Senate Standing Committee on Public Safety

All right, the Senate Committee on Public Safety will come to order, but we will begin as a Subcommitee. We welcome the public in person and via the Teleconference Service for individuals wishing to provide public comment. Today's participant number is 877-226-8163 and the access code is 1618051. We're holding our Committee hearings here in Room 2200 and O Street building. I ask that all Members of the Committee be present in this room so we can establish a quorum and begin our hearing today.

We do have 22 bills on today's agenda. Six are on consent, but because we have a full agenda, we are limiting the time on calls to 10 minutes before we hear presentations, I guess. No, we'll actually begin. All right, our first presenter will be Assemblymember Alanis, who's presenting for Assemblymember Sanchez. AB 89, if you please step there, and we will begin. Thank you. The floor is yours.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning, everyone. Today I'm presenting AB 89 on behalf of Assembly Member Kate Sanchez. AB 89 is an important measure that will require a District Attorney's office to notify crime victims and their family Members if they will not be sending a representative to attend a parole hearing. It is a typical practice for the District Attorney's office to send a representative to appear to a parole hearing and demonstrate to the board whether an inmate is unsuitable for release.

The representative can highlight the seriousness of the inmate's crimes and rebut any misleading arguments made by the inmate or the inmate's attorney about the circumstances of the crime. Some district attorneys have decided to stop sending deputies to parole hearings without notifying crime victims. This has unfortunately left many crime victims or their next of kin to have to fend for themselves in a complex legal system.

AB 89 offers these crime victims a needed source of support by requiring a District Attorney's office to notify victims and their family Members if they will not be sending a representative to a parole hearing. This notice requirement is crucial for ensuring crime victims and their families have adequate time to prepare for these crimes or for these parole hearings should a representative from a District Attorney's office not attend. I respectfully urge your support for this measure so that crime victims can adequately prepare for future parole hearings.

That's all I have for you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Do you have any witnesses?

We don't have any witnesses.

All right, we'll move on. To any individuals looking to support, please state your name, your organization and that you support

Shoshana Worley, Deputy District Attorney for Napa County, on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association in support. Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Brandon F. On behalf of the Los Angeles County Sheriff, in support.

Thank you. All right, we'll move on to opposition witnesses seeing none. We'll move on to those that are willing to testify via teleconference. Moderator, would you please prompt the first individual?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Ladies and gentlemen, the phone lines. If you are in support or opposition to AB 89, please go ahead and press 1 - 0 at this time. One followed by zero and no participants are queuing up.

All right, thank you. We will move on to Members from the Committee seeing no questions. Would you like to close?

Thank you, Madam Chair. AB 80 Nine's reasonable notification requirement will improve the ability of crime victims and their family Members to prepare and participate in parole hearing process. I respectfully ask for your aye vote on this measure.

Thank you. Thank you. We'll take a motion once we get quorum. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

All right, moving on to, let's say, Assemblymember Pacheco Presenting AB 695. Sorry.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Today I present Assembly Bill 695. AB 695 would create the Juvenile Detention Facilities Improvement Grant Program. The Los Angeles County Probation Department's Juvenile detention facilities are badly outdated and in need of critical renovations, with almost all of its physical plants insignificant dilapidation. Los Angeles Probation Department is staffed by thousands of dedicated public servants who have committed their professional lives to achieving successful outcomes for the youth they serve.

However, with independent reports dating back 10 years outlining the critical need for major infrastructure improvements and current research forming the basis of a true traumainformed care model, it is well past the time to make substantial renovations in their current state LA probation facilities are not adequate to meet the basic state light state law requirement of a homelike environment, much less meet the current carefirst intensive rehabilitation model that juvenile justice requires.

It is our responsibility to ensure that every possible effort is made to provide a positive outcome for youth that have been remanded to the care of our probation Department, this measure exposes an honest and blunt truth. The tools and facilities are hindering our ability to provide the care these kids deserve. With me today in support of Assembly Bill 685 is Jonathan Bird, Second Vice President, American Federation of State, county and Municipal Employees, Deputy Probation Officers.

Thank you. We'll establish quorum. Before we go to the lead witness, would we roll call, Tara. Woah. Hobb. Hi. Or here. Sorry.

Jobo. Bradford. Bradford? Here. Skinner. Here. Skinner. Here. Wiener.

All right. We've established quorum, your first witness please approach the mic. You will have two minutes.

Two minutes. Thank you. Thank you. Chair Wahab and Senate Public Safety Committee. My name is Jonathan Bird. I'm a juvenile probation officer for over 31 years in Los Angeles County. This Bill, AB 695, is a Bill that will allow for first class counties to have improvements in infrastructure. It will allow for dedication to oversight by the OICR or the BSEC, which oneever is used to oversee juveniles in the State of California. What it will not do is support or Fund operations such as staffing.

This Bill is definitely for the infrastructure only, not to be used for programming, staffing, training, things of that sort, which is left up to the counties. What it does do is provide therapeutic care, care, first facility, and a homelight environment for the youth that are in the custody of California. It will provide them with facilities that will provide vocational skills training centers, technology centers, theater theatrics. Staging.

It will also allow for community based organizations to have a place to come in and provide special services that might be needed outside of the normal programming that is done in probation. We don't think anyone should really be opposing the fact that we are trying to do something for youth that is reformative. It's a different scenario. In old times, we would talk about prison like facilities.

This will give us the ability to make it look more like they're being held accountable, but also being supported in trying to habilitate or rehabilitate them back into the community. I would ask that the Senate Public Safety Committee support this Bill while it will bring much needed services to the youth that are in California. Thank you.

Thank you. Do you have any other witnesses?

No other witnesses.

All right. Do we have. Excuse me.

No. No other witnesses.

If we have any other witnesses in support, please state your name, your organization, and that you support seeing none. We'll move on to opposition witnesses. You have two minutes. Yeah.

Hi, my name is Milinda Kakani. I'm the Director of Youth justice at Children's Defense Fund California. I'm also Supervisor Holly Mitchell's appointee to the Probation Oversight Commission, wherein I have unrestricted access to juvenile facilities. But my testimony in opposition to AB 695 today is in my position as Director of Youth Justice.

I want to start by saying that support of AB 695 is rooted in one of two things, woefully inadequate analysis of the implications of this Bill or A decision to prioritize politics over the lives of young people. Let's start with the comments. One need for this Bill. The author asserts that AB 695 will ensure that our justice involved youth have the tools needed for their rehabilitation. Wrong. Prettier carceral facilities do not result in prettier outcomes.

Prettier carceral facilities do not create tools for rehabilitation. That's a who question, not a what question. And let me tell you who does that. Every single organization listed as opposing this Bill, those are the folks on the ground working with young folks, supporting their healing. If the state has money to spare, give it to them. Not facilities that LA County seeks to shut down in the next five years in accordance with their unanimous vote for Youth justice reimagined two LA County juvenile halls.

All of the rhetoric around the State of Central Juvenile hall and Barry J are irrelevant because those facilities are closing on July 23, and much of the information included is from 2013. If you want accurate data, here's some $53 million for homelike facilities has already been allocated for our current juvenile halls and camps. Another $28.8 million was allocated just last month for facility improvements. And I'll get to the other hundreds of $1.0 million LA County already has in a moment.

The point is, don't waste our limited government resources on LA's facilities. We have enough juvenile justice facilities requirements. That's number four. Let's talk about that now that central and Barry J. Are closing and Los Padrinos has had staff working day in, day out to meet facilities requirements. I was there last week. I can personally attest to this. It's the other BSCC violations we should be more concerned about, the ones that AB 695 totally ignores.

Those violations include staffing, safety checks, room confinement, searches, education programs, recreation, visitation and discipline time. Thank you. I urge you to vote no on AB 695. It's a distraction. It's not the solution.

Appreciate it. Any other opposition witnesses, please come forward. Name opposition and organization.

Good morning.

Carmen Nicole Cox, on behalf of ACLU. California action in respectful opposition to the Bill.

Thank you. We have anybody else seeing? None. Moderator please prompt the first individual via teleconference.

Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, the phone lines. If you are in support or opposition. I believe we're on AB. Is it AB 695?

Yes.

Thank you. Please go ahead. And one followed by zero at this time. One followed by zero. And we will begin with line 10. Please go ahead.

Morning care Members Janice O'Malley with ask me in support. Thank you. We'll give another reminder if you are in support of opposition to AB 695. Go ahead. One followed by zero at this time. And line 26, you are open. Good morning, Madam Chair Members. Of the Committee. Joe Shakaranik, State Building Trades and support. Thank you, Madam Chair. We cleared the queue.

Thank you. We'll move the conversation to Members of the Committee. Senator Bradford.

Thank you. I just need a little bit clarity. If these facilities are scheduled to close, what's the need for improvement?

Well, actually, I'm glad you asked that question. One of the facilities is actually going to reopen. So the Los Padrinos detention facility, which is located in the City of Downey, closed a couple of years ago. But I have spoken with Supervisor Janice Hahn and her staff, and they have informed me that that facility is going to reopen. And so we do need to dedicate this funding so that way we can improve these facilities, which are in dire need.

So if those facilities or that particular facility is going to open. Yeah. I would not be opposed to the monetization and improvement. So is that simply for Los Pedrinos and no other facility?

It would be for other facilities as well. And I can also have my witnesses come up and testify further.

Can you describe some of those improvements that the facility would experience?

Yes. Basic structure of the facilities are some of them over 80 years old. It's a prison like facility. No wonders that you can look out, no aesthetics that presents the environmental atmosphere that you need for carefree type facilities. Also, most of the facilities do not have vocational centers where you can allow for training, such as automotive or theatrics. But also, there was some incorrect information that was being said about the closing of the facilities.

Barry J, which is. Barry J Juvenile hall, is not being closed. It's being reconditioned for the SYTF, which is formerly known as DJJ, from the state, which the state has sent to the counties. So that facility needs restructuring, just so it can meet that clientele that's coming in. The clientele that's permanently there, is going to Los Pedrinos. And then central Juvenile hall is being repositioned as an intake unit to decide whether a youth will be committed or not. So the facilities are not necessarily closing.

Two of them will be in full force. One will be remodeled or reconditioned. So I want to make that correction. And again, the DJJ, which is closing at the state level, as of June 30 of this year, all of those mountaineers will be going to the Barry J system. So we have a change in it. Also, there's not current medical facilities necessary to give real time treatment to the youth, just in case they have issues you have to contract out with them.

The infrastructure will provide, will provide for that, if the Bill is supported, it would also, in the Bill, be overseen by the OICR, which will determine after a plan is presented to them, whether it has all the necessary things necessary to enhance programming through therapeutics and care first in the probation Department. Thank you. So let me be clear. The dollars would be used for rehabbing, but not expansion of beds. It will not increase the capacity.

It is only used to provide the necessary treatments through spacing, infrastructure, static improvements to the facility. Exactly. Capital improvements. Thank you.

Any further questions? Senator Skinner?

Thank you. I'm not sure. Well, I think I would be staying off this Bill today because as budget chair, I'm aware of what appropriations we have given to support the change we've made in the closure of DJJ and in the giving the counties not more responsibility, but basically additional youth, but also a change in the whole in putting our youth within our Health and Human Services Department versus under a correctional Department. Now, probation clearly will continue and still does have a very important role.

And, in fact, in last year's state budget, we provided 100 million to county probation departments to renovate, repair, and improve county juvenile facilities. So we did appropriate quite a significant amount. We also created, in the year that we started the whole process of closure of DJJ, we created a grant program. Basically, it's a youth programs and facilities grant program for similar purposes as this.

And given that we are in a budget shortfall right now, and as far as I know, this particular appropriation is not in the budget, I would be uncomfortable passing it at this point. So just wanted to explain that and also cite those things that are documented in our analysis.

Thank you. Any other, Senator Ochoabogh.

So now with accountability. Thank you for sharing that through the chair. Thank you for sharing that. Senator Skinner, I'm kind of curious, has those monies that were allocated last year through the budget, as mentioned by my colleague from Berkeley, have they reached the counties? Are these funds available?

I cannot speak to that. That's at a higher level. I'm in the probation Department, but not in the oversight in terms of the Board of Supervisors. I will say, though, in this Bill, the OICR and the county has to agree on certain things, so there'll be a better monitoring of the funds as they're being sent to the county levels. And so we would hope that this Bill will have the oversight to make sure that the funds that are sent for infrastructure will be used for infrastructure.

All right, thank you.

Seeing no further questions. Assembly Member, would you like to close?

Yes. Thank you again, all for this opportunity to present my Bill. This Bill would be to improve the infrastructures of the juvenile detention facilities. It is for the youth. This Bill has been supported by three of the Board of Supervisors out of the five. And so I am hoping that you support my Bill to help our youth. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Do we have a motion?

Out of courtesy? I will be more than happy to.

All right. Senator Ochoa - bogh has made the motion. Motion is do passed to appropriations. Wahab, Ochoa - bogh, Bradford, Skinner, Wiener. That Bill will be on call. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you.

We will now be moving on to just.

We'll have Assemblymember Jackson come and present AB 994.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, Committee Members. It's my pleasure to introduce AB 994, which is an LGBTQ caucus priority, which is about providing the right balance to ensure that everyone is safe and that justice and privacy is upheld. This Bill will require that sheriff and police departments do not post booking photos or mugshots of individuals when arrested or suspension of committing a nonviolent crime unless the individual subject is deemed an imminent risk to others or the public.

A judge orders the release of the individual's image based on the articulated law enforcement interest or there is an exigent circumstance that necessitates the dissemination of the individual's image due to an urgent and legitimate law enforcement interest. In the event of a booking photo is used, AB 994 would require the Police Department or sheriff's office to use the name and pronouns provided by the individual arrested.

Additionally, a Police Department or sheriff's office allows for other legal names or known aliases of the individual if using these names or aliases assist in locating or apprehending the individual and reduces or eliminates an imminent threat to an individual or to public safety. Lastly, AB 994 will now require that booking photos be taken down from social media after 14 days after being initially posted. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Do you have any witnesses?

I have no witnesses.

Okay, perfect. Can we get witnesses to support, name organization that you support?

Natasha Minsker, Prosecutors Alliance of California, in support.

Thank you.

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

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

Good morning. Teresa Roman with the San Francisco Public Defender's Office in strong support.

Good morning. Carmen-Nicole Cox, on behalf of ACLU Cal Action, in support.

Milinda Kakani, Children's Defense Fund California, in support.

John Lindsay-Poland, American Friends Service Committee, in support.

Seeing no other support witnesses, can we move on to those that are willing to testify in opposition?

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Cory Salzillo on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association, respectfully in opposition to the Bill. By requiring an agency that posts a booking photo to use the name given by the person, we have to post that name even if it's known to be false. So this is not a concern that's based on a person's ability to use their chosen name or pronouns, but rather the ability to clearly articulate who is shown in a photo.

And while the Bill, pursuant to recent amendments, allows an agency to include other legal names or aliases, it only does so, as the author said, if using the names or aliases will assist in locating or apprehending the individual or reducing or eliminating an imminent threat. So if neither of those conditions is satisfied, but we have a person who's being booked, and that person happens to be known to law enforcement, and they give a name that is known to be false, this Bill would still require us to post that information as the person's name, and it does not make an allowance to use the person's legal name.

Again, this is not a question of preferred name, and I know the author has preferred to avoiding the practice of dead naming, but this can be resolved, I believe. But heretofore, there have been no amendments that address this issue that even in the case where the name is known to be false, there's no provision in this Bill that would allow that to be remedied. So in the interest of transparency, we would ask for your no vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in opposition? Seeing none, we will move on to those waiting to testify via teleconference. Moderator, please prompt the first individual.

Thank you, Madam Chair. As she stated, if you are in support or opposition to AB 994, please press one followed by zero. One followed by zero. Line 28, please go ahead.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Ryan Sherman with the Riverside Sheriff's Association. In opposition. Also in opposition, representing the Claremont Police Officer Association and Police Officer Associations of Corona, Pomona, Palos Verdes, Newport Beach, County Deputy Sheriff's Association, the Upland POA, POA from Santa Ana, Burbank, Murrieta, Riverside, Arcadia, Nevada, Fullerton, and Culver City, all in opposition, as well as the Monterey County Deputy Sheriff and the California Reserve Officer Association. Thank you.

We have another reminder. One followed by zero. If you're in support or opposition to Assembly Bill 994. Please go ahead, line 16.

Hi, Yaddy with Oakland Privacy in support of AB 994. Thank you.

And Madam Chair, nobody else is in queue.

Thank you. We'll move the discussion to Committee Members. Seeing none, we'll ask you to close. Sorry, Senator Ochoa Bogh.

So, I appreciate the sensitivity of the Bill, and welcome to the Committee. I appreciate the concern with regards to the sensitivity of posting a picture of someone who has not yet been convicted. But I do appreciate the concern that has been expressed with regards to the abuse that could happen. And that's normally when I oppose certain bills, it's usually when I see loopholes that may circumvent the intent of the Bill. With regards to this particular Bill, the concern that I have is, as was mentioned in one of the comments here that I read, was that unless they have a legal official name change, people could say any name to deter someone from being identified by community members.

And that is, I think, a very valid concern. How would you respond to protecting the system so it's not abused by those who may want to deter from people recognizing? What I'm thinking about is, I'm trying to think of something that might have happened. I'm terrible at naming crimes here, but I think you get my gist.

No, absolutely, Senator, and I appreciate your concerns. I think, overall, we have had history here in California of law enforcement using the dead names of transgender individuals. And I believe that this Bill is very balanced in making sure that we balance people's own dignity and humanity. But at the same time, if there is a public interest in ensuring that an individual that poses a threat to the community is able to be apprehended and identified.

So this Bill ensures that if these names or aliases assist in locating or apprehending an individual or they pose an imminent threat, that, in fact, law enforcement can use those names, those legal names, in addition to. So we're not prohibiting law enforcement from using those names if it actually will make a difference at all. And so I think that we are now finding that and it's not uncommon for transgender individuals to use other names that they have decided for themselves but yet have gone through the legal process of doing so.

So we think that this is a balanced approach. Once again, there's a number of opportunities to ensure that law enforcement can use those legal names if it's necessary, but just because they want to, we believe, and the LGBTQ caucus believes, that's just simply not acceptable.

Thank you.

Thank you. Would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Do we have a motion? Senator Skinner moved.

Motion is due passed to judiciary. Wahab. Wahab, aye. Ochoa Bogh. Bradford. Skinner. Skinner, aye. Wiener. Will be on call.

Thank you.

Thank you. Assemblymember Quirk-Silva will be presenting AB 1187. Please approach. And the floor is yours. Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Please forgive me, I'm having this big attack of allergies this morning, so my eyes are, like, watering, but here we go. Assembly Bill 1187 is a crucial Bill allowing child victims of crime access to services from certified child life specialists under licensed providers. Adverse childhood experiences have lasting effects on individuals, including PTSD, violence patterns, chronic health problems, mental illness, and substance abuse.

Children who are survivors of abuse, neglect, family violence and loss deserve support from highly skilled and trained professionals like Certified Child Life Specialists, CCLS. These children and families are in dire need of grief interventions to lessen suffering, promote resilience, and mitigate the potential effects over their lifespan. Child life specialists offer trauma informed care and interventions, but are currently not recognized as authorized behavioral health providers by the California Victims Compensation Board.

Passing AB 1187 expands the much needed pool of behavioral health specialists available to provide essential services to these children and families. With me today to testify in support of AB 1187 and answer any questions you may have is Mr. Dan Felizzatto, Special Assistant District Attorney with the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office, the sponsor of this Bill.

You have two minutes.

Madam Chair, Members, my name is Dan Felizzatto, Special Assistant District Attorney from the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office, and we are proud to sponsor AB 1187. As the Assembly Member indicated, AB 1187 would allow a Certified Child Life Specialist working under the supervision of a licensed mental health provider to be reimbursed by the Victims of Crime program.

Law enforcement faces many challenges when responding to children who survive and/or witness family violence, child abuse, and neglect, or have had a family member die by homicide or suicide. These surviving children and families are at risk of both negative short and long term outcomes due to the trauma, fear, instability, interrupted attachment relationships, grief, and subsequent emotions that arise after witnessing and or otherwise being impacted by family violence.

These adverse childhood experiences are well documented and are linked to the negative outcomes that the Assembly Member indicated. They can also negatively impact educational attainment, job opportunities, and earning potential. However, these harms can be lessened through appropriate mental health counseling. Most mental health professionals are not specifically trained for the difficult conversations that arise and are necessary when supporting children and family members dealing with trauma and death.

Many mental health providers find it very difficult, uncomfortable, overwhelming, or at a loss for words or actions when dealing with children who have experienced violence based trauma. This is where a Certified Child Life Specialist can help. A Certified Child Life Specialist provides care and interventions that are family-centered, evidence-based, trauma-informed, and are developmentally and psychologically appropriate.

A certified child life specialist is equipped and experienced to respond to trauma cases and are well prepared to provide grief and crisis interventions for children and family members in the face of tragedy. Under current law, a Certified Child Life Specialist is not eligible for reimbursement from the Victims of Crime program. AB 1187 solves this problem by authorizing a Certified Child Life Specialist certified by the Association of Child Life Professionals who is working under the supervision of a licensed mental health provider to seek reimbursement-

Thank you. Appreciate it.

Do we have any other witnesses in support? Please state your name, your organization and that you support.

Natasha Minsker, Prosecutors Alliance of California, in support.

Seeing no other witnesses. Do we have any opposition witnesses? Seeing none. Will moderator, would you prompt the first individual willing to testify via teleconference?

Thank you. If you are in support of opposition, go ahead and hit 1 followed by 0 at this time. 1 followed by 0. And Madam Chair, nobody is queuing out.

Thank you. Committee Members, any questions, comments? Thoughts? Senator Skinner?

I want to express appreciation to the author for bringing forward the Bill, and I will move it.

Thank you. Senator Skinner made a motion. Could we have?

Thank you. Assembly Member, would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Motion is due pass to appropriations. [Roll call]

That Bill is on call. Thank you.

We have Assemblymember Ting who will be presenting AB 567 first.

Thank you, Madam Chair. AB 567 allows for automated relief for revoked probation, for misdemeanors and infractions. It allows the individual to request confirmation from the California DOJ that relief was granted. Current law allows automated relief for individuals with felonies with revoked probation. But there's a current gap in current law which this Bill covers. This Bill will fill the gap and allow automated relief for revoked probation for misdemeanors and infractions.

We have Ed Little from Californians for Safety and Justice here to say a few words.

Sir, you'll have two minutes.

Good morning, Chair and Senators. My name is Ed Little. I am the Government Affairs Manager for Californians for Safety and Justice. We are the sponsor of AB 567. In California, 8 million residents have criminal convictions on their records, hampering their ability to find work, housing, and secure public benefits, or even get admitted to college. Millions more have old arrests on their record that have never resulted in a conviction but remain obstacles to employment.

Criminal records are serious barriers to successful reentry and come at a cost of $20.8 billion annually to California's economy. Studies show that the lack of access to employment and housing are primary factors that drive individuals to reoffend. As a result, barriers to criminal record relief reduce the likelihood of successful reentry and harm public safety. Recognizing this, the Legislature passed two landmark record relief bills, AB 1076 and SB 731, in recent years.

These bills promote safety by opening doors to employment which will help people successfully reenter after incarceration. AB 1076, authored by Assemblymember Ting, was passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor in 2019. That Bill laid the foundation for the Department of Justice to automate partial relief for certain old records, most misdemeanors and infractions. AB 567 ensures that current law is being implemented as intended, as well as providing an individual with the ability to receive confirmation from the DOJ if their record was granted relief.

The historic record relief bills, including this one, will help Californians overcome some 4000 barriers to reentry as we impose on individuals after they finish their sentence, giving millions of Californians renewed hope and ultimately improving public safety. We respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

State your name, organization, that you support.

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

Teresa Roman with the San Francisco Public Defender's Office, in strong support.

Carmen-Nicole Cox, on behalf of ACLU Cal Action, in strong support.

Okay, seeing no other witnesses in support, do we have any opposition witnesses. Seeing none. Moderator, would you prompt the first individual via teleconference?

Thank you, Madam Chair. If you are in support or opposition to AB 567, please press 1, 0 at this time. One followed by zero. And nobody is queuing up.

Thank you, Assembly Member, for bringing the Bill. I move it. The East Bay Community Law center in my district works with people on this issue and has repeatedly, even though we've put many things in statute, has repeatedly confronted the inability to get people's records clear and those who were never even convicted, it's especially problematic. So appreciate the Bill and move it.

Thank you. Senators on the Committee, would you guys like to make a comment? Senator Skinner?

Thank you. Seeing no other comments, Assembly Member, would you like to close?

Just respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. We have a motion by Senator Skinner.

Motion is due pass to Appropriations. [Roll call]

That Bill is on call. Before we move on to your next Bill, can I get a motion for the consent calendar, moving items AB 97, AB 798, AB 857, AB 997, AB 1291, AB 1417. Moved by Senator Ochoa Bogh.

[Roll call]

Thank you. Assembly Member, would you like to present AB 881?

Yes, Madam Chair. AB 881 is a pilot program in five counties, Los Angeles, Kern, Alameda, San Francisco and Monterey. And we are increasing the jury pay for criminal cases to $100 for low to moderate income Californians, that's an increase from $15 to $100. Quite often we see way too many folks claim financial hardship because they can't afford to serve on a jury for $15 a day.

What we find is then when people are promised a jury of their peers, quite often they're not their peers, because for many folks in the criminal justice system, they are low to moderate income. And we don't see that reflected in the jury pool. This builds on a Bill that I did for San Francisco, AB 1452, which passed to allow San Francisco to pilot. And based on that one year, we saw much more diverse jury pool.

For example, based on the pilot, we had 63% of the jurors were people of color, and 81% of the jurors who got financial assistance said they would not have served on a jury without the financial assistance. So with that respectfully ask for your aye vote on AB 881. We have one witness, Anne Stuhldreher from San Francisco Financial Justice Project.

Thank you. You have two minutes.

Good morning. Thank you so much for this opportunity. My name is Anne Stuhldreher. I direct the Financial Justice Project in the Treasurer's office for the City and County of San Francisco. The Be the Jury California Act, Assembly Bill 881, builds on our successful Be the Jury pilot program in San Francisco. Our program has been up and running for a year now, and the results are clear.

The pilot program removes the financial barriers that prevent people from serving and results in more economically and racially diverse juries that are better able to administer justice and truly give people what they're promised in the Constitution, which is a jury of their peers. As the Assembly Member said, in our evaluation of people surveyed, 84% of people who were participating in be the jury in San Francisco said that without this $100 stipend, they simply couldn't have afforded to serve.

And in our evaluation, we found that the median household income of participants was $38,000 a year as their household income, well below the San Francisco area median income. So this really shows that this program is serving people who need it the most. I want to thank Assemblymember Ting for introducing this important legislation, and I respectfully ask for the committee's aye vote. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Do we have any witnesses in support in this room? Please state your name, your org. and that you support.

Shashawnya Worley, deputy District Attorney for the County of Napa, on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association. In support.

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

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

Natasha Minsker, Prosecutors Alliance of California, in support.

Izzy...Schmelzer Lang on behalf of San Francisco City and County and the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, in support. Thank you.

Yereli Magayon on behalf of Alameda County Board of Supervisors, in support. Thank you.

Gary McCoy on behalf of Health Rate 360, in support.

Danica Rodarmel on behalf of Initiate Justice and Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area, in support .

Carmen-Nicole Cox on behalf of ACLU Cal Action, in support.

Ignacio Hernandez on behalf of the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, in support.

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

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

Teresa Roman on behalf of the San Francisco Public Defenders Office, co-sponsor of AB 881 and on behalf of the following organizations, in strong support. Asian American Advancing Justice Southern California, Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice, Conference of California Bar Associations, Consumer Attorneys of California, Drunk Policy Alliance Southern California, Ella Baker, Center for Human Rights, Empowering Women Impacted by Incarceration, Fair Chance Project, GLIDE, HomeRise San Francisco, Kern County Participatory Defense, La Defensa, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, the City of Los Angeles, LA County Public Defenders Union - Local 148, Faith's Return Project, SF Bar Association, co-sponsors SF District Attorney's Office and SF Financial Justice Project, SF Labor Council, Santa Cruz Barrios Unidos Incorporated, Sister Warriors Freedom Coalition, University of San Francisco School of Law - Racial Justice Clinic and Young Women's Freedom. Thank you.

Thank you. Can we get opposition witnesses? Seeing none, we'll move to prompt individuals waiting to testify via teleconference. Moderator?

Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, if you wish to testify in support or opposition to AB 881, please press 1, 0. One followed by zero. And Line 27, please go ahead.

Berg on behalf of the Friends Committee on Legislation of California, in support.

Let's give one more reminder. One followed by zero. If you're in support or opposition to AB 881. And no other participants are queuing up.

Thank you. Senators, would you guys like to comment? Senator Skinner?

Move the Bill.

Thank you. Senator Ochoa Bogh?

Just a comment. Thank you for bringing the measure forward, Member Ting. The only question I have for you is I know that they narrowed down the counties to just several counties that were mentioned here. Actually, two questions.

One, the report. We haven't seen a report coming back as to the impacts, which are obvious. And second, the concern that we don't have other counties are representative of the other parts of the state, including our rural counties. Any comments on those two points? I will be supporting the Bill, just for the record.

The one rural county is Kern. Anne can answer questions about the report that they issued. They did have a report on the San Francisco pilot, which is the only pilot right now.

Yeah, hi. Thank you so much for your question. We issued a six month report that I'm happy to get to you. And we just passed the one year mark in late spring and we have compiled the results and I'm happy to get that to you as well.

Perfect. Thank you.

Thank you. Assembly Member, would you like to close?

Just respectfully ask for your aye vote.

I appreciate that. We have a motion by Senator Skinner.

Motion is due pass to Appropriations. [Roll call]

The Bill is on call. Thank you.

Could I get one of my colleagues to make a motion on AB 89 Assembly Member Sanchez? It was the first Bill that we heard today.

Be happy to move that.

Thank you. Senator Ochoa Bogh has moved the Bill.

Motion is due passed to Appropriations. [Roll call]

Ochoa Bogh. Ochoa Bogh, aye. Bradford. Skinner. Wiener.

Thank you. We will now move on to AB 725. Assemblymember Lowenthal.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Senators. Pleased to present AB 725, which requires the owner of a firearm, frame or receiver to report the loss or theft of those components to a law enforcement agency so they can be entered into the Department of Justice Automated Firearm System. While frames and receivers are considered firearms for the purposes of registration and licensing under current law, they are not treated as such when it comes to requirements for reporting lost or stolen firearms.

AB 725 closes this loophole by making failure to report a lost or stolen frame or receiver the same infraction as failure to report a firearm. The frame or receiver serves as the base platform for most firearms, typically houses the trigger, hammer, bolt, the firing pin, with some variants depending on the type of firearm that allow them to be operable once assembled, so that while these parts may seem innocuous on their own, they represent one of the most critical components of any operational firearm.

Requiring anyone who owns a frame or receiver to report them to law enforcement agencies if they are lost and stolen is a common sense approach to ensuring that we are appropriately tracking these components that can be used to assemble a fully operational firearm. I'm pleased to be joined by Carter Glahn on behalf of the Conference of California Bar Associations who is here to testify in support of the Bill.

Thank you, Assembly Member. Thank you, Madam Chair, Madam Vice Chair. I am Carter Glahn. I'm here on behalf of the Conference of California Bar Associations in support of AB 725. And as the Assembly Member pointed out, this Bill would require gun owners to report not only a lost or stolen firearm, but also a lost or stolen frame, receiver or precursor part.

The frame or receiver is part of the gun that has the firing mechanisms as pointed out, and is considered a firearm already under federal law and most of our state laws. Reporting the lost or stolen frame, receiver, or precursor part can help prevent gun trafficking, as many black market guns are built with such stolen or lost frames and receivers and then sold in the black market. By reporting a lost or stolen firearm, frame, or receiver, the gun owners can help law enforcement to track them better and track them down sooner and hopefully thus prevent harm to the public.

With rights come responsibilities and reporting a lost or stolen frame or receiver as a part should be a responsibility of gun ownership and as it is within the responsibility of ensuring firearms are always secure and accounted for. There is some argument in the opposition letter that says that the term precursor part is so vague that it could require people to report a lost or stolen something as benign as a pin or a spring. However, that is incorrect within the current statutory scheme.

All that this Bill would require is that if this is a part that must be registered or go through a background check or have a rate waiting period before you purchase it, then it is a part that must be reported when lost or stolen. This is not expanding what you have to do to receive or purchase any of these items. It is merely making it a responsibility that responsible gun owners should be willing to bear. With that, I thank you and urge an aye vote.

Thank you. Do we have any other support witnesses in the room? Please state your name and organization that you support.

Madam Chair and Members, Dan Philosotto on behalf of the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office, in support.

Thank you.

Natasha Minsker, Prosecutors Alliance of California, in support.

Rebecca Marcus representing Brady Campaign, in support.

Thank you. Do we have any opposition witnesses? Seeing none, we're going to move on to those that would like to testify via teleconference.

Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, if you are in support or opposition, please press one followed by zero at this time. One followed by zero. And we'll go to line 27. Please go ahead.

Good morning. Jim Lindburg, on behalf of the Friends Committee on Legislation of California, in support.

Thank you. We'll give another reminder. We have a few queuing up operators. One moment, Madam Chair. If you're in support or opposition, go ahead and hit one followed by zero at this time.

They will be with us in one moment. Thank you for your patience. Anybody else, go and hit one followed by zero so the operator can give you your line number. Line 18, you are open.

Hello, my name is Julia Demlow from Orange County and member of WAVE Women for American Values and Ethics, and I strongly support this Bill. Thank you.

Next is line 14. You are open.

Hi, Peter Stein from Women for American Values and Ethics, in support. Thank you.

Please go ahead, line 9.

This is Sam Paredes representing Gun Owners of California, the National Rifle Association, and California Rifle Pistol Association in opposition.

Let's give a final reminder. One followed by zero if you're in support or opposition. And line 13, please go ahead.

Good morning. Piper Benom, on behalf of WAVE Women for American Values and Ethics in support.

And we have no other participants queued up.

Thank you. Moderator we will be moving a little bit faster in the future as well. Do we have any comments from the Senators in the Committee? Thank you. Senator Skinner has moved the Bill. Would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

I appreciate it.

Motion is due passed to Appropriations. Wahab. Wahab, aye. Ochoa Bogh. Bradford. Skinner. Skinner, aye. Wiener. Wiener, aye. Ochoa Bogh aye to no.

I was abstained to no. Okay, sorry.

She was abstained.

Thank you. That bill's on call. Assemblymember Connolly, would you like to present AB 92, please?

Thank you, Chair and Senators. Proud today to present AB 92, a common sense Bill to keep military grade body armor out of the hands of convicted criminals. Mass shootings are an epidemic in the United States. According to every town for gun safety, there have been 290 mass shootings in the US in just the last 13 years, resulting in 1,626 people shot and killed. An additional 1,075 people shot and wounded. According to the CDC, 79% of all homicides in 2020 involve firearms. The widespread availability of military grade body armor helps mass shooters and criminals kill more people and prolong their rampages.

Just last year, an 18 year old mass shooter at a grocery store in Buffalo, New York, wore a plate vest that could absorb automatic weapon fire. The security guard on duty fired at the shooter, but the shooter's body armor stopped the bullet. Sadly, the security guard, Aaron Salter Jr., was killed by the shooter, who went on to murder nine others and wound three more. This trend has increased significantly in recent years.

The Violence Project, a nonprofit that tracks mass shooting trends, found that of mass shooters who have worn body armor over the past 40 years, a majority of them have happened since 2012. AB 92 is a solution to help protect innocent bystanders, emergency personnel, and our police officers. Under AB 92, any person who is prohibited by California statute from possessing a firearm would also be prohibited from purchasing or possessing body armor.

For example, this includes persons subject to a gun violence restraining order, persons convicted of assault with a deadly weapon, any person convicted of domestic violence, and any person making threats to commit a crime that results in death. California should be furthering its efforts to ensure that military grade gear is kept out of the hands of violent criminals. Here with me to testify today is Jessica Hay with the California School Employees Association.

Thank you, and you have two minutes.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Committee Members. Thank you for the opportunity to comment today. My name is Jessica Hay and I'm here on behalf of the California School Employees Association. CSEA represents nearly 250,000 classified school employees. So these are the folks that get kids to and from school every day, make sure kids have a welcoming, safe, clean learning environment, and support teachers in the classroom to make sure students get the academic assistance they need, and so much more.

I'm here today to speak in support of AB 92, which correctly recognizes the role that body armor plays in perpetuating mass shootings in the US. Body armor is crucial for law enforcement, for military personnel, and those working in high risk professions. However, the easy availability of this military grade gear to the general public, with minimal regulations or oversights, has enabled mass shooters to amplify their devastation and destroy more innocent lives. This protective equipment not only shields them from law enforcement, but it really gives them a heightened sense of invulnerability.

Mass shootings have become an all too familiar and heartbreaking phenomenon in our schools. In 2012, a gunman wore a bulletproof vest into Sandy Hook Elementary School and killed 26 people, 20 of whom were children. Students, families, and school staff should not be afraid to go to school or work every day. These mass shootings are occurring in places where people should feel safe, like schools, movie theaters, churches, supermarkets.

As we reflect on these tragedies, it's evident that many of these assailants took time to meticulously pick out their weapons and equipment so that they could maximize their damage. By introducing reasonable restrictions on body armor, we can disrupt this cycle of violence, making it harder for individuals with malicious intent to execute their plans. In conclusion, the time has come for us to address this glaring gap in our current laws regarding body armor.

AB 92 will not only disrupt plans of mass shooters, but it will help keep our schools safe.

Thank you.

Thank you. I appreciate it. Do we have any other support witnesses in the room?Seeing none. Any opposition? Seeing none. Moderator, please prompt the first individual.

Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, to testify, please press one, followed by zero. Line 27, please go ahead.

Good morning. Jim Lindburg on behalf of the Friends Committee on Legislation of California in support.

Line 14, you are open.

Good morning. Peter Stein from Women for American Values and Ethics in support.

Please go ahead. Line 13.

Yes, good morning. Piper Benom from WAVE Women for American Values and Ethics in support.

You are open, line 18. Anybody else, go ahead and hit one followed by zero.

Hello, this is Julia Demlow with Women for American Values and Ethics strongly in support.

We have no other participants queued up.

Thank you. Do we have any commentary from our Committee Members? Senator Ochoa Bogh.

So, thank you and welcome. As I think it's the first time we have the opportunity to meet. I'm in support of the Bill, but I do have a question, and I would love to hear your thoughts on the notion that some of these individuals who would be prohibited from owning the body armor may also include individuals that may be prohibited due to mental health and other reasons rather than criminal activity. Would you like to have an opportunity to address that concern?

It basically covers anyone who would be prohibited from purchasing a firearm. So, basically, if you cannot obtain a firearm, you also cannot obtain body armor.

All right. Thank you.

Thank you. Would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Do we have a motion? Do we have a motion? Thank you.

Motion is due passed to Appropriations. Wahab. Wahab, aye. Ochoa Bogh. Ochoa Bogh, aye. Bradford. Skinner. Wiener. Wiener, aye.

Thank you. That Bill is on call. Appreciate your time. We will now have Assemblymember Jones-Sawyer's bill AB 912, followed by Jones-Sawyer's bill AB 1486, presented both by Senator Wiener. We will start with AB 912.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm presenting AB 912 on behalf of Assembly Member Joan Sawyer. This is the Strategic Antiviolence Funding Effort, or SAFE act, and it reestablishes the Youth Reinvestment Grant Program. It establishes the Violence Reduction Grant Program, and it creates additional grant programs designed to improve the health and wellbeing of youth. It's imperative that the cost savings that California achieves from prison closures are kept within the Legislature's Crime Prevention budget and reinvested in effective strategies to further reduce crime and violence.

To effectively enhance public safety and health, we must ensure that we're investing in programs with a proven track record of keeping our communities safer and providing critical health support. As such, a SAFE act is a comprehensive measure that will fund programs to reduce violence and crime, divert youth from the criminal justice system, reduce youth PTSD symptoms and mental health challenges, and provide life saving resources to all of our constituents. I ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Do we have any witnesses? All right, we'll move on to witnesses.

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

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

Izzy Swindler, Shaw Yoder Antwih Schmelzer & Lange on behalf of the California State Association of Psychiatrists, California Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatrists and the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and Support. Thank you.

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

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

Danica Rodarmel, Initiate Justice, in support.

Thank you. Do we have any opposition? Seeing none. Moderator, would you prompt the first individual?

Thank you, Madam Chair, if you're in support of opposition to AB 912, please press 1, 0. One followed by zero. Line 11, you are open.

Good morning. This is Brian Ricks with Los Angeles Unified School District, in support.

Please go ahead. Line 27.

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

Line 25, you are open.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Pamela Gibbs, representing the Los Angeles County Office of Education, in support.

Please go ahead, line 15. For anybody else, please go ahead and hit 1, 0 to put yourself in queue. One, followed by zero.

Good morning. This is Danielle Wondra with Children Now calling in support. Thank you.

Line 35, you are open.

Good morning. Darya Larizadeh from the National Center for Youth Law, in strong support. And I'd like to read a list of other organizations in strong support as well. The Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, National Center for Lesbian Rights, W. Haywood Burns Institute, Children Now, Rising Communities, California United for a Responsible Budget, Starting Over, Women's Foundation of California, Fresh Lifelines for Youth, National Center for Youth Law again in strong support for AB 912. Thank you.

And no other participants are queued up at this time.

Thank you. Senators on the Committee, do we have any comments? Seeing none. Senator.

Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Do we have a motion? Senator Ochoa Bogh has moved this.

Motion is due passed to Health Committee. [Roll call]

That bill's on call. AB 1486, another Assembly Member Joan Sawyer. Bill Senator Wiener, thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm here to present AB 1486 on behalf of Assembly Member Joan Sawyer. This Bill ensures that law enforcement agencies comply with existing reporting requirements and transparency requirements when acquiring and using surplus military equipment. In 2021, the Legislature passed and the Governor signed into law AB 481, which requires law enforcement agencies to submit an equipment use policy to their local government for approval before acquiring or using military equipment. After a year and a half of implementation, it's apparent that there are gaps in AB 481.

This Bill will close these loopholes in existing law and ensure that law enforcement agencies must, number one, submit complete military equipment use policies number two, report all military equipment, including assault weapons and three, allow community engagement in the policy approval process. With me today to testify is John L. Poland from the American Friends Service Committee and on behalf of Assembly Member Joan Sawyer, I respectfully ask for your I vote.

Good morning. Thank you for the chance to speak today. My name is John Lindsay Poland of American Foreign Service Committee. We have worked with local elected officials, law enforcement agencies, or LEAs, and community Members in dozens of jurisdictions to help implement AB 481. We track use policies and annual use reports which provide the public with a better understanding of how military equipment is deployed in our communities.

Assault rifles are explicitly included in the legislation's list of military equipment to be regulated, but there's an exception for undefined standard issue service weapons. This enables LEAs to acquire and use weapons intended to be covered by AB 41 without creating policies for their deployment or reporting on their uses. While most LEAs that own them have included them in their policies, about one in six have excluded them. AB 41 requires use policies for military equipment that includes a description of its authorized uses.

Many agencies have instead written who may use the equipment. AB 1486 clarifies that authorized uses are situations where the equipment is authorized to be displayed, deployed, or discharged. LEAs produce an annual report on how they've used the military equipment and hold a community engagement meeting to hear concerns and answer questions. Governing bodies then publicly decide on renewal of the use policies, but some agencies have scheduled community engagement meetings after the governing body has made its public decision about renewal. This Bill will fix that.

We urge your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any other support witnesses? Okay, seeing none, we'll move on to opposition witnesses.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members. Corey Salzillo, on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association, in opposition to the Bill. The statute that enacted the requirement on military equipment says that certain standard issue service weapons should be exempted from the burdensome military equipment process. This Bill goes back on what was enacted by this law, whether or not it was the intent to include assault weapons or not. The legislation did not include assault weapons. It also is not limited to surplus military equipment.

That's the terminology that's used around this Bill and this process. But the reality is, anything that qualifies as military equipment under the definition of AB 481 is qualified. So these may be firearms that were acquired 20 years ago that were never in a military stream of possession and yet they would still be required to be subject to this process. These rifles are very commonly used. Their deployment is subject to training that peace officers are required to have before they can use these tools of the trade.

We objected to the original policy and we object to this. This Bill exacerbates the challenges of the original Bill by subjecting the availability of vital law enforcement resources to the political whims of boards of supervisors and city councils that think that certain types of firearms are scary or shouldn't be in the hands of police. And we fail to see what the virtue of taking these tools away from law enforcement is from a crime fighting perspective. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any other opposition witnesses? If you are opposing, please state your name, your organization and that you oppose.

Audra Hartman on behalf of Genesis, the California Company. We are opposed unless amended. We are working with the author's office and hopefully we'll come to an agreement.

Thank you.

Morning, Madam Chair Members. Ryan Sherman with the Riverside Sheriff Association. Opposition. Also opposition from the Police Officer Associations of Arcadia, Burbank, California Reserve Peace Officers, Claremont, Corona, Culver City, Fullerton, Marietta, Newport Beach, Nevada Pals Verdes, Pomona, Riverside, Santa Ana, Upland and the Deputy Sheriff's Association of Placer and Monterey County, all in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Michael Findlay with the National Shooting Sports Foundation Trade Association for America's firearms and ammunition manufacturers and retailers in strong opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no other opposition witnesses, we'll move on to those waiting to testify via teleconference. Moderator, please prompt the first individual.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Ladies and gentlemen, please press one. Filed by zero. If you'd like to testify in support or opposition to AB 1486. AB 1486, please go ahead. Line 27. Jim Lindbergh, Friends, Committee on Legislation of California, in support. Line 16, you are open.

Aye. Yachty with Open Privacy in support of AB 1486.

And for anybody else, go ahead and hit one followed by zero. If you're in support or opposition to AB 1486. One moment, madam. Chair, we have somebody with an operator. Line 37, you are open.

Hello, this is Anne Paliska with Concerned Community for Justice, and I am in strong support of AB 1486. Thank you.

And we have no other participants queued up.

I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Do we have any conversation from our Members on the Committee? Seeing none. Senator, would you like to close,

Thank you. Do we have a motion? A courtesy motion?

Courtesy motion? Okay. Absolutely.

AB 1486 motions. Do you pass to the floor? Wahob?

Hob? Aye. Ochobog?

Aye.

No.

Ochoa Bogh? No. Bradford? Skinner? Wiener?

Aye.

Wiener, aye.

That bill's on call. Thank you, Senator. We will move on to.

AB 1034, the Freedom from Face Surveillance Act. This would prohibit law enforcement agencies or an officer from installing, activating, or using any biometric surveillance system in connection with an officer camera or data collected by an officer. For three years, police body cameras were intended to guard against police misconduct, not to grant officers the power to identify and track us whenever we're in public.

Adding face recognition technology to body cameras would transform a device meant for accountability into a powerful mass surveillance network that it would exacerbate racial profiling and erode our civil rights. I want you to think about that for a minute. Police cameras were meant to be an accountability tool. Whenever we interact with a police officer, it is not by consent. It is because a police officer determined that there was a need for interaction. For whatever reason, we do not give consent.

So that is automatically recorded whether there was a reason for it, whether there was any wrongdoing. And we're saying that that interaction, that was automatically recorded without the consent of the individual, just like if they wanted to search you, they needed consent. But this interaction that is recorded is now part of a database and can be used as surveillance tool.

From 2020 to 2023, a California law prohibited law enforcement from using biometric surveillance systems in connection with an officer camera, thereby protecting people going about their daily lives, upholding the constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and movement, and preventing misidentification. AB 1034 would restore these critical protections. With me today is Carmen Nicole Cox from ACLU California Action, and Chow Jun Lin from the Electronic Frontier foundation as witnesses. Thank you.

Thank you. You will have two minutes.

Thank you. I timed it. Good morning, members, chair. Carmen Nicole Cox, on behalf of ACLU California Action, I actually want to start by thanking Assemblymember Wilson for championing this Bill and this policy. Just to reiterate what the Assembly Member said, facial recognition has no place on officer body cameras. These were, as the Member said, intended to guard against police misconduct, not to be turned around and used as a surveillance system for the police to identify and track.

AB 1034 will prevent flawed face and body tracking systems from being used against us. This is important because federal research has shown facial recognition software is inaccurate and biased, generating up to 100 times more false positives for women and people of color. Research also shows that the skewed and constant movement inherent in body camera footage raises the risk of these false positives. This is a problem in any context, but is especially fraught if added to the thousands of body cams in the field.

I think more personally, I worry about folks like my little brother. He's an adult, but he's a black male with mental health issues. These kinds of encounters with law enforcement are already problematic. I'm definitely concerned about him being wrongfully identified as someone with a violent record, being the wrongfully identified as a defendant in a crime that he didn't commit. Certainly concerned about the police drawing their weapons on my brother. Right.

Because of a wrongful identification, people who look like my brother and me are still two to three times more likely to be killed by police than white people. And many of these killings occur during day to day interactions with police, adding face surveillance to their body cams, increasing these dangerous interactions, putting people like myself, my brother, many of us here today at even greater risk. All Californians should be worried about facial recognition on body cameras.

Thank you. I thought I timed it. Practice makes perfect. All right, next person, you'll have two minutes.

Okay. Thank you. Good morning. My name is Charlie and Lewis. Here on behalf of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, we support AB 1034, which would ban face recognition technology on body cams, because law enforcement cannot use face recognition technology without eroding fundamental rights and worsening racial disparities in policing. First, we all deserve a level of anonymity in our daily lives and civic expression.

Face recognition technology on body cams makes it so anytime someone walks by a police officer, they could be recorded and identified without reason and without even knowing it. It's me, it's you, it's your friends, your loved ones, your children. Are you okay with that? In daily life, this is unsettling. Let alone near sensitive places like houses of worship or healthcare facilities for abortion access. Face recognition chills our ability to move and speak freely and anonymously. Second, face recognition is notoriously inaccurate.

As Carmen noted, even when given a clear image, there are 100 times more false positives for women and people of color. Faces like yours and mine. This has already led to wrongful arrests. Should the technology be deployed, it will only lead to more wrongful arrests and tragedies. And third, even if it were 100% accurate 100% of the time, face recognition cannot solve the problem of racialized policing in America.

The technology will only perpetuate over policing, racial profiling, putting black and brown faces into databases, and ultimately the incarceration of people of color. A ban on the use of face recognition technology is the only principal path this Committee can take to protect the rights of Californians and the safety of already marginalized communities. I respectfully ask community to vote Aye on AB 1034 today. Thank you.

Thank you. Witnesses lined up. We're going to move very quickly. Name organization that you support.

Good morning. Teresa Roman with San Francisco Public Defender's Office in Strong support

Leslie Caldwell Houston, for the California Public Defender's Association, in support.

Armand Feliciano, on behalf of Asian Law Caucus, in support.

John Lindsay, Poland, American Friend Service Committee, in support.

Melinda Kakani, Children's Defense Fund California in support.

EBC, in support

Becca Kramer, Mater. ACLU California Action sponsors and also here on behalf of Access, Reproductive Justice, Asian Law Caucus, California Association of Black Lawyers, Clergy and Laity United for Economic Justice, Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice Indivisible California State Strong Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, Media Alliance, National Action Network, Orange County Pacific Juvenile Defender Center, People's Budget, Orange County Policing Project at NYU Law School, Starting over Incorporated stolen Voices, Stop the Music Coalition and Transforming Justice Orange County.

Matty Hyatt from the California Civil Liberties Advocacy Organization in strong support.

Thank you. We'll move on to opposition witnesses again. We will move on very quickly.

Madam Chair and Members Cory Salzer, on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association, in opposition to the Bill. From a General policy perspective, we're concerned about the Legislature continuing to private law enforcement of tools that can potentially protect the public safety and aid investigations. If there are concerns about particular technologies, we should discuss those. However, to reenact a ban for three years limits law enforcement's efficacy and restricts its ability to meet its investigatory and crime prevention and crime solving mandates.

Officer cameras do more than foster law enforcement accountability. They provide meaningful investigative assistance in identifying suspects and exonerating uninvolved persons. Rise in active shooter events and brazen threats, thefts in public spaces, reenacting bans on tools that could assist officers and protect public safety is short sighted and to be clear, not aware of any agency that has any technology where you can do real time identification. So this notion of misidentifications in the moment leading to some type of adverse interaction with law enforcement.

Not exactly sure of what proponents are referring to in that regard. The common use is after the fact identification. And again, even if you have an identification made via facial recognition software, it's merely one part of the puzzle. No one's going to be convicted just because the computer said they matched the picture of someone. So for all these reasons, we ask for no vote.

Thank you. We'll move on to opposition witnesses again. State your name, your organ that you oppose.

Lieutenant Brandon Dapp on behalf of the Los Angeles County Sheriff in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Cameron Demetri with capital advocacy on behalf of the Security Industry Association. We have an opposed, unless amended position on this Bill.

Thank you.

Morning. Ryan Sherman with the Riverside Sheriff Association and Coalition of the other police officer associations in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Moderator. Please prompt the first individual via teleconference. Thank you.

If you are in support or opposite. Are we on AB 1034, Madam Chair?

Yes.

Thank you very much. Please press 10 if you're in support or opposition to AB 1034. Line 39, you are open.

Hello, my name is Samina Usman. I'm calling on behalf of secure justice, and we are in support. I also was trying to unmute in support for 1486, but the system wasn't letting me. So I hope that we're on record also to be in support of 1486 as well.

Line 16, you are open.

Hi. Yachty with Oakland Privacy in support of AB 1034.

Please go ahead. Line 40. Chair Members Jonathan Feldman on behalf of the California Police Chiefs Association, in opposition. And as a reminder, if you're in support or opposition to AB 1034, please press 10 and line 24, please go ahead. Hello. Good morning. Bruno USAD with the California Immigrant Policy center in strong support of AB 1034. And, Madam Chair, we have cleared the queue.

Thank you. Would any of my Committee Members like to speak on this? So, yeah, Senator Wiener would like to move the Bill. Would you like to close?

Just that I appreciate all the proponents of the Bill and definitely the opponents. And we are still in conversation because the point at the end of the day is something comprehensive. And that's why I think the ban is important as we work towards potentially something comprehensive, looking at surveillance as a whole in the State of California. So with that, I thank you all and respectfully ask for your. I vote.

Thank you. Senator Wiener has moved the Bill.

AB 1034 motion is do passed to the floor. Wahab aye. Wahob aye. Ochoa Bogh? No. Bradford Skinner Wiener Wiener.

Aye, that Bill will be on call. Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, our next Bill is AB 1021 by Assembly Member Wicks, and it will be presented by Senator Wiener.

Cool.

Senator, the floor is yours.

Earning my keep today. Thank you, Madam Chair. AB 1021 eliminates confusion for prescribers and pharmacists in California and prevents a gap in access to potentially life saving legal medications. Upon FDA approval and subsequent DEA rescheduling or scheduling, California medical professionals acting under all applicable laws and regulations of the state will automatically be authorized to prescribe these legal medications approved by the Federal Government. And California will no longer have to go through its own rescheduling process. The Bill had bipartisan support.

The Assembly policy committees and on the floor, Kaiser Permanente, the California State Association of Psychiatrists and the California Medical Association are in support. There's no opposition. Respectfully asked for an I vote with me today to testify is Dan Seaman. On behalf of the MAPS Public Benefit Corporation.

Members, author or the presenter covered it. But Dan Seaman, on behalf of Maps Public Benefit Corporation. This just brings us in line with 33 other states. It does not decriminalize or legalize any substance, but rather prevents any delay in care for legal prescription medications. Happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. We'll move on to support witnesses seeing non opposition witnesses. It seeing none. And we'll move on to those waiting to testify via teleconference moderator. Moderator. Yes.

Ladies and gentlemen, please press one filed by zero. One filed by zero. Please press 19.

Good morning, Madam Chair, Members of the Committee. Brandon Marty with the California Medical Association in support.

We have no other participants queued up.

Thank you. Senators on the Committee, would you guys like to comment? Saying none. Senator, would you like to close? Thank you. Do we have a courtesy motion? Actually, I will be making a motion. Okay. So Senator Ocho Bogue has made the motion. AB 1021. Motion is do passed to appropriations. Wahob? Aye. Hob, aye. Ochobog, aye. Chobog, aye. Bradford. Skinner. Wiener. Wiener, aye. Thank you. That Bill is on call. We are going to move on to AB 829.

Assembly member Waldron, if you would please step up here, the floor will be yours.

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

Given the correlation or link between animal abuse and violence toward humans, early mental health intervention is a key to stopping the progression and escalation of violent behavior. I would like to acknowledge the opposition's concerns and I look forward to continuing the conversation and coming up with a solution all sides can agree on. With me today to testify in support is Nick Sackett from Social Compassion and Legislation and Dr. Lauren Linder. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Thank you. You'll have two minutes.

Great.

My name is Nicholas Sackett, Director of Legislative affairs, sponsor of the Bill and representing Social Compassion and Legislation. As Dr. Lindner will attest, the relationship between human violence and animal abuse, referred to as a link, is the finding that the two behaviors are correlated. They co-occur such that each is a predictor of the other. For example, one trait the perpetrators of both the Uvalde, Texas, and Buffalo, New York tragedies share in common was a propensity for animal cruelty.

Both disturbed 18 year olds bragged about and posted online content describing or depicting their abuse of cats and other animals. Research has long identified animal cruelty as a strong predictor of subsequent violence against persons, finding that animal abusers are as much as five times more likely to harm humans. Programs developed by Dr. Lindner and others include the anacare approach, a psychotherapeutic intervention that focuses on establishing accountability, examining beliefs and attitudes towards animals, and developing nonviolent problem solving techniques.

There's also the benchmark Animal Rehabilitative Curriculum, or bark is an educational program currently in use in California. These are just a couple of the examples of the programs that judges may point to when ordering counseling. This link between animal abuse and violence against humans must prompt us to advance measures like this Bill to not only prevent future animal cruelty, but violence against humans. I want to thank Assembly Member Waldron for authoring the Bill, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you, I will now pass on to Dr. Lindner.

Do we have the next speaker? Did you have two witnesses?

I believe they're on the phone or online somehow.

Speaker okay, just FYI, on calls we're not going to have two minutes. It's just the support.

Okay.

But other than that, any other support? Witnesses here in the room, please state your name. Your none. Okay. Do we have opposition witnesses? Good morning. Teresa Roman with the San Francisco Public Defender's Office in strong opposition.

I'd like to give my testimony. Leslie Caldwell, Houston for the California Public Defenders Association in opposition unless amended, we request a simple yet necessary amendment to add criminal proceedings to the ban to the use of mental health evaluations and records that are called for in this proposed legislation without the defendant's consent.

As a lawyer who for nearly 40 years worked in criminal defense with a majority of my clients suffering mental health issues or disorders, I have seen many gross violations of my clients rights in these regards due to misuse, misapplication, exploitation and abusage of their medical and mental health records. If we are adding requirements of mental health evaluations for the animal abuse described in AB 829, we must also ensure that the records are banned from use in both criminal and civil proceedings.

Therefore, we request your no vote unless a straightforward amendment is made to AB 829. Thank you.

Thank you. Name Opposition California Civil Liberties Advocacy Maddie Hyatt in opposition.

All right.

Moderator Would you prompt the first witness via teleconference? Moderator.

Ladies and gentlemen, the phone lines. If you wish to ask a question or if you wish to testify, please press one. Filed by zero for 1021.

Sorry, you have the wrong Bill. It's actually AB 829.

I'm so sorry. AB 2829.

Thank you.

Yes, we have one healing out. One moment. Excuse me. Go to line 17.

Good morning, this is Dr. Lauren Lindner. I've been practicing as a psychologist and public health specialist for 35 years. My specialty is the treatment of victims of interpersonal violence and also of perpetrators of animal cruelty. I was involved with.

Name, organization, and. Whether you support or oppose.

I'm sorry. Yes, I do support the Bill.

Thank you. Next caller.

Nobody else is queued up.

Thank you. Members of the Committee, would you like to make a comment saying none? Would you like to close?

Thank you. Madam Chair, I respectfully ask for your ate vote on this important measure to keep innocent animals safe and help those in need of critical mental health treatment.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Senator, would you like to make the motion? I would be happy to make a motion. Thank you. Senator Ochoa Bogh moves the Bill. AB 829. The motion is do passed to appropriations. Wahab? Aye. Hob aye. Ocho Bogh? Aye. Ocho Bogh, aye. Bradford, Skinner, Wiener? Wiener, aye. That bill's on call. Thank you. All right, we will be moving on to AB 1360 by Assembly Member Mccarty. We will also following up hearing, AB 14 six. We'll start with AB 1360. Assemblymember, right here, please. The floor is yours.

Good morning, Committee Members. It's good to be back here. It's been a while. Over on this side, I present to you a Bill that some of you have heard before. I know you, Senator, this is the first time you have heard this issue. This is not a new issue for our communities. All across California. We have too many people who, unfortunately, have severe substance abuse disorders. Addiction runs high in too many of our communities.

And unfortunately, too many people who have addiction and who interact with the criminal justice system are sentenced for related crimes, go serve several year terms in either state prison or county jail and come out not addressing the underlying issues of their addiction. 70% of drug offenders are rearrested within three years. And we know that prisons and jails are not the adequate place to treat addiction. This is really a public health issue and a crisis that deserves alternative options.

And with us today is a proposal, a five year pilot right here in Sacramento and Yolo County, which will allow Sacramento, Yolo County to provide voluntary and temporary confined treatment options for those eligible, rather than just serving their prison or county jail time. This is a bipartisan Bill, and I know there's some confusion because some people say, well, these individuals should be able to get treatment in the community. These are individuals that are not eligible to go home with ankle bracelets.

These are people who will be serving time in a county jail or state prison and give them the option to voluntarily choose to focus on treatment because we know that doing nothing when their sentence is up, it won't necessarily address underlying issues of substance abuse disorder, nor help our communities nor their families. This again, is a narrowly defined program in two counties, a pilot for five years. Look forward to the conversation and allowing my witnesses to present this morning. Thank you.

Thank you to the first witness. You will have two minutes.

By providing secure residential treatment, not only is the public protected from further crime, but the offender is receiving desperately needed assistance. This Bill takes a well-rounded view of the offender to ensure vital components of recovery are actually addressed. Successful treatment would actually lead to lower incarceration rates, lower recidivism rates, and increased public safety. For far too long, the criminal justice system has been engaged in status quo prosecution. Now is the time to try new and innovative programs.

With this Bill, the Sacramento region could become the leading model for California's substance use disorder offenders. This Bill gives us an opportunity to tackle crime through hope, support, and meaningful treatment and assistance. Thank you.

No worries. We'll move on to support witnesses again. State your name, your organ that you support. We'd like to go through this pretty quickly.

Shashawnya Worley, Deputy District Attorney for Napa County, on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association, in support.

Thank you.

California State--or Izzy Swindler, on behalf of California State Association of Psychiatrists, support if amend. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any other opposition witnesses?

Teresa Roman with the San Francisco Public Defender's Office, in opposition.

Hi, good morning. My name is Gary McCoy, I'm Vice President of Policy and Public Affairs for HealthRIGHT360 on behalf of one of the largest nonprofit behavioral health providers in California. And as someone who has, who was forcibly subjected to treatment multiple times, I speak with lived, experienced experience of the challenges of substance use disorder. AB 1360, like its previous versions, blurs the line between care and punishment, criminalizes people for their illness, and dangerously undermines overdose prevention and recovery. This proposal is not new.

It has been tried before in California and elsewhere and failed. I know because I was a daily IV drug user for 18 years. I was arrested eight times, was incarcerated overall for about two years, and forced into involuntary treatment three times, hospitalized more than 20. The choice between incarceration or treatment is always coercive. It damages the patient provider relationship, and it only taught me how to hide and maintain my use. This trauma in isolation led me to two overdoses, and I'm lucky to be alive.

In public health circles, coercive treatment is widely criticized and rejected for its lack of evidence based practices. Instead, these programs result in high and rapid rates of return to use and increased overdose, overdose deaths, and suicide rates for participants. This is not just the worst that can happen, it's what does happen. Look no further than San Francisco, which has experienced record overdose deaths for five of the past six months. This coincides with the increased enforcement measures and coerced treatment of people who use drugs.

The model proposed in AB 1360 is incredibly dangerous and deadly, and there is no scholarship that supports this approach. Forcing people into a system that cannot accommodate them will not solve the overdose crisis, and pretending otherwise is counterproductive and reckless. Knowing this, we oppose AB 1360 and we respectfully urge your no vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Can we have other opposition witnesses? State your name your that you oppose?

Oh, yeah.

Are you a lead witness?

Yes, please.

Okay, you get two minutes.

Good morning again, Chair and Members. My name is Carmen Nicole-Cox, Director of Government Affairs at ACLU Cal Action, and along with others, am in strong opposition to AB 1360; respectful opposition. This is not a defensible use of public dollars because an effective public safety approach would not recreate carceral settings and would focus on prevention through voluntary participation.

I've enjoyed conversation with the author of this Bill and so appreciate that he has the best intentions. But AB 1360 is misguided. It will monopolize limited government resources that could be better invested in preventing future crime and victimization by increasing capacity and availability in voluntary services in the community. Research proves that every dollar spent on substance abuse treatment saves $4 in healthcare costs, $7 in law enforcement and other criminal justice costs because of reduced costs of crime and increased employment earnings.

AB 1360 does not reduce crime or its related costs. Rather, this Bill will result in additional law enforcement costs, such as the salaries of County Probation Officers, which range publicly from about $7,000 to $14,000 a month. This money would likely take the lion's share of any funding allocated to this program, funding that could and should be going to treatment providers.

A better use of resources is, as Gary just testified, a policy approach that expands access to evidence-based voluntary substance abuse disorder treatment and harm reduction services, permanent supportive housing, and access to health and social services. We continue to believe that AB 1360 is premised on the flawed notion that involuntary treatment is effective and desirable, but the research shows otherwise.

It can damage the relationship between the treatment and provider and recipient, further traumatizing individuals who have often experienced severe hardship, diminishing the likelihood of successful outcomes as well as engagement in future health services. Requiring people receive involuntary treatment in a secured residential setting could only exacerbate harms. Offering readily accessible, evidence-based treatment produces far better outcomes.

Time. Thank you.

No vote. Thank you.

Getting closer, right? Any opposition witnesses? Again, please state your name that you oppose, and your org.

Jia Chen, on behalf of the California Consortium of Addiction Programs and Professionals, in opposition, thank you.

Good afternoon. Amer Rashid with the County Behavioral Health Directors Association of California in strong opposition. Thank you.

Lesli Caldwell-Houston, for the California Public Defenders Association, in opposition.

Danica Rodarmel, Initiate Justice, in opposition.

[inaudible] Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, and Disability Rights California, in opposition.

Alicia Benavidez, on behalf of Drug Policy Alliance, in strong opposition.

Thank you. We will move on to those witnesses waiting to testify via teleconference. Moderator, please prompt the first individual.

Thank you, if you're in support or opposition, please press one, followed by zero, line 31. Go ahead.

Jeff Neal, on behalf of Yolo County in support.

There are no other participants queued up.

Thank you. I'll move the conversation to Members of the Committee. Senator Wiener.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the author. And thank you to Mr. McCoy, who is really a great community leader in San Francisco. So last year, when this Bill came to us, we worked intensively with the author and proposed a series of amendments to really narrow the focus of the Bill and put some real guardrails on it. And as I understand, those amendments all remain in this new version of the Bill.

And so I supported that version of the Bill last year, and I'll continue to support it this year. As I expressed last year, I have some trepidation about the Bill, but I also am willing to allow these counties to try this approach. And I think it's really important for folks watching to understand that this only applies in a situation where someone has been convicted of a felony and is subject to incarceration and then is given a choice.

You can just do whatever your regular sentence is and proceed, or you can have this other option. And so that's why I'm comfortable supporting the Bill. If this were a standalone, not a situation where the person had been convicted of a felony and was subject to incarceration, I would be obviously much more hesitant to support it. And big picture, we have so dramatically failed in terms of addiction in this country. We do not have enough treatment slots.

And I totally agree that voluntary treatment is absolutely the most effective way for someone to address their addiction. There's no doubt about it. We do not have enough treatment slots, do not have enough beds and so on and so forth, and we need to dramatically expand that capacity. There are people who are addicted, who want to get help and are not able to get help. There was just a new mega study of folks who are homeless coming out of UCSF.

I believe last night or this morning that as we already knew, about one in three folks who are homeless have a substance use problem, and not all of them, but I think maybe a third of them have tried to get treatment and failed because there aren't enough slots. So that's the fundamental solution.

And like I said, I do have some apprehension here, but I am comfortable, given the constraints on this Bill and that these are folks who have been convicted of a felony and are subject to incarceration. I'm comfortable supporting this today. So thank you.

Thank you. Senator Ochoa Bogh?

I have to echo the comments made by my colleague from San Francisco. I agree on many of the comments made. In addition to that, I want to add that one of the concerns, or some of the concerns that I've heard locally for my district is that although when someone makes a conscious choice of getting treatment is most effective, there is no doubt about that. I think the challenges we face are the ones that were mentioned prior by my colleague.

But in addition, we don't have what's called and what I've heard from public safety. We don't have a hook sometimes where it compels some individuals to actually seek treatment. And so I think, one, that this is a pilot program, and number two, that it does actually provide some sort of hook for individuals who have been convicted to be compelled to seek treatment in a capacity where it can be provided. So I'm happy to support the Bill today.

And, Assemblymember, I do just want to appreciate you bringing this Bill forward. I think that we've seen a crisis that many people talk about. People have different opinions. We also owe the public some type of action. It is very narrow in scope. I think that Senator Wiener specifically highlighted some of the things that we have to try, if you will, to the folks that are opposing this Bill.

I completely understand some of the concerns, and obviously, the evidence-based practice of self selecting treatment is the priority. But at the same time, I think Senator Ocho Bogh said it, that we do need a hook. The crisis is getting out of control. We have also talked to experts personally that sometimes that individual cannot make the decision for themselves. And so if we can kind of get them to a lucid state and family members have often complained that they can't compel their loved one to treatment, right?

And so sometimes people are looking for a higher authority to be able to push them into treatment, and sometimes it's a positive thing and sometimes it's not. But we always have to continue to try. So I do appreciate you bringing this forward. Do I have any closing comments from you?

Yes. This is not the first time. It's the third time to charm. Right. This issue has not gone away since the first time I brought this up. And it's only gotten worse in all of our communities. We need novel approaches. I would say that we took 50 amendments in the last couple of years on this measure. Five, zero. 10 of them were the, I think, Wiener amendments, which are still in this Bill.

So we've listened to the opposition, but there's just a fundamental disagreement on the facts here. I mean, I respect their philosophies, but the facts are just not actually portrayed here. We're not talking about people in the community. These are people, as Senator said, who have been sentenced to a felony. And we do exempt certain felonies, strikes, sex crimes, DUIs. So those aren't part of there. But let me give you a hypothetical. Someone is arrested and sentenced for burglary, for stealing, and it's to feed their addiction.

They're sentenced to three years in New Folsom prison. And the reality is they were doing these crimes to feed an addiction. After their sentence, they can say, hey, individual, would you like to get treatment as opposed to just sit in Folsom for three years? And if you get treatment, we can expunge some of your record. You can serve fewer months. That was part of Senator Weiner's proposal two years ago. Than your underlying opportunity, serving in the state prison. And you can address your addiction.

So it's a choice. They can say no and still go. And again, to the life of me, I don't understand the arguments against this, based upon the actual facts presented to us. This is a pilot in two counties, here and in Yolo for five years, allowing us to see if this makes a difference because we know that the status quo is not working in our communities. Then for that, respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Do we have a motion? Senator Wiener has moved the Bill.

AB 1360. The motion is do pass to Health Committee. [Roll Call].

Thank you. We'll move on to AB 1406. Assembly,ember, you have the floor. Not that quick, right?

Okay. I think this is a much more simple Bill. This Bill is sponsored by the Department of Justice Bipartisan Measure, unanimous support over in the Assembly. It gives the Department of Justice an additional 30 days to notify a firearm dealer about the legal eligibility for someone to possess a firearm during the background checks. This is a DOJ really technical fix, and with me today is the Department of Justice to go over the rationale.

Thank you, Senators. My name is Candice Chung, and I'm a Deputy Attorney General with the office of Attorney General Rob Bonta, who's proud to sponsor this Bill. I'd like to thank Assembly Member Mccarty for authoring this Bill, which will provide the DOJ with the necessary flexibility to ensure that no firearms are released without a background check being completed first. Currently, the DOJ must conduct a background check on a firearms fire and report its findings to the dealer within the 10-calendar day waiting period for gun transfers.

These background checks are not as simple as just putting a name in the computer system and having it spit out an answer. They need to be cross checked against different systems, and because it's a name based system, we have to verify that information is about the correct person. So oftentimes we're at the mercy of courts, treatment facilities, the US military, to get additional records that are necessary to resolve any questions that arise in a background check.

This Bill would extend the current 10-day limit for completing background checks to up to 30 days in the case of a major emergency that hampers the DOJ's ability to do the work. Such emergencies would include likes such as the COVID-19 pandemic, which highlighted the need for this legislative fix, or a large-scale computer breach, such as the one that just recently hit the Federal Government.

Unfortunately, a recent court ruling found that, like existing law, did not contain any applied exception for emergencies, regardless of the magnitude, to justify a delay. But that ruling was not based on the equities of the circumstances. Instead, it focused on strict interpretation of the statute, which the judge basically held that the statute did only stated three specific reasons for delaying a firearm transfer, good cause not being one of them. And if the Legislature had intended to be more expansive, it could have done so.

But when this statute was draft, when the Legislature drafted the statute, it did not take into account the possibility of a viral pandemic that all but shut down the world. It didn't take into account that we would be facing unprecedented extreme weather events or global cyberattacks. And while I hope that nothing like this ever happens again in the future. We need to be prepared for this.

Time. Thank you. We'll move on to our next witness. Do you have any other witnesses, or you just had one lead witness? One. All right. We'll move on to just tos name or me too.

AB 1406 will ensure that guns are only transferred to vetted, law abiding citizens by providing the DOJ with additional time to complete background checks during an emergency, while preserving the rights of firearm owners to take possession of their guns within a reasonable amount of time.

Glenn Backes at Ella Baker Center for Human Rights.

Thank you. We'll move on to lead opposition. You have two minutes.

Madam Chair and Members. Sam Perez, representing gun owners, California National Rifle Association, and the California Rifle and Pistol Association. Now, I think that the appearance of this Bill is a good thing in that you're trying to get the Department of Justice to do their job, something that they are incapable of doing right now and are not doing. We receive hundreds of phone calls on a monthly basis of people who have received Undetermined designations. This is 30 days after they just purchased a gun. They get denied.

They go on, try to buy ammunition a couple of days later, and then they receive it. No one can explain, and you cannot talk to anybody at the Department of Justice to get these things clarified. The requirement for the DOJ to notify purchasers about any issues they might have is a really good thing, because right now, nothing happens except they receive an Undetermined designation.

So the way it appears to us from the outside who have been looking at the Department of Justice and the way it operates its programs is that this is giving them an excuse and a relief from the 30 day requirement. But I am very confident that very little else is going to happen, that the removal of that pressure for them to deal with these issues on a timely basis will just mean that there will be no deadline.

We've talked to, on occasion, people who have worked at the Department of Justice, and they tell us that there are some cases where a court no longer has the records, and DOJ says, okay, it's done. You're Undetermined. You're never going to be able to get a gun. Basically, by denying the acceptance of this firearm, we need to have a sincere effort on the part of the Department of Justice to figure out time what they're. Thank you. We are in opposition of this Bill.

I appreciate you giving us the opportunity.

Thank you. Any other opposition witnesses seeing? None. Moderator, please prompt the first individual waiting to testify via teleconference.

And please press 1 and 0 if you wish. To support or have opposition to this deal. And we have no participants in queue at this time.

Thank you. We'll move on to comments by Committee Members. Committee Members, Senator Ocho Bogh. So a couple of things came to mind as I was hearing the testimonies on both sides. I completely understand the extent needed for the time to be able to evaluate the approvals of individuals coming in to lawfully acquire guns or ammunition.

The concerns mentioned by the opposition with regards to the delays, I would like to, and I'm not sure if this through the chair, if this would be an appropriate question for the author or for the Department of Justice, but what are the causes of the delays? What is standard time of being? What are the causes of delay? Number two, I can understand during the extreme weather or extreme circumstances and having delays in that notion.

But following that, the other question I would have is that during times of emergencies, those are sometimes the times when people feel very unsafe and public safety is not readily available because they're exhausting their resources in certain areas. So there would be a time when people or individuals would be compelled to seek out acquiring a gun or ammunition to protect their families, their home, and their families.

So that's some of the concerns that I would have about having the delays during your emergency periods of time, as we have seen in the past. So those two items, I would love to hear some comments and thoughts through the chair from either the author or the Department of Justice Assembly Member. Can you address any of your questions?

Yeah. Thank you. Just briefly, I think, in General, we'd rather be right than be quick. And so we learned during the pandemic that we didn't have enough time because of that incident. There's other, unfortunately, in California, natural emergencies, weather, floods, fires, earthquakes, one day. And so we need to make sure that we have a system in place that works so the Department of Justice can adequately do their job. They gave some examples.

Maybe I could bring them up and they could opine a bit more about that.

Please be brief. Sure. Alison Mendoza, Director of the Bureau of Firearms. Usually when something is delayed, it's because we need to confirm disposition of an arrest. We need to check court records to make sure what the outcome actually was to determine whether the person is prohibited from firearm or not. Less than 4% of transactions are actually delayed, so it's a very small amount of the transactions.

But we do want to make sure that we are only approving those that are actually allowed legally to have a firearm. Does that answer your question? Go ahead. The delays, are they usually caused because of the technology that we don't have in place to expedite the cross checks?

Or is it the labor that you folks need more individuals hired on to be able to do the work in cross checking, is it a backlog of work or is it technology that we don't have in place to be able to do the work? The cross checks, it's missing information that has never been input into the system.

So if disposition of an arrest hasn't been entered into Department of Justice systems, we need analysts that can reach out to the courts, reach out to the DA's, reach out to mental health facilities, reach out to military to find out whether somebody was honorably discharged or not. It's finding all those facts and reaching out to various entities and waiting on them to respond with the information necessary. So if our systems don't have the information, we have to chase that. Thank you. Thank you.

Any other questions or comments? Seeing none, would you like to close?

Yes. Thank you. I also would like to thank you and your Committee staff for working with us and accept the recommended Committee.

Thank you.

Respectfully ask for your vote.

Appreciate that. Do we have a motion? Do we have a motion? Thank you. Senator Wiener has made the motion. AB 1406. Motion is do pass as amended to appropriations. Wahab? Aye. Ocho Bogh. Bradford. Skinner. Wiener? Aye. Wiener, aye. That Bill is on call. Thank you, Assembly Member. Our next presenter will be presenting AB 1214. You have the floor. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Madam 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. We have had productive conversations with the opposition, and I look forward to continued discussions as the Bill moves forward. I respectfully ask for your aye vote and with me today to testify in support are Leslie Houston, the former chief public defender of Solano County, and Sanda Barrero with SCIU.

Thank you. You will have two minutes. Good morning. Leslie Caldwell Houston for the California Public Defenders Association, proud co-sponsors of this Bill in support. 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 our criminal justice system. AB 1214 provides these guardrails. For the past three years, the courts operated remotely under COVID emergency rules and then last year's trailer Bill.

We welcomed the new rules early on because our colleagues and our clients were dying from COVID However, it has become crystal clear that there are critical problems with remote proceedings as they are going on. Some of the issues we've experienced are some defendants were denied the right to appear in person. Witnesses throughout the state have testified from their cars or other inappropriate locations, making it impossible to properly cross examine or confront the witnesses or to assess their credibility.

Hackers have infiltrated remote proceedings in many locales masquerading as lawyers or court reporters. And many court reporters have told their judicial officers or supervisors that they could not accurately transcribe the remote proceedings, but they were ignored or faced retaliation. Access to technology is inequitable. We saw this all too clearly in the education system when the schools went remote. The clips of children sitting on a curb outside Mcdonald's to have Wi-Fi access will not be forgotten. The desperate search for computers for children was apparent.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. And thank you, Assembly Member Maienschein. Sandra Barrero. On behalf of SEIU California.

It is no different for criminal defendants and many of their witnesses. Court proceedings are the foundations of our legal system. Due process concerns and technological limitations require meaningful safeguards to ensure fundamental fairness. AB 1214 extends the ability to have hearings remotely while providing the safeguards we have identified as critical. We respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you. Next speaker, you'll have two minutes.

We are co-sponsors of this Bill. Now that the pandemic is over, there's no need to make the difficult choice between risking exposure or compromising the integrity of our justice system. The existing statute was only intended to cover us through an emergency. It wasn't intended to last post pandemic, but over the last three years, we found that remote can benefit the court and court users.

But we also learned that the inherent unreliability of technology requires that some proceedings are done in person because when the stakes are life altering, it poses too much of a risk. Criminal proceedings entail grave consequences that irreversibly impact the lives of victims and the accused. When one word can strip away someone's liberty or access to justice, we can't risk disruptions caused by technical glitches or Internet connectivity.

These disruptions hinder the ability to assess witness credibility, which require nuanced observation of subtle behaviors to help determine the truth. We also have to consider that remote proceedings are vulnerable to witness tampering and intimidation. When one word can strip away someone's justice, liberty or credibility, we must choose the most reliable option, and that option has to uphold the principles of fairness and accuracy. AB 1214 upholds these principles while also utilizing remote in a way that benefits our justice system. I respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you. Thank you. We'll move on to support witnesses. State your name your Oregon that you support going back as EBC in support. Danica Rodarmel, Initiate justice in support. Teresa Roman, San Francisco Public Defender's Office. In support. Jessica Hay, California School Employees Association. In support. Janice O'Malley asks me California in support.

Madam Chair Members Pat Moran, with Aaron Reed and Associates representing the Orange County Employees Association, in support. Thank you. Mitch Steiger with the California Labor Federation. Also in support.

Carmen Nicole Cox, ACLU Cal action in support. Thank you. We'll move on to opposition witnesses. Are you the lead opposition? Two minutes. Don't worry, we'll count. Good morning, Madam Chair and Members on behalf of the Judicial Council, Judge Lisa Rodriguez, San Diego Superior Court and Vice Chair of the Council's Criminal Law Advisory Committee, in respectful opposition to AB 1214.

While we appreciate the author and his sponsor's efforts to address our concerns thus far the Council is seeking amendments that would align AB 1214 with existing law for criminal remote proceedings as enacted last year by AB 199, which currently allows for remote appearances only with the defendant's consent. The council appreciates the author's intention to extend authority beyond January 1, 2024, but is concerned that it's currently drafted.

AB 1214 would drastically restrict the ability of consenting defendants and justice partners to use the remote option, and it modifies remote processes that have been already available for decades. In short, we're concerned that the Bill is drafted denies access to justice. We're particularly concerned that the overly broad and vague restrictions will disadvantage defendants. The Bill prohibits the use of remote technology except for any noncritical portion of a criminal proceeding.

When no sworn testimony is taken with the exception of housekeeping type matters during trial we're not aware of any noncritical portions of a criminal proceeding and due to the fluid nature of criminal proceedings and the variety of practices across 58 county courts there is potential for any hearing to involve the taking of sworn testimony from arraignments to change of plea to motions. And if sworn testimony comes up unexpectedly during a remote hearing a court would have to continue the matter.

This would largely be to the detriment of the defendant delaying and unlonging proceedings. Also, as drafted, the law only permits in custody defendants to appear remotely for arraignment restricting out of custody defendants from utilizing the same option which would impact defendants who are out of county, out of state or having to travel or are at work. The vague language could lead also to the elimination of remote proceedings that have been permitted for decades. Very close. Big time. So close. Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate it.

Any other opposition witnesses seeing? None. Moderator, please prompt the first individual to speak. Thank you.

Madam Chair. In support of opposition in AB 1214, please press 10, line 42, please go ahead.

Hi, my name is Carolyn Daffner. Thank you to the chair and Committee Members. I am a retired court reporter. I'm a Member of SCIU. I am the former President of Los Angeles County Court Reporters Association as well as the past President for the California Court Reporters Association. And I'm calling in to urge your aye vote. Thank you.

You're in supporter opposition to AB 1214? One followed by zero. Nobody else has queued up, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Any Committee Members would like to speak? Seeing none. Assembly Member, would you like to close?

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. And Members, we will continue to work with Judicial Council. We have. We've taken some amendments so far. We'll continue to work with them. We're just trying to find that kind of fine line to make sure that this Bill is successful and accomplishes what our objectives are. So with that respectfully request, an aye vote.

Appreciate it. Do we have a motion? Thank you. Senator Wiener has moved the Bill. AB 1214. The motion is due passed to Judiciary Committee. Wahab? Aye. Hob, aye. Ocho Bogh, aye. Ochoa Bogh? Aye. Bradford Gunner. Wiener. Wiener, aye. That bill's on call. Thank you. All right, we have gone through all our bills. I would like to bring up Assemblymember Pacheco's AB 695 lifted from call. AB 695. Motion is do passed to appropriations Chair Wahab. Aye. Ocho Bog. AB 695. Poteko's.

Will you abstain okay, Bradford? Skinner? Wiener? Aye. Wiener, aye. All right, that bill's on call. Thank you. We're just waiting for returning Members. We're waiting for returning Members. We're going to lift the call for all the bills that still need a vote. And Senator Ocho Bogh will take over. Thank you. We're going to task. Okay, so AB 89, motion is due, pass to appropriations, current vote is two to zero. Wiener? Wiener? Aye. AB 92 motions do pass, two. Appropriations, current vote is three to zero. Skinner?

I'm sorry. AB 92, that is number two. Number two. Skinner? Aye. Consent calendar? Wiener? Wiener, aye. Five, six, seven. Motion is due, pass to appropriations, current vote is three to zero. Wiener? Wiener, aye. AB 881, motion is due, pass to appropriations, current vote is three to zero. Wiener. It's King. Wiener? Aye. 720. No, that one's taken care of. Sorry. AB 829. Waldron. Motion is due, passed to appropriation. Skinner. Current vote is three to zero. Right. Were there any amendments?

No, I know, but we required amendments of Wilkins. No, I think this is narrower than the Wilson Bill was. All right. Aye. Skinner? Aye. 912, Joan Sawyer. Motion was do passed to health. Skinner? Aye. Skinner? Aye. 1486. Motion was due, passed to the floor. Current vote is two to one. Skinner? Aye. Skinner, aye. No, I'm good. Okay, thank you. AB nine, nine, four. Jackson Motion was due, passed to Judiciary Committee. Current vote is two to zero. Wiener. Wiener, aye.

I want to change my phone to oppose. Okay, call her again. Ochoa Bogh? No. Ochoa Bogh, no. AB 1021. Motion was due, pass to appropriations, current vote was three to zero. Skinner? Aye. Skinner, aye. AB 1034 Motion is due, passed to the floor. Current vote is two to one. Skinner? and Bradford. AB 1034. Wilson? Call Bradford. Skinner, aye. AB 1034 motion was due, pass to the floor. Bradford? It's a Wilson bill. Number 16 on the facial recognition. Law enforcement, you're an aye? Aye. Bradford? Aye.

Motion. That Bill is out. Yeah, that Bill is out, four to 11034 is out, four to 110. 34 is out, four to 1034. AB 1034 is out, four to one. All right. AB 1187, the motion is due passed to appropriations, current vote is three to zero. Bradford? AYe. Bradford, aye. Switch. Eric can help her. Eric can help her. That builds out four to zero. Bills out, four to zero. So, AB 1187 is out, four to zero. AB 1214, Maienschein motion was due, passed to Judiciary Committee.

Current vote is three to zero, Bradford? Bradford, aye. Skinner? Aye. Skinner, aye. Bills out. What about.

So AB 1214 is out, five to zero. AB 1360 McCarthy motion is due, passed the Health Committee. Current vote is three to zero, Bradford? Bradford. Skinner? Aye. Skinner, aye. Five to zero. Okay. AB 1291 is out, five to zero. I'm sorry. AB 1360, correction, is out, five to zero. AB 1406. Mccarthy motion was do pass as amended to appropriations, current vote is two to zero. Ochoa Bogh. Bradford? Bradford, aye. Skinner? Aye. Skinner, aye. So, AB 1406 is out, four to zero.

We'll go back to the beginning.

How about the Wood Bill?

It's actually sent. All right, going back to the beginning. AB 89 motion is due, pass to appropriations, current vote is three to zero, Bradford. Bradford Aye. So AB 89 is out, four to zero. Yes, it's four to zero, four to zero. So AB 89 is out, four to zero. AB 92 motion is due, pass through appropriations, current vote is four to zero, Bradford. Bradford Aye. 92 so AB 92 is ouT, five to zero. Consent calendar Bradford Aye. Bradford Aye. Consent out.

The consent is out, five to zero. AB 567 motion is due, pass to appropriations, current vote is four to zero, Bradford. Bradford Aye. AB 567 is out, five to zero. AB 881 motion is due, pass to appropriations, current vote, four to zero, Bradford Bradford I so AB, 881 is out, five to zero. AB 695 motion is due, pass to appropriations. Current vote is 20, Bradford Bradford I 695 is out, three to zero. AB 725 Lowenthal motion is due, past two.

Appropriations, current vote is three to one, Bradford Bradford I AB 725 is out, four to one. AB 829 Waldron the motion is due, pass to appropriations, current vote is four to zero, Bradford Bradford I AB 829 is out, five to zero. AB 912 motion is due, passed a Health Committee. Current vote is four to zero, Bradford. Bradford Aye. AB 912 is out, five to zero. AB 1486 motion is due, passed to the floor, current vote is three to one, Bradford Bradford Aye.

AB 1486 is out, four to one AB 994. Jackson motion is due, passed to judiciary. Current vote is three to one, Bradford. Bradford Aye. I'm sorry. AB 994 is out, four to one AB 1021. Wicks Motion is due, pass to appropriations, current vote is four to zero, Bradford. Bradford Aye. AB 1021 is out, five to zero. Safety so the Committee and set up public safety is adjourned. Thank you.