Assembly Standing Committee on Public Safety

The Assembly Public Safety Committee. We don't have a quorum yet. As soon as we get enough members here to have a quorum, we'll begin. But we'll begin because we do have an author here. We do not want to. We can't start without. I just got admonished. We cannot start with. Without at least one other member. So we need another member.

In the meantime, I will read my housekeeping things I need to read, and hopefully, Senator Archuleta, someone will come down here so we can begin the committee meeting. All witnesses will be in person. There will be no phone testimony option for this hearing. You can find more information on the Committee's website, Assembly dot CA dot gov back-slash committees. The following bills have been pulled by the author. Item number five, SB 359, Umberg, pulled by the author. Item number 12, SB 602, Archuleta, pulled by the author.

And I see the door open, and we have another member, so we can now. Madam Secretary, can we now begin as a subcommitee? Luckily, we have no objections from the other side, so we will begin. Mr. Archuleta, you may.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Assembly Members, thank you for this opportunity to present my bill. Once again, I am honored to be here. Today I'm presenting Senate Bill 412 to ensure, Senate Bill 412, is to ensure all victims, crime victims are treated equally in how much notice they must be provided to the Board of Parole Hearings in order to attend a hearing.

A current regulation requires that a direct victim of a crime is to provide 15 day notice to the board if their intent is to attend a hearing, but it is required that an indirect victim, such as their family members and others, to provide a 30 day notice if they also wish to attend the parole hearing. This bill would simply require that all victims need only to provide a 15 day notice.

By aligning all notifications to 15 days, this bill eliminates confusion and ensures the families can be heard. The current rules regarding victim notifications are contrary to the definition of the victim under Marsy's law and the state constitution. Marsy's law defines a victim as a person who suffers direct or threatened physical, psychological, or financial harm as a result of a commission or attempted commission of a crime.

The term victim under Marsy's law also includes the person's spouse, parent, children, siblings, or guardian and includes a lawful representative of a crime victim who is deceased, a minor, or physically or psychologically under or unable to participate. Murder cases and others where the direct victim are deceased or unable to attend physically or mentally to participate highlights the need for this bill. In these cases, there is no direct victim that can testify.

This means that there is effectively a tougher notification standard for homicide cases than for cases with a living victim. This is not right or fair at all for the families that have lost their loved ones. California must not punish their families or letting confusion in the law cause them to miss a hearing. Notification requirements are extremely strict. Missing a deadline by even a day means that the victim will likely not be able to attend the hearing.

Senate Bill 412 provides equal opportunity for all victims by creating a uniform 15 day notification if required. This bill has received unanimous bipartisan support. With me today to testify is Kim Stone, on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Okay. You have five minutes.

Thank you. I don't need that much because the author presented almost everything I was going to say. Kim Stone, on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association, proud to sponsor this bill that brings California statute into alignment with the Constitution's definition of victim, which is not only the direct crime victims, but also their relatives. He explained the bill really well. I'm just going to give you a couple of examples.

In the case of Janet Hernandez, who committed a homicide in Riverside County, the victim's grandmother and aunt were excluded from the parole hearing because they missed the 30 day cut off. In the Santa Clara County case of Charles Simmons, the victim's uncle registered to attend the parole hearing, but it was 28 days instead of 30 days prior, and he was excluded from that hearing.

And then in the San Diego County case of Carlos Pena, family members of that murder were excluded from attending the parole date, even though they had attended an earlier one and registered. But due to a continuance that they weren't aware of, they were not able to provide the registered notice. We think that this common sense bill is good policy and brings us in compliance with our constitutional definition of victim. And thank the author, thank the Committee Members, and urge your aye vote.

Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in support? Any witnesses in the chamber In support? Did we just wake you up?

Usually it's opposition. Good morning, Mr. Chair Members. Cory Salzillo, on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association, in support.

Thank you, Mr. Salzillo. Any witnesses in opposition? Any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Bring it back to the committee members that are here to have any questions or comments. We need more for quorum. Once we get a quorum, we'll vote on it. The Chair is going to recommend an aye, so we shouldn't have any problems.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I appreciate it. And once again, I thank you for your time and your aye vote.

Alright. Thank you. Next, I have Noah. Oh, you're here. Come on up. Blakespear.

Blakespear. I have to get used to pronouncing your name. Item number nine, SB 417. Firearms dealers.

Well, good morning.

Good morning.

Good morning, hair and Committee Members. My name is Senator Catherine Blakespear, and I appreciate you having me here today. So SB 417 modifies existing signage that's already required in gun stores to acknowledge the statistical risk that accompanies access to a firearm in the home. As the analysis concisely points out, while many people believe that keeping a firearm in the home makes them safer, the data show that the opposite is true.

A gun in the home is linked to a nearly three times higher likelihood that a family member or friend will be fatally wounded. SB 417 reasonably incorporates this evidence into the existing signage so that potential purchasers of a firearm are aware of the risks and ideally, will take steps to safely store their firearm should they decide to go forward with their purchase. This Bill is supported by Moms Demand Action and Students Demand Action, as well as Brady and Every Town.

With me today to testify in support is a representative from Moms Demand Action.

Whenever you're ready. You have five minutes.

Okay. Thank you very much. Good morning to you, Chair and the Members of the Committee. My name is Mary Duplaw. I'm a volunteer with Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America. I'm also a gun violence survivor. My daughter, Lorna Clark, went away to college and never came home. Lorna's life was senselessly cut short by a gun. I advocate for gun violence prevention because I don't want anyone else to experience the pain of losing a loved one to gun violence.

I'm here today asking you to support SB 417 by Senator Blakespear. This Bill is an important public health measure to educate consumers about the risk of firearm ownership. We know that California leads the way in many aspects of gun violence prevention and safety. Gun safety. I am grateful that California law already requires gun stores to post a sign explaining various firearms laws that gun owners need to know about.

It's a good idea to post that information right when people are considering buying a gun because responsible gun owners want to inform themselves about things like how to store their gun safely and legally, or what to do if it's ever lost or stolen. SB 417 builds on that law in a really important way.

This Bill would require gun stores to also include a sign informing people of the broader risks of firearms in the home, including the heightened risk of suicide, heightened risk of death, heightened risk of injury during domestic violence disputes, and the heightened risk of unintentional death or traumatic injuries. With so much constant glorification of guns in our society and so many lives lost to gun violence, it's more important than ever to make sure people considering purchasing a firearm can make an informed decision.

SB 417 will also take an important step to help prevent gun suicide by ensuring people who are about to buy a firearm are aware that if they or their loved ones are experiencing distress or depression or contemplating suicide, they can call 988 the suicide and crisis lifeline. The number 988 number. The 988 number is easy to remember, and informing people about it on these signs will save lives. We ask for your Aye vote on SB 417.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Are there any other witnesses in support?

Cassandra Whetstone. I'm a volunteer with Moms Demand Action and I'm in support.

Mary Lou Rosetto, Yolo County Moms Outreach, in support.

Thank you.

Amy Saropian. Moms Demand Action volunteer. I'm in support.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support? Are there any witnesses in opposition? Any witnesses in opposition? We'll bring it back to Committee for any comments or questions. Yes, Ms. Ortega.

Good morning. I want to thank both the Senator and our witness today, and thank you for sharing your story and bringing this piece of legislation forward. I think we're all tired of meaningless sentiments, of sorrow where our children and family members continue to be killed by guns, and really appreciate this piece of legislation to try to address this crisis we're in. So thank you both.

Thank you. Okay. You may conclude.

Well, thank you. I respectfully ask for an Aye vote.

Okay. Unfortunately, we don't have a quorum yet. Once the established Chair will recommend that, I don't see any problems getting this through. But thank you for bringing this forward. This is your first Bill here. We usually haze you, but we're going to forgive. Since we don't have a quorum, we're going to let you go this time.

Okay. Thank you.

All right. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you everyone.

So, we're waiting for two more authors, Senator Rubio and Senator Wahab. Once those two are here and we establish a quorum, we can complete what we need to do today.

Okay.

Senator Wahab. You may begin whenever you're ready. That's item number seven, SB 400.

All right. Thank you, chair and Members, last year, San Jose Police Department terminated an officer for engaging in an inappropriate sexual act while on the job. Despite the sexual act falling into one of the eight existing disclosable incidents of misconduct, the Police Department faced uncertainty about whether it was able to publicly confirm the reason for the termination until a Public Records Act was initiated. Delays like this can increase public mistrust in the Department, the leadership, and law enforcement.

Cities and counties invest mostly in law enforcement, hoping to recruit and maintain a staff of officers who will commit to a high level of integrity. However, at times that is not the case and termination of an officer is warranted. When an officer is terminated and a sustained finding about the officer's conduct is made, SB 400 clarifies that law enforcement agencies may report about disclosable incidents of misconduct even when no public records request is made.

The passage of SB 400 will improve transparency and trust between law enforcement agencies and the communities they serve by providing access to critical community information in a timely manner. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Do you have any witnesses? Any witnesses in support?

Good morning. Margo George on behalf of California Public Defenders Association in support.

Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in support?

Priscilla Quiroz here on behalf of the California Faculty Association in support.

Joshua Thubei with the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice in support.

Good morning. Derek Morgan on behalf of the initiate justice here in support.

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

Thank you. I just want to be very clear that this is in support of not only transparency in regards to our law enforcement, but also allows for proactive law enforcement agencies to be able to defend themselves publicly when an incident occurs. This also allows for just the transparency and the growing trust that we want to kind of establish, but also the due process of an officer, the announcement and everything is done after the due process of an officer.

Right. So they go through their time, they have their rights and so forth. And so I just want to be very transparent about that and respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Okay. And I have a note about amendments were there, or did you accept the amendments?

Give me 1 second. Let me. I believe so.

You want to check. The amendments clarified these are declarative as existing law?

Yes, in clarity. Yes, we've accepted the amendments.

All right. Thank you. Chair is recommending aye. As soon as we get one more Member, then we'll be able to take up the Bill. And I'm pretty certain it will be approved.

I have another public safety.

We do have another Member. Here he is. Here we go. Let's have a seat, Senator Rubio, and we'll establish a quorum.

Go ahead, Jones-Sawyer. Here. Alanis. Here. Bonta. Bryan. Lackey. Here. Ortega. Santiago. Zbur.

Present. I'm going to go through the proposed consent calendar. Item number one, SB 78, Glazer, criminal procedure factual innocence. Item number two, SB 86, Seyarto, crime victims resource center. Item number three, SB 250, Umberg, controlled substances punishment. Item number four, SB 290, men domestic violence documentation victim access. Item number six, SB 376, Rubio, human trafficking victims rights. Item number 10, SB 448, Becker, juveniles detention hearings. Item number 13, SB 762, Becker, local detention facility safety checks. Entertain a motion for approval consent calendar. Moved and seconded. Secretary call the roll.

On the consent calendar. Jones-Sawyer. Aye. Jones-Sawyer, aye. Alanis. Aye. Alanis, aye. Bonta. Bonta, aye. Bryan. Lackey. Lackey, aye. Ortega. Ortega, aye. Santiago. Santiago, aye. Zbur.

Consent calendar's adopted. Senator Rubio, whenever you're ready.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee. Thank you for this opportunity to present. First, I want to begin by thanking the Committee and its staff for working with my office. We will be accepting the Committee amendments as offered. I'm proud today to present SB 545, the Safe Children Act.

This simple Bill, but very incredibly important to so many people, is the Safe Children Act that will stop child sex crime victims from being tried in adult court when they have fought back against their abusers. Children who are trafficked, who are sexually abused, need to be recognized as victims who are preyed upon by adults. Many of these children come from very difficult backgrounds, full of neglect and years of trauma, which makes them easy targets for people who have sinisters intentions.

But worst of all, if these children fight back against their abusers, they're often retraumatized and again by the adults in the criminal system and by the court. The Safe Children Act recognizes these children as survivors and provides them with healing and rehabilitation as well. By requiring the juvenile court to keep a child sex crime victim within the juvenile system, it has to find by clear and convincing evidence that they're victims that that person was attacked or trafficked, or sexually assaulted.

The Safe Children Act declares that the Legislature's intent is not only to keep them in juvenile court, but also to provide treatment and services. This Bill is sponsored by Human Rights for Kids. It's supported by a diverse group of stakeholders, organizations, and it passed the Senate with bipartisan support, 37 to zero. Joining me here today are two witnesses who have lived experience in this realm.

Here is Jared Harper, whose life sentence was commuted by Governor Brown and was released from prison after serving 20 years, and Sarah Cruzan, whose life sentence was commuted by Governor Schwarzenegger and who was released from prison after 19 years. If I may, I would like to turn it over to Mr. Harper.

Yes. You have five minutes. Good morning.

Good morning. My name is Jared Harper, and I just want to show a little bit of gratitude for actually being here. It's taken me a long, long time to sit before you all today. I'm in support of SB 545 because I wish it was law when I was harmed as an abused foster child. Today we have about 400,000 foster kids across the country. Only 3% of us go to college, and only 15% of that 3% actually graduate.

By the time of my incarceration, I had experienced upwards of about 48 different foster homes. I regrettably had two abusers. And again, I regrettably took the life of my second abuser. And for that, I was retraumatized, and I was cast away. And I was given a sentence of life without the possibility of parole, plus 10 years. The judge told me that I was irredeemable and that I should never walk amongst society again.

This is after I was transferred over from the Juvenile Department of Corrections and sent to the adult section. And this is how I was given this death sentence as an abused foster kid. I was placed into the foster care system at 17 months old, so I didn't have the typical household that most people had. When I went to trial, I sat in there by myself. When it was over, all I could do was try to process what had just happened. The judge was like a parent.

I had never known any of the parents. So to have received a sentence of life without the possibility of parole from, in my mind, the same authoritative figure that I had set in front of all my life, I couldn't wrap my head around it. Senate Bill 545 closes that gap in our justice system.

My goal today, as the Executive Director of Better Days, an organization that's meant to end the foster care-to-prison pipeline is to ensure that there's never another child that goes throughout our society and experiences what I did. Senate Bill 545. It's vital. Today I'm a parent. I have a 19-month-old son. Today I know what it is to protect children. Today I know what it is to be accountable as a parent.

Today I know what it is to be a protector of all children. And my hope is that this Committee will do the same and protect children. Thank you all.

Thank you, sir.

I would like to invite Sarah. Is that okay?

Yes. Hi. You have about two minutes.

Two minutes, yes. Okay. So I think that this Bill would help us all come together and have conversations about the impacts of children and what the institutions do to children who have experienced violence from either a trafficker or an adult in their life, and understanding the impacts of what that trauma can do long term. Today I do outreach, and I'm collecting data with real-time numbers of folks that I did time with in prison when I was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole plus four years.

When I was 16 years old, I shot and killed George Howard, who began indoctrinating me to be sold as a sex slave. And the indoctrination started for me when I was 11 years old. And by the time I was 13, I had experienced various levels of abuse from not only my community members, the gang members in my community, but also people who felt it was okay to buy children. Some of the folks that I endured were older men.

One was a retired police officer from Los Angeles who literally gave me his pubic hair so that if I was arrested, I would have evidence. And I think that politically, arguing over language, instead of being morally in alignment with asking children what they need to heal and to create a space for children to feel safe, to expose and share some of the experiences that children go through from buyers, I think that that should be underscored. This is the Safe Act for Children.

I don't want to do politics. I want to be morally in aligned, because I remember when the judge sentenced me, he said that I lacked moral scruples and he couldn't follow the discretion of the parole board, I mean, the CYA, to recommend for me to come back because they felt that I was suitable for treatment. It has been over 25 years, and we're still having a conversation and creating laws to put children first.

And I think that if we place children and women first, that we could create the change that's needed so that we can have healthier lifestyles and healthier communities.

Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in support?

Eric Harris with Disability Rights California, in support.

Thank you.

Danica Rodarmel, on behalf of Initiate Justice, in support.

Thank you. Are there any witnesses in opposition?

Good morning Chair and Members. Kim Stone, on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association, we have a respectful, opposed, unless amended position. The district attorneys agree that trauma, trafficking, sexual battery can and should be introduced into evidence in these cases. And we agree that the juvenile court can and should consider this evidence in determining whether to send the case to adult court or not.

But we have procedural concerns that the adult court not relitigate the underlying question of where to resolve the case, but rather if the case is in adult court, admit that evidence there. If the case is being determined whether to be in juvenile court or adult court, consider the evidence there, but don't have a second determination of where the case should be when it has already been determined by the juvenile court to be sent up to adult court.

I've been talking with the juvenile court experts this morning, but we'll have an amended letter now given the amendments, but we do really agree with the author's concerns, have a tremendous amount of respect for the author and the Committee and the amendments, and are happy to continue to work together on the issue.

Thank you.

Good morning again. Margo George, on behalf of California Public Defenders and the Pacific Juvenile Defender Center, we are in accord with the goals of this Bill. This kind of legislation is sorely needed. We support wholeheartedly the Bill as in print. What we're concerned about is the unintended consequences of the proposed amendment. And we understand that that amendment is seeking to make sure that no minor is ever transferred if they are the victim of child trafficking.

The problem is the unintended consequence and how this will play out in the trial court is that it shifts the burden to the defense. And right now, the reforms that this Legislature has passed over the last five years have clearly placed the burden on transfers on the prosecution. So that is our concern. We really appreciate the amendments that the author took in the Senate, and we hope that we can continue to work this out in conversations because this is something that the goal we support wholeheartedly. So thank you very much.

Thank you for being here and for sharing your testimony. It is incredibly powerful and impactful, makes all the difference. Good brother. It's good to see you. Last time I saw you. We were in Lancaster prison.

Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in opposition? Any other witnesses in opposition? Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the Committee. Any questions? Mr. Brian. I was going to call you, Mr. Isaac.

So to see you in this place, fighting and sharing your lived and learned experience to make a difference. I'm grateful to the author if you are looking for co-authors, Senator Rubio, I'm happy to join you on this righteous effort. I do recognize, though, that the burden of proof is not like a meaningless thing. It means a lot in how these things play out. But I have the full confidence that between the office, you'll get this right and make a motion to move the Bill.

Ms. Bonta.

I still want to thank Senator Rubio for bringing forward this Bill. It's very much in alignment with the Bill that I had last year that was signed into Lot AB 2361, which I've already heard feedback from community that it's made a tremendous impact in making sure that youth are not taken and put into an adult court when they shouldn't be. This issue around burden of proof is one of concern for me.

The intent of AB 2361 was essentially to shift that burden to prosecution, and in so doing, really allowed for youth to not have to create a situation where they needed to come up with the clear and convincing evidence. In this particular instance, when we're talking about youth who have been human trafficked, who have been victims of sexual assault, foster youth, those are all areas where we actually need to ensure that the burden isn't shifted to them and that it remains on the prosecution.

So I'm hoping that you will consider continuing to work with the, I think, mediated opposition. I don't know if it's opposition on this to ensure that we come up with a potential solution. One I think that might be worth consideration is whether we can create a rebuttable presumption standard where if a youth shows credible evidence of sexual assault, then the burden shows back to the DA to prove they are not a trafficking victim.

Because what we don't want to do is already where we don't have the resources for people, in defense, and in public defense, where we outweigh our ability to offer public defense versus prosecution to make sure that that doesn't happen. So I just wondered if the author could address any opportunity for that.

Thank you for that. And we're always open to continuing conversations. I know the Committee asked for some amendments, but the Bill that you passed last year does put the burden on the prosecution. What this Bill does remains the same. It just puts the burden on the judge after hearing the evidence, whether or not there is clear and convincing evidence that the child. I'm sorry that the youth was sex trafficked. So the burden still remains on the prosecution to prove.

Okay. Any other comments? Ms. Senator, you may close.

Thank you. Thank you so much. I know this is a very difficult topic to discuss and emotional. First of all, I want to thank Jared and Sarah here. Thank you for telling their stories. It's not easy. And I've been having conversations with them. As you all know, these are two brave souls that came forward and discussed their circumstance. But there's so many that are silenced and don't want to come forward. And I've been an advocate for victims for many, many years now.

And I just hope that as we move forward again, I will open my office to further conversations. But I think this is a good Bill to move forward, and thank you for your time and consideration.

Okay. I want to thank you for bringing this forward. I want to thank both witnesses for being here when you come before this Committee, especially this Committee, it's extremely difficult to share your pain. This Committee, probably more than any other, have heard some really tragic stories. To be able to do that in public requires a certain amount of bravery that I don't think most of us have.

So I commend both of you for being able to come here, share in the public, and let us know the good thing that I'm hearing, as opposed to a lot of other discussions on bills that come before here. I think there is a shared value that both sides.

I don't usually see the public defenders groups and the DA's groups on the same side, but I do believe they want to fix this, and I do believe they share your pain, and they share that they want to get this done. And so, Senator, you have the advantage where people are willing to make this better. And so I hear your intent about moving things so that the judge can make some kind of rendering.

This Committee, over the last 10 years since I've been here, we've gone from where we never trusted judges to make decisions to now we're putting more faith in them. And so, hopefully, we can get to that level of fairness to where a judge can look at everything and then make a credible decision. So I believe you will work, because it sounds like a matter of just wordsmithing to get this done. And so the chair is recommending an aye.

And I think we have a motion and a second. Call the roll.

On SB 545 by Senator Rubio, the motion is do pass, as amended, to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll call].

I really do hope that you consider those amendments, though.

[Roll call].

I will. Thank you.

That measure passes. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you all. And our last item, item number 14, last on the agenda, and the last one for today. SB 852 Rubio, searches, supervised persons. Item number 14.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Whenever you're ready to begin. I'm sorry.

I want to make sure you were ready for me. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And once again, your staff has worked so hard to help my office come to a good place. And I just want to say that I'm very proud to present right now SB 852, the Protect Act. This is straightforward Bill that has had a lot of support. First, this will put an end to tactics by ICE, to pretend to be other public safety agencies, to deceive our immigrant community.

And then second, this will help create just trust between our communities and law enforcement. So it's been a practice that individuals will pretend to be either probation officers or other public safety for the purpose of dragging people out of their homes and in particular, with the purpose of deporting people. There's two issues here. First of all, we also need to make sure that these tactics are not employed, because as a victim's advocate, I always say we want full trust in our public safety.

We want people to come forward when there's crimes, when they see something. Any of us here could have a family Member in distress. And we want every single person of our community, including our immigrant community, to be able to come forward and have confidence that if they come forward with evidence which is needed, that they're not going to be afraid of being deported.

And so, again, this is a very clear, straightforward Bill that would stop those tactics of deceiving a community by pretending to be officers when in reality they're vice agents. I have two individuals here that are going to testify on my behalf, Cynthia Valencia with ACLU California Action and Andrea Amavisca from the California American Policy Center. If I may turn it over to them.

Five minutes.

Good morning, chair and the Public Safety Committee Members. My name is Cynthia Valencia. I'm a legislative advocate with the ACLU California Action here and strongly support SB 852. A common practice that Immigration and Customs Enforcement has is they impersonate officers from other law enforcement agencies to coerce people into cooperating under false pretenses.

ICE calls these intentional misrepresentations ruses, and they have a probation ruse, which is where they represent themselves as probation officers ask a person to step outside of their home or consent entry into their home, and people on probation believe that they have no choice but to comply and are just following the terms of their probation. In 2020, our affiliate at the ACLU of Southern California filed a lawsuit challenging these impersonation tactics and other unlawful practices during home arrests.

Through this litigation, ICE officers have confirmed to us that their practice of using a person's probation status to gain compliance with officer demands during home arrests. So these people who have been subjected to ICE probation ruses, they have expressed anger, betrayal, and report that they and their families now feel very wary of all uniformed officers, Fearing that they are actually ICE.

By using these tactics, ICE agents have sown distrust of law enforcement and caused panic in our immigrant communities, especially the Latine community that is most frequently the target of these ICE operations. Current California law restricts parole searches and seizures to be conducted by a probation or peace officer. They are specifying that ICE agents are not peace officers. However, some probation terms still refer to legal searches by law enforcement rather than peace officer.

So ICE is currently exploiting this ambiguity and language between law enforcement and peace officer so that they can still use probation ruses. SB 852 is going to fix that language ambiguity, and it is important that we have this trust in our immigrant communities. Eliminate this loophole, make it clear that ICE agents cannot represent themselves as probation officers or exploit a person's probation status. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. My name is Andrea Amavisca. I'm a senior legislative advocate with the California Immigrant Policy Center. As my colleague mentioned, currently, ICE agents are able to exploit a gap in the law which allows them to target immigrant Californians for detention and deportation by masking as probation officers and carrying out unlawful ruse tactics. The criminal legal system operates a two tiered system of justice where people are subject to double punishment simply because of the country they were born in.

Immigrant Californians who have earned their release from state prison and are trying to comply with the terms of their probation are instead being manipulated by ICE and facing the harsh risks of family separation and deportation. ICE officers are not police. ICE has a pattern in California and across the United States of posing like the police as a tactic to access people's homes, lying to Californians, coercing people into cooperating with them, and arresting immigrant Californians.

According to the ACLU, in the Los Angeles area of Responsibility alone, ICE has conducted at least 19,000 at large arrests from 2014 to 2021. A sizable number of these arrests occur at home residences. That number is almost equivalent to the total number of immigrants currently incarcerated by CDCR 20,000, which I'll note includes those with legal permanent residence status or legal residence as temporary protected status, DACA, and those who are undocumented.

When immigrant Californians are on probation, their personal information and their safety, as well as the safety of their families with whom they live, deserve to be protected by clarifying that mandatory supervision and probation searches and seizures can only be conducted by probation officers or peace officers. This Bill will prohibit ICE agents from falsely identifying themselves as probation officers when conducting an arrest of a Californian in their home.

These arbitrary arrests, which are not handed down by a judge, create a vicious and unfair cycle of punishment for immigrant Californians. ICE's unlawful ruse tactics significantly impact BIPOC immigrants by subjecting them to racial profiling, arrest, and detention, all of which have devastated and destabilized tens of thousands of individuals, families, and whole communities across California.

SB 852 seeks to put an end to ICE acting as police and probation officers, and ensures that immigrant Californians will not be targeted for an arbitrary arrest and indefinite detention by ICE solely because of their probation status. Thank you. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support?

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

Thank you.

Angie Shin, representing the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in Support.

Thank you. Are there any witnesses in opposition? Any witnesses in opposition? Bring it back to Committee for any questions. Comments? Seeing none, you may close.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Committee Members just wanted to highlight how important this Bill is on two fronts for me. As a formerly undocumented deported child myself, I know the trauma the families experience firsthand when they're being deported. And I clearly just remember my parents face when the circumstance happened. And so it's bad enough to be deported and not have legal status, and we don't need to add these deceptive tactics where public safety, I'm sorry, ICE impersonating other officers. So on that front is bad enough.

On the other front is we need trust in our public safety individuals. We want our community to participate. We want our community to come forward when they see things, and we don't want them afraid to be part of the process and be Members of their community. So with that, I ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Chairs recommend Aye. Do we get a motion? We have a secretary.

Madam Secretary, call the roll.

On AB 852 by Senator Rubio, the motion is do pass. Jones-Sawyer. Aye. Jones-Sawyer, aye. Alanis. Alanis, aye. Bonta. Aye. Bonta, aye. Bryan. Bryan, aye. Lackey. Lackey, aye. Ortega. Ortega, aye. Santiago. Santiago, aye. Zbur. Zbur, aye.

That measure passes. Thank you.

Thank you, everyone. Have a good day.

We'll now. Wait. We'll now go through all the other items on any add ons or vote changes. Madam Secretary, please go through all the measures taken up today.

On the consent calendar. Bryan. Aye. Bryan, aye. Zbur, aye. Item one, SB 78, was on consent. Item number two, SB 86, was on consent. Item number three, SB 250, was on consent. Item number four, SB 290, was on consent. Item number five, SB 359, was pulled by the author. Item number six, SB 376, was on consent. Item number seven, SB 400. This bill was for testimony only earlier. Is there a motion? On SB 400 by Senator Wahab.

The motion is do pass as amended. Jones-Sawyer. Aye. Jones-Sawyer, aye. Alanis. Alanis, aye. Bonta. Bonta, aye. Bryan. Bryan, aye. Lackey. Lackey, not voting. Ortega. Ortega, aye. Santiago. Santiago, aye. Zbur. Zbur, aye. Item number eight, SB 412, this is also for testimony earlier in the hearing. Is there a motion? On SB 412 by Senator Archuleta, the motion is do pass to the Appropriations Committee.

Jones-Sawyer. Aye. Jones-Sawyer, aye. Alanis. Alanis, aye. Bonta. Bonta, aye. Bryan. Bryan, aye. Lackey. Lackey, aye. Ortega. Ortega, aye. Santiago. Santiago, aye. Zbur. Zbur, aye. Item number nine, this measure was also for testimony only. SB 417. Is there a motion there a second?

SB 417, by Senator Blakespear. The motion is do pass. Jones-Sawyer. Aye. Jones-Sawyer, aye. Alanis. Alanis, aye. Bonta. Aye. Bonta, aye. Bryan. Bryan, aye. Lackey. Not voting. Lackey, not voting. Ortega. Ortega, aye. Santiago. Santiago, aye. Zbur. Zbur, aye. Item number 10, SB 448, was on consent. Item number 11, SB 545 by Senator Rubio. Santiago. Santiago, aye. Item number 12, SB 602, was pulled by the author. Item number 13, SB 762, was on consent, and item 14, SB 852, was just dispensed with.

Thank you, and that concludes the Public Safety Committee meeting.