay out of it. So I think that really explains why a lot of applicants are not getting information, because instructors are not forced to give out that information and there's no checks and balances on them at all.

Got you. And so this is like, as it says, a pre-instructionary survey is what this is, isn't it? This is just you trying to.

He also wrote a whole book on how to train on this because there was nothing existing.

So that's just to check if people are coming to renew their permit. Correct. Where they're supposed to already have a basic understanding and have gone through a training to get their initial permit, and they're getting everything wrong.

Okay. And, Mr. Chair, I'm sorry, I'm going a little in-depth on this, but, sir, what's your background?

So, past law enforcement, I worked at Reno PD, Washoe County Sheriff's Office, and Truckee PD. Top Gun, as I mentioned before. And, yeah, brag rights, right?

And I became an instructor when my instructor would just sit down, share a cup of coffee with me, and tell old Korean War stories. And that was my class. I'd get out of the class and say, I don't know the first thing about CCW, and here I am carrying this thing around. So that's when I started writing the book.

Got you. I'm just looking at one question right now. Are these cartridges appropriate for CCW? Question mark. And you put nine millimeter, 357, 10 millimeter, 40 caliber. Why or why not? Is there something in the law that says that? Because I could tell you right now, my colleagues and I may have different answers for that.

Sure, sure. And a lot of what should be taught would not be necessarily codified in statute. The reason for that is there's not a whole lot of information out there for sheriff's associations to make recommendations. So, for example, I asked this question because, .357 Magnum, 10 millimeter, .44 Magnum, dirty, hairy guns, they will.

And you can back me up on this. Those rounds have a tendency to over-penetrate. And CCW, as I teach in my class, is about energy management. How much energy are you carrying in your cartridge, and how does that energy stop an attacker? So you don't need to carry a bazooka, because that's too much energy and you're going to be endangering the public. So I want my applicants to understand that there's some real liability if you want to carry around a .40 caliber or a 10 millimeter.

That has real consequences. And instructors tend to shy away from that because they don't want to lose clients. I get people into my class, they want to carry a 10 millimeter, appendix style, because that's cool. Now, I want nothing to do with that. And I want them to know that, hey, there's some liability with this. That's not going to be codified in the CPC or the CVC.

And I get what you're going on, that. But then you can also change the bullet that they're carrying also. They could do, like, a hollow point, or you could carry a different kind of ammo that doesn't do that.

Absolutely. And hollow points, for example, my recommendation is that hollow points are better for self-defense because they contain the energy in the attacker. They're less likely to over-penetrate.

But they could still be the same caliber that you're just.

They can still be in the same caliber.

Because I know that I can go on a plane, which I've done many times, and carry a different bullet on there for the assignment that I was there for. I just change it out. So I could still use the same caliber. I just changed the bullet that I'm carrying. So I don't know if that's in-depth on here also, but I could teach a whole class on that if you guys want on that but.

We don't have time.

Yeah, but we only have so much time. So just one other thing. Was there something also about online classes on this?

Well, originally, when COVID broke out, I contacted. I'm certified to teach in seven counties and most of the sheriffs were in agreement that I could teach Zoom classes during the height of COVID. But as soon as COVID calmed down, the sheriff's offices all contacted me requesting that I resume person-to-person classes.

Okay, is that for, like, because they got to turn in their IDs and show who they are, prove that they are?

Yeah, right, exactly. I look at their driver's license to make sure they say they are who they say they are. And I also write down their make, model, and serial numbers of their firearms because those have to match what's on their applications.

Okay. Thank you, Chair.

Anyone else? You may close.

Just respectfully ask for your Aye vote. Thank you so much.

Okay. And I think I didn't ask any questions because I probably learned more about bullets than I ever want in my entire life. But the concept of having one regulatory document or agency or training, I think is important, because maybe what Sheriff Jim Cooper may approve and what Sheriff Luna in Los Angeles, Sacramento, may be widely different, and we probably need to have some consistency. And I think that's what you're trying to get to. Either one is.

Even the opponents, hopefully, are not trying to have it where we don't have some kind of consistency. The great thing about CCW, which I've said in this Committee, you're absolutely right, Mr. Salzillo. We've been lucky in California, or we've been fortunate or whatever our regulations. We have not had a CCW incident as of today.

Hopefully, I don't jinx it and something happens tomorrow. I'm going to recommend we approve it, because I think if we add more to it, we can make sure that our record stays spotless. Because when it comes to CCWs, I don't know what we're doing right, but we're doing something right. Okay. Is there a motion? Second. Call the roll.

On AB 1133 by semi Member Schiavo. The motion is do pass as amended to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll call].

That measure is on call. Need one more. Mr. Maienschein. There you go. AB 1214. Maienschein, court remote technology. And you don't have to tell us about bullets or anything. Just.

No, No. Yeah, I'll tell you about my book later.

Whenever you're ready.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members.

Assembly Bill 1214 provides a two-year sunset extension on remote adult criminal court proceedings and puts in place additional safeguards that protect the accused and preserve the integrity of the court. During the COVID-19 pandemic, trial courts had no option but to Institute remote proceedings in order to process cases. While remote proceedings proved beneficial to the operation of the courts, the experience showed that without meaningful safeguards, remote technology can compromise California's justice system.

AB 1214 incorporates lessons learned over the last three years by establishing thoughtful procedural and technological guidelines for the use of remote technology. The Bill prohibits the use of remote technology in jury trials, but would allow defendants to appear remotely, if they so choose, for noncritical portions of the trial where no testimony is being taken.

If the defendant chooses to be present in the courtroom, the Bill requires counsel, the prosecution, and the judge to be present as well. To ensure the integrity of the judicial system and accuracy of court records, the Bill prohibits the use of remote proceedings if there are technological deficiencies. AB 1214 is a measured approach to extend remote criminal court proceedings. I respectfully request your Aye vote. With me today to testify in support are Margo George, on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association, and Sandra Barreiro with SEIU.

Whenever you're ready.

Thank you. Oh, sorry. Margo George, for the California Public Defenders Association, proudly in support of AB 1214. We found that remote proceedings can be beneficial for criminal proceedings, but only if the appropriate guardrails are in place to protect the constitutional rights of the accused and the integrity of the criminal justice system. AB 1214, we believe, provides those guardrails. The problem is, as we learned during the last three years with remote proceedings, is that without those guardrails, remote proceedings degrade our criminal justice system and exacerbate inequality.

These were some of the problems with remote proceedings. Defendants were denied their right to appear in person. In a capital case in Los Angeles, the judge denied the defendant and his counsel's demand that the defendant be brought to court. The lack of adequate technology exacerbated existing economic and racial disparities and denied justice. A minor was sanctioned by the court officer, who assumed that the minor's technical remote difficulties were a sign of disrespect for the court.

Witnesses in Los Angeles County and elsewhere testified from their cars or other inappropriate locations make it impossible to adequately cross-examine and confront the witnesses. In Contra Costa County and elsewhere, hackers infiltrated the remote proceedings in the chat, masqueraded as lawyers or court employees demanding money from the clients in the midst of hearings. When court reporters said that they could not transcribe accurately the remote proceedings, they were ignored or even worse, faced retaliation. We believe that AB 1214 provides those guardrails.

It preserves the right of the accused to be present by requiring their consent if there's a remote proceeding. It preserves the constitutional right to cross-examine and confront the witnesses in person by prohibiting remote trials or evidentiary proceedings. It preserves the right to appeal by preventing any remote proceedings if the technology is inadequate for the court reporter to accurately transcribe the proceedings. AB 1214 appropriately recognizes that our judicial system is about fundamental fairness and that we cannot sacrifice due process for judicial convenience. So we respectfully ask for your support. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. Sandra Barreiro on behalf of SEIU California. I want to thank Assembly Member Maienschein for authoring this Bill, which is a priority for our members. We represent court employees in 32 counties across the state, and they have all reported serious, ongoing concerns with existing remote procedures.

Even if you haven't participated in a remote criminal proceeding, we are all familiar with the technological limitations of remote: poor Internet connections, microphone issues, distractions, et cetera. During a criminal proceeding, these interruptions jeopardize the ability of a court reporter to maintain an accurate, verbatim record, which is integral to our justice system. But we also know that remote offers some benefits to victims and the accused.

So this Bill, AB 1214, establishes thoughtful guidelines based on what we've learned over the past three years to make sure that victims, the accused, and the integrity of our justice system is preserved. I respectfully request an Aye vote. Thank you.

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

Thank you. Mitch Steiger with the California Labor Federation, also in support.

Thank you.

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

Mr. Chair and Members, Pat Moran, Aaron Read and Associates, representing the Orange County Employees Association, who represent the court employees in the County of Orange, in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Apologies. Forgot to add the other organization, AFSCME, from California, also in support.

Thank you. Are there any witnesses in opposition?

If they need another chair.

You want this chair?

I'm happy to do whatever works.

You may begin. Got 5 minutes both together.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. On behalf of the Judicial Council, Judge Lisa Rodriguez, San Diego Superior Court and Vice Chair of the Judicial Council's Criminal Law Advisory Committee, in respectful opposition to AB 1214. The council is seeking amendments that would align AB 1214 with the existing law for criminal remote proceedings as enacted last year by AB 199.

The Council appreciates the author's intention to extend authority beyond January 1, 2024, but is concerned that, as currently drafted, AB 1214 would greatly limit the ability of all the justice partners to use the remote option, even modifying remote processes that have been available for decades.

Included among the Council's serious concerns are first, the option for remote appearance for out-of-custody defendants is unclear, and moreover, as drafted, the Bill would curtail the use of remote appearances by both in and out-of-custody defendants for almost all hearings. It also dramatically reduces the ability of prosecutors and defense counsel to use remote technology and injects uncertainty into when they would be required to be present.

The overly broad and vague restrictions may disadvantage defendants, as the Bill prohibits the use of remote technology for any proceedings in which there is testimonial evidence, but does not define testimonial evidence. There is actually potential for almost any hearing to involve the taking of evidence. And if a hearing crosses into testimonial evidence, there is no guidance on how the court should address it and the potential impact on both due process and speedy trial rights.

The prohibition could extend to the entry of even change of pleas or resentencing if there is testimonial evidence at one of those hearings. The vague language could lead to the elimination of remote proceedings that have been permitted since 1998, an option that we know worked before the pandemic, an option that the pandemic necessitated expanding, and an option that has resulted in greater access to justice for the users of the criminal justice system. And people are not just using it, they like it.

The Council received data from 38 courts on the number of criminal remote proceedings and estimates that there were approximately 422,000 hearings in just one year. And in a survey conducted by the Judicial Council of more than 60,000 people, including parties, attorneys, and court employees, 96% of those who responded reported that they had a positive experience. Moreover, we're concerned about the bill's exclusion of witness testimony from remote proceedings, which we believe will disadvantage defendants and impact their access to justice.

For example, remote options allow for testimony from national experts to prove racial discrimination under the Racial Justice Act and this allows for greater access to experts who would not otherwise be available or who would be cost prohibitive to have them in person, and testimony of behavioral health experts who are notably in short supply that are necessary to the defendant's case, as well as needed to treat others in their care.

The remote option helps preserve access to justice for many Californians and vulnerable court users when they would otherwise lose time from work, school, and would incur travel and childcare and parking costs for short hearings. Additionally, the recent amendments conflict with longstanding statutory and constitutional language that allow particularly vulnerable victims and witnesses to appear remotely, including victims of sex crimes, victims that are 15 years or younger, victims with cognitive developmental disabilities, and witnesses who are ill.

We are concerned also about the mandated technology standards articulating the Bill, as technology is constantly changing. And there are multiple ways to ensure remote proceedings allow courts to meet appropriate standards for audio and visual participation. Together, we think we can focus on outcomes instead of requiring specific technology that may become obsolete. So, in closing, while we are currently opposed, the Judicial Council supports the ultimate goal of AB 1214, to extend authorization for remote criminal proceedings.

As the Council has seen the many benefits of giving defendants the option to participate remotely in criminal proceedings and want to work with the author on language to achieve that goal. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee. I'm Robert Brown. I'm an Assistant District Attorney from San Bernardino County and we share many of the concerns that the Judicial Council has expressed here. We respectfully must oppose the Bill because we believe that it unnecessarily constricts the use of remote testimony, that it creates an inequity in the system.

And there is some concern over a vagueness in the term itself of remote technology that has already existed in the statute. When it comes to constricting the system, both the United States Supreme Court and Maryland vs. Craig and California appellate courts and People vs. Powell have permitted the use and found it to be constitutional in the application of the criminal justice system. This Bill would narrow that use because it would not permit testimony at trial. I don't believe that is necessary.

I do think that the remote testimony is a laudable goal. We share many of the concerns about the confrontation clause aspects of it. We want to ensure that all of the defendant's criminal rights are insured during the process, and we want to do that in the correct way. We think that this Bill would create inequity in the sense that the prosecution does not play a role in the use of remote technology.

The defense has a say the court has a say, the prosecution, and more importantly, the victims do not. And that is our greatest concern. My concern about the vagueness of the term is remote technology itself. From what I can tell, there is no definition of that term. And I think that is a concern when we want to preserve the confrontation rights of the defendants. Thank you very much. I appreciate it.

Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. We'll bring it back to Committee for questions or concerns? Ms. Bonta.

Just wanted. Thanks the author to perhaps address the issue of witness testimony not being able to happen remotely, particularly in the opposition's assertion that particularly in the instance of people who have experienced kind of sexually violent crimes or assault or related to that, which I don't think that this legislation does. So please clarify.

Yeah, let me say I'll answer it two ways. First off, I think there's a number of issues we'll continue to work with judicial counsel on. We have been, I'm appreciative that they're supportive of the goals and the objectives of the Bill, but I don't believe that it does hinder those abilities that you've mentioned. I don't believe the Bill does that. We'll continue to sit down with them. If they point that out to us, that it does. I'm more than amenable to fix that.

That would not be the goal and objective of this Bill. So we'll continue to work with them on the language. If there's some vagueness in the language, we'll fix it.

Thank you. I'll move the Bill.

Second.

I was a little confused because it sounded like they both were arguing the same thing that you guys were for it. So coming from the courthouse, as a sergeant, I loved remote, less people coming into the courthouse that my deputies had to screen. We were able to get attorneys to attend a lot of the hearings, which it was hard to do to get an attorney into a room, which I guess it's kind of like getting Committee Members into a Committee as well.

So we have those same problems at the courthouse. I do like to hear that you guys are working with them, and I'm hoping you guys do continue and I hope you guys get on board as well. I'll be supporting this, but I will be watching it as far as we go when we go to the floor. But I do support the remote access. Let's use technology. We have it. Thank you.

Mr. Zbur.

I'll be supporting the Bill. I think it's a good one. Obviously, I know that these issues are complicated ones. But we're coming out of a period where we've learned a lot about both the benefits but also, I think, the cost of remote proceedings and meetings. I've always felt that when you're dealing with difficult issues, that nothing replaces face-to-face engagement.

And I think the bill's authors and the sponsors are actually trying to find the right balance of when you actually need to have things happening in the courtroom with testimony present. And I know this is complicated, but I trust the author has the right, and the sponsors as well as the opposition, I think have the right goals. And so I just encourage you to work more to try to move this forward. But I do think we need standards.

I worry a little bit that we're moving to a world where everything becomes, it becomes so easy for us to do things in a remote way that we lose really the importance of face-to-face, in-person engagement. And I know that that's at least part of what this Bill is intended to do. So thank you.

Thank you. Any other questions? You may close.