Senate Standing Committee on Public Safety

I ask all Members of the Committee to be present in room 2200 so we can establish a quorum and begin our hearing. We have 26 bills on today's agenda, and six are on consent. Seven on consent. We have a full agenda, so we will be limiting the time for those that are trying to call in to 10 minutes. We're going to start as a Subcommitee.

I do just want to highlight that today it's a little bit different. We're going to start as first come, first serve, those that came first. It's Assemblymember Rodriguez, Quirk-Silva, Santiago, Gipson on behalf of Ting and Bonta. So that's the order. We will have the very first individual come and speak. Specifically, Assemblyember Rodriguez, if you would like to present your Bill, AB 474, the the floor is yours. I do want to highlight that we allow two minutes for lead witnesses.

If you guys can all tell us how many witnesses you have, if it's one, two, or zero. For those that would like to make me too comments and have seen our previous public safety meetings, I like to go through this very, very quickly. Name, org., and that you support or oppose. Other than that, you can begin.

Okay, thank you. Good morning, Chair and senators. As chair of the Emergency Management Committee, I'm pleased to present AB 474, a bill requiring the State Threat Assessment Center at the California Office of Emergency Services to support state and local Fentanyl task forces. As you know, transnational criminal organizations are supplying the drugs that are addicting and killing our children. As part of the overall strategy, combating the illegal opioid crisis, we must distribute these networks of criminals and get opioid drugs off our streets. It is critical that we do everything we can to protect our state from threats to our public health. This bill will also complement the governor's master plan for tackling the Fentanyl and opioid crisis, which includes 30 million to expand the California National Guard's work to prevent drug trafficking, and 15 million over the next two years to establish and operate the Fentanyl Enforcement Program within the Department of Justice to combat manufacturing, distribution and trafficking. Additionally, this bill also strengthened the initiative recently announced by the governor in San Francisco to establish a partnership between the California Highway Patrol, the California National Guard, the San Francisco Police Department and the San Francisco District Attorney's Office to combat drug trafficking. For all these reasons, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Do we have any members of the committee or any witnesses? None. Okay. Seeing no witnesses here in support. Do we have any? Me too.

Good morning, Madam Chair and members. Kyra Ross on behalf of the City of Burbank in support.

Thank you. Anybody else? Seeing none. We'll move on to opposition. You have two minutes and we will time you.

Thank you. Becca Cramer Mowder, on behalf of ACLU California Action in respectful opposition. AB 474 further entrenches the work of the fusion center known as the State Threat Assessment Center, or STAC, in ways that exacerbate the harms of fusion centers. Fusion centers function like government-run data brokers, enabling problematic surveillance and facilitating the dangerous sharing of people's data with out-of-state-enforced authorities, while also exacerbating harmful policing practices. Fusion centers are also susceptible to abuse and undermine the rights and safety of community members, including labeling pro-choice activists as violent extremists. Unfortunately, AB 474 builds on this problematic remit of fusion centers, including the targeting of particular communities. The bill's final legislative finding muddles opioid distribution with immigration and thefts of intellectual property, singles out people from a particular country and using heated rhetoric threatens to further exacerbate improper targeting based on nationality or family ancestry. AB 474 has other problems as well. Its operative language mandates STAC to take actions against unspecified criminal organizations while providing no basis for assuming that these unspecified organizations cause the problems the bill hopes to remedy, nor provide any metrics or guidelines to establish what success looks like in this endeavor. Rather than appreciating the domestic causes of opioid addiction and the Fentanyl crisis, or providing support for proven nonlaw enforcement approaches to curtailing the demand for these drugs, the bill assumes that transnational criminal organizations are the causes for these crisis and further entrenches the misguided assumptions that we can police and criminalize our way out of our drug problems. We have tried this before with the failed War on Drugs and seen the devastating consequences on people's lives, how it harms communities most impacted by drug addiction without addressing the public health issues these laws meant to solve.

Appreciate it. Next speaker, you have max two minutes.

Hi, I'll be quick. Good morning. Tracy Rosenberg from Oakland Privacy. We are also opposed to AB 474. This bill is an unclear and a muddled mandate to do vague things about Mexican transnational drug rings. The record of unconstitutional policing in California's fusion centers and the pursuit of terrorism should make us hesitate to give out muddled mandates. As far back as 2012, a Senate Oversight Committee said the majority of the reports that fusion centers had produced had no connection to terrorism at all, and that the reports were low quality and often not about activity that was in fact illegal. More recently, the Blue Lakes Data revealed that NCRIC, NorCal's fusion center, had interpreted counterterrorism intelligence as sending lists of First Amendment protests following the death of George Floyd, including one called the SF Kids Peace March to 14,000 cops twice daily with the tagline, "These events involve criminal activities such as looting, vandalism and threats of violence." The bill's vagueness and lack of clarity is a recipe for commission creep, and it's dangerous. We already have the DEA and high-intensity drug trafficking areas all over the state, whose job is breaking up drug trafficking and a growing extremism and domestic terrorism problem that we should pay attention to. Please vote no.

Thank you. Any other me too in opposition? Please state your name, your org and that you oppose.

Melanie Kim, San Francisco Public Defender's Office, in opposition.

Sonja Tonnesen-Casalegno, on behalf of Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice, we opposed.

Alex Diaz, on behalf of the Underground Scholars Initiative at UC Berkeley, we oppose.

Ray'Von Jones on behalf of the Dream Beyond Bars fellowship, and we oppose.

Artist White, on behalf of the Dream Beyond Bars fellowship, we oppose.

Thank you. Anybody else? Alright, moderator, can you prompt the first individual waiting to testify via teleconference.

For support of opposition for AB 474, please press one, then zero on your telephone keypad, we will go to line number 13.

Hi Yaddy with Truth and Tech in opposition of AB 474.

One moment for our next comments. We'll go to line number 16.

Ethan Nagler on behalf of the City of Bakersfield. In support.

We'll go to line 27.

Hannah Lisa Ruiz on behalf of Young Women's Freedom Center, in opposition.

And we will go to line 26.

Hello, my name is Jeronimo Aguilar, calling on behalf of Legal Services for Prisoners with Children. In opposition. Thank you.

Madam Chair, we have no further support of opposition.

Thank you. We'll move the conversation to committee members. Seeing none. Would you like to close?

Yes. Respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. We're going to have to wait for a motion, but I appreciate your presentation.

Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Thank you.

Our next speaker is Assemblymember Quirk-Silva. And, Assemblymember, you are presenting--give me two seconds--Where is it? AB 455.

Yes. Good morning, Madam Chair. AB 455 authorizes courts to temporarily restrict firearm ownership from defendants and mental health diversion. If the prosecution can prove with clear and convincing evidence that the defendant is a danger to themselves or others, the court can order the prohibition until diversion is successfully completed. In 2018, California Penal Code 1001.36 established the state's mental health diversion program.

Mental Health Diversion allows individuals with diagnosed mental health disorders to participate in a mental health treatment program for up to two years in lieu of criminal prosecution. California has long imposed gun restrictions on individuals convicted of felonies and certain misdemeanor crimes. I want to be very clear. I understand the vast number of people who suffer from mental illness do not act out violently or commit crimes.

However, individuals who have been charged with specified criminal offenses and choose to participate in mental health diversion programs should adhere to gun restrictions while in the program. Our staff, with the assistance of the Committee consultant, have been working with the opposition. We are committed to working out a final detail in order to make sure the Bill is constitutional as well as consistent with other gun prohibitions. With us today in support of AB 455 is Ms. Kim Stone of Stone Advocacy, representing the California District Attorneys Association. The sponsors for this Bill.

Thank you. Is she your only witness?

Yes.

Okay. You will have two minutes.

Thank you. Chair and Members, on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association, Kim Stone of Stone Advocacy, thank the author and her co-author for authoring the Bill. The District Attorneys Association does recognize that while on mental health diversion, it is appropriate for individuals to be prohibited from owning guns. That if they had pled guilty or been convicted of that action, would have suffered a firearm consequence.

We do also recognize that vast majority of people with mental health issues are nonviolent, but this is somebody who has conducted an action that led them to be arrested for the activity. We also support diversion as both helping the individual and lead to additional community safety, and we support common sense gun restrictions. We have had conversations with the Public Defender's Office about an additional change that they seek going forward and are tentatively optimistic that we will reach resolution with them about that issue.

Thank you very much. Urge your aye vote.

Thank you. Do we have any other witnesses in support? Name and org. that you support.

Madam Chair, Members. Dan Felizzatto on behalf of the Los Angeles County District Attorney's office in support.

Thank you. Anybody else? Okay. Going to opposition.

Good morning. Lesli Caldwell-Houston for the California Public Defenders Association as currently amended. And we thank the author for all the amendments that we've agreed to thus far. As currently amended, AB 455 appropriately lets a judge decide after a hearing evidence whether it's necessary to deny individuals on mental health diversion their rights to gun ownership.

Our requested amendment would let judges decide also whether to restore that right to an individual who did not complete mental health probation in a process similar to the procedure for individuals who have been taken into custody as a danger to self or others, or certified for intensive treatment and therefore lost their gun ownership rights. This is an equal protection clause issue under the US Constitution because individuals who are similarly situated are being treated differently by the state. We urge your no vote unless amended.

Thank you. Any other opposition? Witnesses seeing none. Moderator, would you prompt the first individual?

For support or opposition for AB 455, press one then zero. And Madam Chair, we have no support or opposition.

Thank you. We'll move the conversation to Members of the Committee. No comment. Would you like to close?

Simply that we'll continue to work with the opposition. And our goal here, like many of these types of bills, is to make sure that we have a safe environment for our public.

And with that, respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you.

Appreciate it. We will do the motion afterwards. But I do appreciate your presentation.

Thank you, Madam Chair. First, I want to thank the Chair and the Committee for their work. This bill will strengthened visitation and rights for family members of incarcerated people by restoring visiting as a right and establish a minimum of three days for visitations in respect to the Committee. I will be brief and allow my two presenters to speak now. Thanks.

Thank you. Will the first witness speak? You will have two minutes. You will be timed. Your time has begun.

My name is Ken Hartman. I am the Advocacy Director for the Transformative InPrison Workgroup. I served 38 continuous years in the California prison system. I was there when visits were a right, and I was there when the right was taken away. I felt the difference was mostly in how hard it became to get a visit from your mom or your wife or your child. It became painful.

I watched families disintegrate under the weight of the precariousness and capriciousness of how visiting was terminated, closed, delayed after the right was taken away. The months of waiting on approvals, the constant harassment. The people who were hurt most were our children. My relationship with my daughter was contingent on visiting, which wasn't always allowed to run, and it wasn't compelled to by law, as it isn't still. Prison visiting rooms in California are just not family friendly.

The current system undermines critical connections that make prisons safer and support re-entry. And it punishes the families of incarcerated people. Now, California has embarked on a grand experiment, running prisons closer to the Nordic model. One of the best places to start this transformation, which I support, would be in the visiting rooms. Make them family friendly. Train visiting staff to view visitors as fellow citizens, not suspects. Make visiting a priority, as it is in Norway. I've been there three times and I've toured their prisons.

I saw that their visiting system is based on making it as family friendly and child friendly as possible. I think it would be altogether humane and compassionate to make the visiting process and our visiting rooms welcoming to our children. Please support this bill. It's simply the right thing to do.

Thank you. Next speaker, you will have two minutes as well.

Good morning. My name is Lawrence Cox. I'm a Policy Fellow at Legal Services for Prisoners with Children. I'm also system impacted. I did 16 half years in prison, and I support AB 958 because I'm impacted. And I'm well aware how the impact absorbs by my friends and my family who are, in a sense, did time along with me. I believe the right to maintain, facilitate, nurture, and restore family connections elevates the belief and message that we truly value public safety...

Our communities, the institution of family, and true rehabilitation, which all are key and go hand in hand. Rehabilitation and unimpeded access to families should not be viewed as a privilege. The tools and mechanisms we utilize to accomplish rehabilitation should never be utilized as a punishment or taken away when an individual falters. Falling short of the mark only means one needs further work, not that one no longer needs access to one of the most important apparatuses CDCR has to facilitate rehabilitation, which is visiting.

When incarcerated individuals receive disciplinary infractions, CDCR does not respond by removing them from their college courses or their AA and NA programs, which is invaluable to rehabilitation. So why would we look at the right to visit in the same light? Family structure in our community ties in with public safety.

When we have kids that grow up with the lack of parents in the household, and they begin to deal with traumatic issues, and it surfaces in schools, it surfaces in their behavior, it dictates who they become and how they respond. They deal with mental issues, they deal with emotional issues, they have problems building relationships, they have problems focusing in school. And a lot of these things could be stopped if these kids have their parents in their life.

I think society has this notion because you're convicted of a felony, and you're a criminal, that you're less than humane and that you have nothing worthy or valuable to give to anyone that's outside the street. But rehabilitation is key. Rehabilitation is key for those that you send back to the streets. If public safety is truly the issue, then why would we want to send anybody back to the streets who haven't been truly rehabilitated?

Time. Thank you. Appreciate it. Any other speakers in support? Please state your name, that you support, and your org.

Lesli Caldwell-Houston, California Public Defenders Association, in support.

Thank you.

Morning, Chair and Members. Faith Lee with Asian Americans Advancing Justice, Southern California. We're in support.

Appreciate it.

Danica Rodarmel, on behalf of the GRIP Training Institute and in my personal capacity as a directly impacted family member, in support.

Michael Mendoza with the Anti Recidivism Coalition, strong support.

Thank you.

Alicia Benavidez Lewis in support on behalf of Alliance for Boys of Men of Color.

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

Thank you.

Bethlehem Desta, Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, support. Thank you.

Angie Shin, Ella Baker Center, in support.

Sonja Tonnesen-Casalegno with Communities United For Restorative Youth Justice, proud co-sponsor, in support.

Tatiana with Legal Services for Prisoners with Children in strong support.

Thank you.

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

Good morning. Katie Dixon on behalf of California Coalition for Women Prisoners, in support.

Good morning. Esteban Nuñez with the Anti Recidivism Coalition, a proud co-sponsor in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Alex Diaz with the Underground Scholars Initiative at UC Berkeley, in strong support. Thank you.

Artist White with Communities United for Restorative Justice, in support.

Good morning. Ray'Von Jones here on behalf of Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice. We're a proud co-sponsor, and we support.

Swai Lakai with organization CURYJ, and I support

Arleen Rosales with Dream Beyond Bars in support.

Laura Ridolfi with the Haywood Burns Institute, in support.

Cynthia Valencia, ACLU California Action, in support.

Cynthia Chandler, Alameda County District Attorney's Office, in Support.

Thank you. Anybody else in support? Seeing none. We'll move to opposition witnesses. Seeing none. Moderator, would you please prompt the first individual.

For support or opposition to AB 958, press one, then zero. We'll go to line 23.

Good morning. I'm Dena Skading. I'm a directly impacted family member in strong support.

We'll go to line 34.

Hi, my name is Anna Daniel and I am a... organization, and I am strong support AB 958.

We'll go to line 25.

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

We'll go to line 38.

My name is Christopher Sanchez with the Western Center on Law and Poverty, in strong support.

We'll go to line 39.

Hello. My name is Kayana Tyson. I am with a New Way of Life, and I am in strong support of AB 59. AB 959. AB 958. Sorry.

Thank you.

We'll go to line 40.

Deb Roth with Disability Rights California, in strong support. Thank you.

We'll go to line 17.

Hello, Bruno Huizar with the California Immigrant Policy Center in strong support.

We'll go to line 26.

Hello, good morning, everyone. My name is Jeronimo Aguilar calling on behalf of Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, proud co-sponsors in support of AB 958. Thank you.

We'll go to line 27.

Good morning. My name is Analisa Ruiz, Young Women Freedom Center as well as impacted love one, multiple people incarcerated, in strong support. Thank you.

One moment. We have one other person that's queuing up. Now going to line 15.

Nicole Wordelman on behalf of the Children's Partnership, in support.

We have no further support or opposition. Madam Chair.

Thank you. I'd like to establish quorum. Can we call roll, please?

Wahab? Wahab, here. Ochoa Bogh? Bradford? Skinner? Here. Wiener? Present. Wiener, here.

Thank you. Would Members of the Committee like to speak? Senator Skinner.

Thank you. I want to express my appreciation to the author for carrying this bill. As your witnesses spoke and as you spoke, we know how important visitation is, not only for the families. I mean, the children being denied that ability to see their loved ones, but also for the ability for us to have successful reentry and reduce recidivism. So while some people may not understand the value of that, it's extraordinarily valuable. And I appreciate this bill. And with that, I'll move it.

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

Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. We have a motion by Senator Skinner.

Motion is do to pass to Appropriations. Wahab? Aye. Wahab, aye. Ochoa Bogh? Bradford? Skinner? Aye. Skinner, aye. Wiener? Aye. Wiener, aye.

Thank you. That bill's on call. Assembly Member, would you like to present your next bill, AB 1261?

Yes, Madam Chair. Plain, simple. We want to clarify standardized procedures so that any eligible person who can qualify under a U visa, S visa, or T visa would be eligible in the State of California. Currently, that is not the case. So we are working with the sponsor, DA Gascon, to make sure that this is implemented across the State of California. If they're eligible, they should be able to have a pathway towards citizenship. Respectfully ask for an aye vote

Thank you. Do you have witnesses?

Yes. One.

One witness?

Two. I apologize.

Two witnesses. You will each have two minutes. Thank you.

Madam Chair and Members, Dan Felizzatto. On behalf of the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office. Anti-immigrant crime is rising at alarming rates in the State of California. Law enforcement routinely encounters immigrants terrified to report crimes, file for protective orders, or to serve as witnesses out of fear of deportation. The criminal justice system depends on all members of the community being willing to report crimes, cooperate with investigations, testify in court, and join in efforts to prevent future violence.

But we cannot expect people to cooperate with a government that they don't trust. Research shows that immigrant communities are less likely to contact or cooperate with law enforcement if they are afraid that law enforcement will investigate their immigration status or the immigration status of their loved ones. A major tool available to law enforcement to encourage undocumented immigrants to cooperate with authorities are the UT and S visa programs, which provide a legal pathway for noncitizens who report crimes to law enforcement to stay in the country.

These programs were designed with the dual purpose of protecting noncitizen victim witnesses and to promote cooperation between law enforcement and these communities. Federal law grants law enforcement agencies and prosecutors significant discretion to determine who is eligible to receive these visas in their jurisdictions. AB 1261 will establish fair and transparent policies for these programs by clarifying the existing laws surrounding these visa programs. AB 1261 provides clear definitions of the different types of victim witnesses eligible to receive these visas.

It also provides guidance to law enforcement and prosecutors on the requirements and factors that are and are not required for a UT or S visa to be issued. Law enforcement agencies and prosecutors who fail to certify visa applications--

Time, thank you. Next speaker, two minutes. We do time, you went a little over, it's okay.

Hello, and thank you for the opportunity to speak with you this morning. I'm Michelle Carey, a directing attorney from the Los Angeles Center for Law and Justice, a nonprofit in East LA that provides free legal services to low income survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, and human trafficking, including representation on their U and T visa petitions.

While California has been a leader in creating uniformity among U visa certifications, there is more work to do. In my nearly 20 years of experience representing undocumented crime victims, I have worked extensively with law enforcement to obtain U visa certifications.

I have seen situations where law enforcement fails to understand who qualifies as a victim, or creates requirements that go far beyond the role Congress intended for them, such as denying a certification request based on the level of harm the victim suffered, or the inability to produce a specific form of identification. I have also seen situations where a child is left out of her mother's petition because a certification is not reviewed quickly enough, missing what could otherwise be a life changing opportunity for that young person.

The LA Center for Law and justice is in strong support of AB 1261 because it provides enhanced access and equity in the certification process. This helps law enforcement do their jobs more effectively, reducing the very real fear so many victims have about communicating with them, and replacing that fear with an avenue for trust, creating a bridge between two communities that need to cooperate, but so often fail to do so.

AB 1261 also reduces barriers and increases safety, not just for vulnerable immigrant victims, but for all of us. Over 20 years have passed since Congress created the U and T visas. Yet every day, victims of crime in California are still unfairly denied their right to apply. Without AB 1261, these unjust denials will continue. Thank you very much for your time today and for ensuring that all eligible crime victims in California are able to access the protections and remedies to which they are entitled.

Thank you. For those that are wishing to speak in support, please line up and we will move quickly. Name, organization that you support. Again, we'd like to move quickly through this process.

Good morning, [inaudible] on behalf of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, in support.

Thank you.

Cynthia Chandler Potlucksy, Chief of Alameda County District Attorney's Office, in support.

Thank you. Anybody else looking to opposition witnesses? Do we have any opposition witnesses here? Seeing none. Any opposition? Me too? Seeing none. Moderator, prompt the first individual, please.

For support or opposition to AB 1261, press one, then zero. Madam Chair, we have no support or opposition.

Thank you. We'll turn the conversation to Committee Members. Senator Skinner.

Thank you again. Move the Bill.

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

Respectfully, I ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. We have a motion by Senator Skinner. Can we call?

Motion is due. Pass to appropriations. [Roll Call]

Thank you. The Bill is on call. Appreciate your time. Assembly Member Gipson would like to present AB 1089. His Bill first, and then the two by Assembly Member Ting--Three. AB 1089.

Good morning. Thank you very much, Madam Chair and Members, thank you for allowing me to present Assembly Bill 1089, which seeks to ban the sale, the purchase, the possession and the receiving of a ghost gun technology by limiting the use of a 3D printer and computerized numbering control, the CNC mill machine to license gun manufacturers in the State of California. Assembly Bill 1089 strengthens the legacy of previous bills that have gone through the Legislature.

Assembly Bill 1089 is before you today. We also brought Assembly Bill 1621 in 2022, which banned ghost guns and their kits. Assembly Bill Assembly Bill 879 was also introduced in 2019, which requires a sale of firearm precursor parts to be possessed and to be also prohibited by vendors. California is in the lead when it comes to preventing gun violence, yet people are still finding the loopholes within the law. This Bill here today, 1089, seeks to close that loophole.

There are people who are gaining access to homemade, untraceable guns by using 3D-printing mill press machines. This technologies allow someone to create a semiautomatic weapon with a serial number, with no serial number and no background check and no waiting period or other regulations. It is essential that we do everything that we can to making sure that we close this gap in the 3D printer world. This Bill does not seek to ban, and I want to repeat, does not seek to ban 3D printers.

This Bill targets 3D printers of guns by those who are unlicensed to do so. Joining me to provide supporting testimony, a representative from the Gifford Law Center who will self introduce and also Brady Campaign as well.

So you have two witnesses?

I do.

Okay, two minutes. Thank you.

Hi. Good morning. Jamie Minor. On behalf of the Giffords Law Center to prevent gun violence, the sponsor of AB 1089. We want to thank the author for his inspiring and unwavering leadership on this issue. In recent years, and especially since the start of the pandemic, California has suffered an explosion in the market of DIY--or do it yourself--ghost gun build kits that allow people to easily assemble their own firearms without any background check or other protections.

The ghost gun industry sold its gun kits products directly, immediately and often anonymously over the internet to buyers, including children and teens who never passed a background check or gun safety test and never showed ID verifying their age or identity. Our organization is proud to have partnered with Assembly Member Gipson and this Committee and the Legislature to introduce the nation's first comprehensive ghost gun reform Bill back in 2016, as well as the nation's strongest ghost gun reform legislation last year.

However, early, we have also seen some companies seek to circumvent these new reforms by openly selling and marketing digitally programmable machines, including ghost gun printing 3D printers that encourage unlicensed manufacturers to produce key firearm parts with the press of a button. These companies are encouraging unlicensed manufacturers to break the law and print their own firearms without any background check or serial number.

This legislation would build on California's recent ghost gun reforms and strengthen our laws to proactively stop these abusive and dangerous practices and stop the sale and purchase of ghost guns' manufacturing machines. California's limitations on the sale of ghost gun manufacturing machines will hold individuals accountable for harms caused by their distribution of digital blueprints for printing and manufacturing guns and key firearm components.

These efforts will urgently address dangerous attempts to undermine California's life saving ghost gun reforms before they can take root and fuel the next generation of proliferation of unregulated ghost guns in our communities. For these reasons, Gifford strongly supports AB 1089.

Thank you. Thank you. You have two minutes.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Rebecca Marcus, representing one of the co-sponsors, Brady Campaign, in strong support of AB 1089.

Whether assembled from unregulated parts or parts printed from a 3D printer, ghost guns have caused havoc in communities all across our state. Last year, you all said "enough," and passed two of the strongest laws regulating ghost guns. However, despite the immediate and life-saving impact of the passage and implementation of these bills, certain ghost gun industry members have worked diligently to find a way around the law and subsequently continue to sell ghost gun manufacturing machines.

These machines are specifically designed and intended to allow anyone to produce firearms or firearms' frames or receivers with little more than a press of a button. This means more unregulated and unserialized ghost guns in our community. These industry Members are intentionally circumventing the intended purpose of both AB 1621 and AB 2156. At the risk of public health and safety, the original version of this Bill can prevent these businesses from undermining your work for their profit. For these reasons, we urge your vote. Thanks.

Thank you. For those that would like to speak as a me too, please state your name, that you support, and the organization you represent. We'd like to go through this pretty quickly.

Madam Chair, Members. Dan Felizzatto on behalf of the Los Angeles County District Attorney's office in support.

Cassandra Whetstone, volunteer with Moms Demand Action in support.

Krystal LoPilato with Everytown for Gun Safety in support.

Erin Chamberlain with Moms Demand Action in support.

Linda Wheaton, volunteer with Moms Demand Action in support.

Susan Burns, volunteer with Moms Demand Action in support.

Catherine Nomorta, volunteer with Moms Demand Action in strong support.

Kim Manfredi, a volunteer with Moms Demand Action in support.

Alex Navarro with Moms Demand Action in support.

Zeenat Yahya on behalf of March for Our Lives in support.

Cynthia Chandler, Policy Chief of Alameda County District Attorney's Office in support.

Thank you. Do we have any opposition witnesses? As lead opposition, you will be having two minutes. We will time.

From the time our bottom leads the chair, right?

Madam Chair, a little historical fact: there are tens of millions of guns in private possession that are totally legal that have no serial numbers. Serial numbers were not required until 1968, the passage of the 68 Gun Control Act. So there are literally millions of them. Another historical fact: now that there is a definition for ghost guns, every time that a criminal takes a firearm that has a serial number on it and obliterates the serial number, it becomes a ghost gun.

And I would argue that there are far more cases of that than there are those that are printed by lawful citizens. Number three: any and all 3D printers can conduct this activity. They are all capable of doing that. You are targeting those that are marketed for manufacturing of so-called ghost guns. Americans have had the right to manufacture firearms in their own homes since before the country was founded.

As a matter of fact, we might not have even won the Revolutionary War had Americans not had the ability to do that, and that is to make guns in their own homes. What we need to be doing is we need to be punishing those people who use guns of any kind and separating them from society. For these reasons, Gun Owners of California and the California Rifle and Pistol Association are in strong opposition to this Bill.

Thank you. Next speaker, you will have two minutes.

Thank you, Madam Chair. For the record, Dan Reed, Western Regional Director with the National Rifle Association, also here for National Shooting Sports Foundation. We're in opposition today. I echo the sentiments of Mr. Paredes. There's numerous gun laws surrounding homebuilt firearms already in existence, and criminals continue to circumvent these laws and are operating outside them. This is one more restriction that will really penalize law-abiding citizens who have been making home-built firearms since the Revolutionary War. Right?

And this Bill also presents a Fifth Amendment takings issue, as people who lawfully possess these now will have to dispose of them by 2024. With that, we're in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any opposition witnesses here in the room as me too's? Seeing none. Moderator, would you prompt the first individual, please.

For support of opposition for AB 1089, press one, then zero. We will go to line 14. Please go ahead.

Oh, is that me?

That is you.

I'm sorry. Patrick. My name is Patrick with CRPA. Strong oppose.

We'll go to line 51.

My name is Matthew Johnson. I'm a volunteer with the CRPA. Also calling to oppose Senate Bill 1089. Thank you.

Go to line 47.

Yeah. Dominic, CRPA volunteer and University of California employee. This is simply another scheme to harass law.

Support or opposed, sir. Support or. Moderator, next speaker.

We'll go to line 48.

Hi, good morning. My name is Darren. I'm a Member of the California Rifle and Pistol Association and Gun Owners of California and I'm calling in strong opposition to this bill 1089. Thank you very much.

Go to line 49.

Hi. I am an NRA member and a CRPA member and I strongly oppose 1089. Thank you.

We'll go to line 50.

Mark, a concerned California citizen, strongly urging the committee to oppose 1089. Thank you.

We'll go to line 52.

Jack Marshall, California Rifle Pistol Association volunteer life member, NRA life member, disabled American veteran. Strongly oppose AB 1089. Please start using the term.

Thank you. Next speaker.

We'll go to line 19.

Madam Chair. I'm the chair of the South Sacramento chapter of the California Rifle and Pistol Association and NRA member in strong opposition.

Madam Chair, we have no further support or opposition.

Thank you. We'll move the conversation to members of the committee. Seeing none. Would you like to close?

Yes, I want to say thank you very much to the committee. Assembly Bill 1089 will this bill is again focusing on the 3D printer. Those in opposition talked about the Civil War. We don't live in a time where that's relevant. Our technology has far exceeded our laws, and we must make sure that our laws are catching up to what's going on in our society. Assembly Bill 1089 will limit access to those who can use a 3D printer and a CNC milling machine for licensed manufacturers who are licensed by the State of California. We must do this because of all the gun violence that's taking place in our community. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Do we have a motion? Senator Bradford moved it.

Thank you.

Can we call?

The motion is do pass to Judiciary Committee. Wahab. Aye. Wahab, aye. Ochoa Bogh. Bradford. Aye. Bradford, aye. Skinner. Aye. Skinner, aye. Wiener.

Thank you. That bill's on call. Assemblymember, would you like to present on behalf of Assemblymember Ting? Let's start with AB 449 first.

Thank you. Again, I'll be presenting this Bill. Madam Chair and Members, on behalf of Assembly Member Phil Ting, I'd like to begin by accepting the Committee's amendments and thank the Committee for working on this Bill. Assembly Bill 449 requires law enforcement agencies to adopt a hate crime policy and follow specific guidelines when responding to incidents. Hate crimes have surged in California and nationally since 2015, escalating more since the start of the pandemic in my city, meaning San Francisco of the author, police departments reported the hate crime against API increase. Watch this. 567% in 2021, Los Angeles faced 173% increase in that same year. The number of reported incidents publicly reflects only a fraction of the actual number. Because of insufficient data collected and reported and underreported victims do not have the same response or treated in every jurisdiction the same way. I want to also be a co author of this Bill as well. This Bill does not expand penalties or expand what a hate crime is. This Bill merely prioritizes victims and how we respond to them. Here to supply supporting testimonies are representatives who will step up and self introduce.

You only have one witness, correct?

Yes.

Okay. You will have two minutes.

Greg De Giere with the Arc and the United Cerebral Palsy California Collaboration. The recent history of this Bill dates back to at least 2018, when the Joint Legislative Audit Committee ordered an audit of law enforcement. And the audit found that law enforcement has not adequately identified, reported, or responded to hate crimes. This Bill there are many law enforcement agencies that took the recommendations of the audit. Some did not. This Bill ensures that all of them will. Senator, some of the sponsors and supporters asked me to do me toos on their behalf. It's a long list. Would you rather not read it all? Just say it's very long and diverse.

Thank you. Next speaker, you will have two minutes. Seeing none. Okay, we'll go to toos.

Madam Chair Members. Dan Philosotto. On behalf of Los Angeles County District Attorney's office.

Appreciate that.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Members. Elizabeth Espinosa on behalf of the California Community Living Network in support. Thank you.

Any opposition witnesses? You will have two minutes.

Kim Stone, Stone Advocacy on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association. We have an opposed, unless amended position. Not at all opposed to the premise of the Bill. Merely recommend removing non first responder, law enforcement, coroners fraud and arson investigators, and DA investigators from the Bill.

Thank you. Any other opposition? Me too. Seeing none. Moderator, please prompt the first individual .

For AB 449, press 1 and 0. We will go to line 28.

Craig Pulsipher for on behalf of Equality California in support.

We will go to line 57.

Hello, this is Deb Roth with Disability Rights California in support. Thank you.

We'll go to line 60. Please go ahead.

Hi. My name is Raquel. I'm with the National Association Social Workers California shelter. And we support the bill.

I'm going to line 49. 49, your line is open. Madam Chair, we have no further support or opposition.

Thank you. We'll move the conversation to the Committee Members. I will start by saying, first off, there is no Committee amendments, so I just want to make sure that Assemblymember Ting's staff is aware of that. Seeing no conversations from Committee Members. Assembly Member, would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

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

AB 449. Motion is due, passed to appropriations. Wahab, Wahab aye. Ochoa Bogh. Bradford, Bradford aye. Skinner. Wiener, Wiener aye.

Thank you. That Bill will be on call AB 505. Assemblymember Ting assemblymember Gibson will present.

Thank you very much. Again presenting on behalf of Mr. Ting. Assembly Bill 505 has three key components. One, shifting all youth-related responsibilities from the Board, State, and Community Corrections, the BSCC, to the Office of Youth and Community Relations. Secondly, ensure that the ombud person has unrestricted access to the youth.

Three and final, requires the OYCR to review and approve current county plans ensuring that the state funds are used for the purpose in which it was attended by the Legislature and requires a county plan to be developed with regular local community participation. This bill ensure that the state is being considerate with the efforts of shifting from the corrections model to more appropriate health-based approach when dealing with our incarcerated youth.

Assembly Bill 505 is a follow up to the juvenile justice reform we passed in the budget of SB 823 in 2020. By outlining the responsibilities of the OYCR and the office we created specifically to focus on youth justice. I respectfully ask an aye vote. We have some witnesses who will self testify from the Restorative Justice Coalition.

You have two witnesses or one?

We have one witness.

One witness.

You will have two minutes.

Thank you. Thank you, Chairperson Wahab and Members of the Committee. My name is Michael Mendoza, Director of Advocacy with the Anti-Recidivism Coalition, here in support. In 2020, the Legislature and Governor set California on course to transform youth justice shifting from a corrections-based model to one focused on health, healing and opportunities for growth and creating the first ever state Office of Youth Justice, the Office of Youth and Community Restoration.

Following this plan, next month California will close its state juvenile prisons, and AB 505 is a necessary next step to ensure that the transformation of youth justice that this body envision goes right and to provide clarity on the role and authority of the OYCR. I remember clearly what it was like to be young and very alone in a dark cell of a juvenile hall. Those walls tell you no one cares.

I look back and now know that was the moment when I needed the State's support the most. And to provide and AB 505 is about that, the state being there for our youth. We've all heard that there is a crisis happening in Los Angeles juvenile halls. But it is not just LA. We have reports on conditions in 17 counties, overdoses, lack of mental health services, insufficient programming, the use of solitary confinement, retaliation for attempting to reach the ombud person, and violence.

But OYCR has no authority to act, and the BSCC has only one tool, the nuclear option of shutting down the halls. Also, the BSCC has zero authority to make any kind of finding on the suitability of a secure youth treatment facilities. It means the highest-need youth have no State oversight at all. AB 505 would provide options other than a full shutdown, ways to support change at the local level before things get too bad. It is clearly needed and AB 505 will do just that. Now is the moment to ensure youth justice transformation you envisioned stays on course. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Seeing no other lead witnesses, we will ask for me to support. Again name, organization, and that you support. We move through this quickly. So anybody lined up, let's keep it moving.

Thank you, Laura Ridolfi, Haywood Burns Institute, co-sponsor in strong support.

Sonja Tonnesen-Casalegno with Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice in support.

My name is Christopher Hernandez from California Youth Connection in support of AB 505. I would also like to recognize other organizations in support of this bill. Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice, Center for Juvenile Law and Policy at Loyola Law School, Santa Cruz Barrios Unidos, the Gathering for Justice, Asian Law Alliance, Asian Prisoner Support Committee, Alliance for Children's Rights, Advokids, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, East Bay Community Law Center, Political Public Council, Children's Defense Fund California, Fresh Lifelines for Youth, Silicon Valley Debug, Humans Rights Watch, Young Women's Freedom Center, and finally, California Alliance for Youth and Community Justice. Thank you so much. We ask for your aye vote.

Thank you.

Danica Rodarmel, Initiate Justice, In support.

Chris Lodgson, Anti-Recidivism Coalition, in support.

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

Faith Lee with Asian Americans Advancing Justice Southern California. We're in support.

Melanie Kim, San Francisco Public Defender's Office, support.

Tatiana Lewis with All of Us or None in strong support.

Lawrence Cox with Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, strong support.

Alissa Moore with Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, All of Us or None, and juvenile lifer in full support.

Artist White with Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice in strong support.

Ray'Von Jones with the Dream Beyond Bars fellowship in support.

Cynthia Valencia, ACLU California Action, in support.

Bethlehem Desta, Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, in support.

Alex Diaz with the Underground Scholars Initiative at UC Berkeley, in strong support.

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

Thank you. Seeing no other support witnesses, we'll move on to opposition witnesses. Seeing no... Opposition witnesses? Okay, you will have two minutes.

Thank you, Chair and Members. Danielle Sanchez on behalf of the Chief Probation Officers of California here today in opposition to AB 505. Although we certainly have shared goals about supporting youth in the juvenile justice system in a trauma-informed way, we are opposed to the approach suggested by this bill...

Due to its destabilizing impacts on the implementation work currently being carried at the local level as it relates to DJJ realignment and the continued focus on serving all youth. In 2020, the Legislature realigned all juvenile justice responsibilities to counties with the goal of keeping youth closer to home and allowing local governments the ability to develop locally responsive approaches to serving youth and, importantly, that would achieve enhanced outcomes. Counties and probation have been doing this work earnestly to implement this policy...

With the entire closure of DJJ and the remaining youth returning in just a few days. I want to very strongly underscore that the changes in this bill are not in a vacuum, nor do they make clarifying changes around the edges. They recast major components, including fiscal components of the SB 823 DJJ realignment framework.

These changes include new requirements to the fiscal structure, such as requiring the state's approval of local plans and directing the Board of Supervisors and how they make allocations, making additional changes to remove the chief probation officer as the chair of the local planning subcommitee that brings together these very important stakeholder conversations, changing the scope of the existing training program, and many related provisions. These changes create barriers and instability in developing, resourcing, and carrying out the local plans to best support youth.

For these reasons, we must oppose the approach outlined and sought in AB 505, and just want to note our continued commitment to the general discussion around how to best support youth, but again have to oppose the approach laid out in this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Appreciate your time. Do we have any other opposition witnesses?

Morning, Madam Chair, Members of Committee. Alberto Torrico on behalf of the State Coalition of Probation Organizations representing the rank and file officers around the state in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair, Members. Elizabeth Espinosa here today on behalf of the Board of Supervisors and the County of Ventura, also in opposition. Thank you.

Do we have any other opposition witnesses? Seeing none. Moderator please prompt the first individual.

For support or opposition for AB 505, press one, then zero. We'll go to line 18.

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

We'll go to line 21.

Francisco Carbajal, founder of Peace Anger Love, Victim and Youth Out Justice Advocate, San Diego, California in support. Thank you.

We'll go to line 25.

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

We'll go to line 65.

Linda Wanner with the California Catholic Conference in strong support of AB 505.

We'll go to line 27.

Good morning. Analisa Ruiz, on behalf of Young Women's Freedom Center, a proud co-sponsor, as well as on behalf of Sister Warriors Freedom Coalition in strong support.

We'll go to line 58.

Good morning. Meredith Desautels, on behalf of the Youth Law Center, in strong support. Thank you.

We'll go to line 60.

Morning. Raquel from the National Association of Social Workers California Chapter, and we strongly support this bill.

Madam Chair, we have no further support or opposition.

Thank you. Moving the conversation to Members of the Committee seeing none. Senator Bradford.

I got a question, and it's really not fair to ask Mr. Gipson, since he's not the author of the bill. But there's trailer bill language right now that seems like it runs in conflict in impacting what this bill is trying to do. And I just want to know if the author has any plans on how he's going to address that going forward.

I think we have somebody, technical questions.

Is the question around the trailer bill language for Secure Youth Treatment Facility? So this bill would consolidate all of that work under the Office of Youth and Community Restoration, so it doesn't conflict with what exists, but it does transition all of the functions of oversight from the Board of State and Community Corrections to the Office of Youth and Community Restoration.

And that office has just been stood up and hasn't been fully staffed. So will this be a staffing issue, and how long will it take to be fully staffed and be able to implement and do the programs that you aspire to do?

Yeah, certainly the office is a new office, but it's a really critical and important office. As we all know, we are on a pathway in our state to transform youth justice from an approach that is corrections-based to one that is health focused. And this office that's situated in an agency focused in health is the way to do that.

Certainly, if there is the need to have more time to ensure that the office is positioned to take on that role, I think the Assembly Member Ting is more than willing to entertain any proposals for a timeline that's more in line with that.

Alright, Assembly Member, would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Do we have a motion? Do we have a motion? Senator Wiener moves the Bill. Can we call a vote?

Motion is due pass to appropriations. Wahab aye. Ocho Bogh. Bradford aye. Skinner aye. Wiener aye.

Okay, that bill's on call. Before we move to your final Bill, I'd just like to ask for a motion for consent. Okay? Senator Wiener has moved the Bill. Bradford. Sorry.

Wahab aye. Ochoa Bogh. Bradford aye. Skinner aye. Wiener aye.

Those bills are on call. I'm going to also ask for a Motion for AB 455. Assembly Member Quirk-Silva. File number 10. Moved by Senator Skinner. Can we call a vote?

Motion is do you pass to appropriations. Wahab aye. Ochoa Bogh. Bradford aye. Skinner aye. Wiener aye.

All right, that Bill is on call. Can we also have a motion to move AB 474? Assemblymember Rodriguez, item number 11, could we get a motion? Senator Wiener has moved the Bill.

Motion is do pass to governmental organizations. Wahab aye. Ochoa Bogh. Bradford aye. Skinner aye. Wiener aye.

That Bill is on call. Assembly Member, would you like to move forward with your final Bill for AB 600? Assembly Member Ting?

Sure. Again, thank you very much on behalf of Assemblymember Ting. AB 600 addresses the remaining procedures and technical issues with resentencing process, expanding jurisdiction authority, and provides clarity to the courts when applying this law. Second look sentencing is the opportunity to address the mass incarceration efforts of the past by gaining three entitles.

One, the District Attorney and the Board of Parole of Hearing and the Secretary of California's Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to authorize to refer people back to court for a second look at their sentencing. Assemblymember Ting has been working diligently in this space. He authored Assembly Bill 1540 in 2021, which seeks to address many of the procedural issues and resulted in the safe release of incarcerated people in last years.

However, there are still some implementations, barriers, identifies and ways that the State can improve the current process. Assembly Bill 600 is filled with Assembly Bill 600 fills the gap created and create a fair and due process in terms of resentencing. I respectfully ask for an aye vote. We have some witnesses. Natasha, from the Prosecution Alliance here, who will speak in support of Assembly Bill 600.

Good morning, Natasha Minsker, on behalf of the Prosecutors Alliance of California, sponsor of AB 600, as well as on behalf of Smart Justice California. In strong support. AB 600 will empower judges to address sentences that are out of date in light of current sentencing law and to recognize rehabilitation and redemption. California has a second-look sentencing process which allows district attorneys and the Department of Corrections to refer someone back to a judge to reconsider a sentence.

Many sentencing laws in California have recently been changed, and there are people serving lengthy sentences who would not serve those sentences if their case was considered today. AB 600 builds on existing law by giving judges the power to change a sentence or conviction when there has been a change in existing law and the judge believes that is the right thing to do. AB 600 also recognizes rehabilitation and redemption.

The bill instructs judges to consider evidence of rehabilitation and post-conviction factors when engaging in a second-look sentencing and resentencing. AB 600 is based on feedback from prosecutors, judges, and practitioners. It will make the second-look sentencing process in California one that is fairer and brings more justice and equity to sentences. We urge an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. I'm running this show. Are there any other witnesses in support? And you just name and me too.

Danica Rodarmel, Initiate Justice, in support.

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

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

Melanie Kim, San Francisco Public Defender's Office, in support.

Sonja Tonnesen-Casalegno, on behalf of Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice, in support.

Cynthia Chandler, policy chief for the Alameda County District Attorney's Office, in support.

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

Cynthia Valencia, ACLU California Action, in support.

Lawrence Cox, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, strong support.

Alissa Moore, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, All of Us or None in Oakland, in strong support.

Tatiana Lewis with All of Us or None in strong support.

Alex Diaz with the Underground Scholars Initiative, in strong support.

All right, any other witnesses in support? Seeing none. Let's see if there's major, the primary opposition witness.

Good morning, Chair and members, Kim Stone of Stone Advocacy on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association in respectful opposition. The bill allows recall and resentencing at any time without a showing of prejudice or error. The California Constitution does require that the judge, before doing that, shall be of the opinion that the error complained of has resulted in a miscarriage of justice. And since this bill doesn't do that, we fear it may violate that section of the Constitution and stand in respectful opposition. Thank you.

All right, any other witnesses in opposition? All right. Seeing none. Moderator, would you please have our phone callers.

For support of opposition to AB 600, press one, then zero. We'll go to line 73.

Linda Wanner with the California Catholic Conference. Support. Thank you.

We'll go to line 25.

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

We'll go to Line 74.

My name is Nancy, I'm an individual in support.

We'll go to line 60.

Raquel from the National Association of Social Workers California Chapter. We strongly support this bill. Thank you.

Go to 72. Line 72, your line is open.

Hi there. My name is Richard Heiler. I live in Folsom, California. I'm in strong opposition. If they were interested in rehabilitation.

Thank you. This is a me too.

Madam Chair, we have no further support or opposition.

Thank you. All right, so we are bringing it back to the committee. Are there comments or a motion?

Move the bill.

All right. Senator Wiener has moved the bill. You may close.

Thank you very much. I want to, on behalf of Mr. Phil Ting, thank all of the sponsors as well as those who came taking time out of their busy schedule to add their support for all of his bills and thank the sponsors and respectfully ask for an aye vote.

All right, let's do a roll call on that motion. We have a motion by Senator Wiener.

Motion is due pass to appropriations. Wahab. Ochoa Bogh. Bradford aye. Skinner aye. Wiener aye.

All right, that Bill is on call. Okay, so, Assembly Member Bonta, you may come forward and present on AB 793. And, Members, item 14.

Thank you, madam speakers and Members, I'm here today to present AB 793 the Stop Surveilling Our Bodies Act. I first want to start with being clear on the commitments I made on the Assembly Floor on this Bill. I committed to focusing the scope of the protections in this Bill to only apply to reproductive health and gender affirming care. This commitment has not changed.

My office has been hard at work to meet this commitment, and we've exchanged language with opposition, had a meeting that included both Senate Public Safety and Judiciary consultants, and asked for opposition to provide language in response to the draft we provided them. I've been looking closely and reviewing that language, and I cannot express to you enough how hard we've been working on this Bill to make it work.

It is a difficult task to do both focus on the scope of this Bill while also attempting to provide broad enough protections to ensure people seeking reproductive health and gender affirming care are certain in their right to privacy. With the safety and protections of our LGBTQ brothers, sisters, and siblings, with women's overall health and safety on the line, we have to get this Bill right. The anniversary of the Dobbs decision this past weekend reminds us of how high the stakes are.

As a Member who has led on reproductive health legislation, I am proud of a state that is a safe haven for those seeking care, reproductive care, and gender affirming care. The continued eroding of our rights across the country post Roe show us, however, that our job is not done. Reverse demands, the subject of this Bill can leave people who need reproductive or gender affirming care vulnerable to a digital surveillance apparatus that could be used against them. Reverse demands are dangerous.

In a postwar Roe Era, and in a world where a number of states have anti LGBTQ laws on the books, a reverse warrant can seek the identity of all people who were present at a particular location. Which is? A geofence demand or who look up a particular term in a search engine, a keyword demand, simply because of where they were or what they were searched or what they searched for.

Great. Thank you, witnesses.

Geofence demands have also been used to track the locations and identities of people protesting police violence and could be used to track the locations and identities of people visiting reproductive health clinics. As well. People in California have a fundamental constitutional right to privacy in their reproductive health and gender health decisions. It is time to make sure that reverse demands respect that privacy and are not tools that are manipulated to harm people who are providing a safe haven.

Again, we are continuing our conversations on this Bill, and we will be working with Senate Judiciary Committee to finalize language that reflects the narrowed scope of the Bill. I want to thank again the Committee staff for working so hard on this. And with me today as witnesses, I have Jake Snow from ACLU and Alicia Benavides Lewis, who serves on the board of directors for California Latinas for Reproductive Justice.

Good morning. My name is Jacob Snow. I'm a senior Staff Attorney at the ACLU of Northern California, where I work on privacy, surveillance, and free speech issues. I'm here on behalf of ACLU California Action, Sponsors of AB 793 and I'd like to talk about two issues today. First, reverse demands are an extremely troubling 21st century version of the General warrant, which inspired the Fourth Amendment when the British king would rummage through people's belongings and homes.

Much like General warrants authorized unrestricted searches without any probable cause, reverse demands give the government the power to find everyone who was in a particular place at a particular time or everyone who searched for a particular phrase. That allows the government to track people as they go about their lives, including as they seek reproductive or gender affirming care. The second issue, reverse demands, are ineffective, and they're a risky surveillance tool that threaten everyone's privacy.

When it comes to identifying people who might be criminals, reverse demands are good at increasing the size of the haystack, but they're not very good at finding the needle. A reverse demand sent to Google, for example, might reveal 150 people who are in a particular place, but that doesn't give you very much information about who the person who could be suspected of committing a crime was.

And what if the person who was the actual suspect had an Iphone or was not carrying a phone at the time? This leaves law enforcement chasing down 150 dead ends and leaving the actual person who's being searched for out. The haystack that is produced can put people at risk, however, because those people could have been seeking reproductive or gender affirming care and their information is now in the hands of law enforcement and potentially putting them in harm's way.

States around the country are attacking people who need reproductive and gender affirming care, and having information about those people in the hands of law enforcement puts those people at risk. States are criminalizing people's, found fundamental rights, and that means that people's relationship with surveillance has to change. I urge an I Vote understanding that discussions about the language are continuing among the various stakeholders as we work to find a language to focus the Bill on people seeking reproductive and gender affirming care.

The stakeholders include the author's office, the sponsors, and the large coalition of civil rights, reproductive rights, and criminal justice groups who've supported the Bill. Thanks very much.

Good morning, chair and Members. Alicia Benavides Lewis, here on behalf of California Latinas for Reproductive Justice, where I proudly serve as a board Member. Staff was unable to attend today due to urgent training work taking place. These are pressing times, and advocate capacity is understandably limited. The LRJ is a statewide organization committing to honoring the experiences of Latinas and advancing reproductive justice with an intersectional scope social justice lens that people can decide when, if, and how to start their families.

CLRJ, along with numerous other reproductive organizations and advocates. Is in strong support of this measure. We know there's been a lot of work to draft a Bill that focuses language on the way the author committed earlier in the Assembly, and that work continues to move forward.

I'm here today to recenter us as to why it's imperative that we continue moving this measure and reaffirm our commitment to ensuring California lives up to the promise of being a true sanctuary state for those seeking reproductive and gender affirming care. We know that in order to deliver on that promise, reproductive care must be available, accessible, and free from dragnet surveillance that exposes people's health care decisions to law enforcement.

While so much has been done to address availability and access, AB 793 takes the steps necessary to address that third vital component. Taking reverse demands off the table from information from which law enforcement can infer about who sought, received, supported, or provided reproductive or gender affirming health care would solidify California's place as a protector of people seeking this kind of healthcare services and provide needed clarity to companies.

As many look to California as a safe haven to seek or receive reproductive or gender affirming care, reverse demands of this nature endanger that safety they give out of state law enforcement agencies seeking to investigate or prosecute vulnerable people. A broad tool to secretly gather private information and identifying information. And as we've already seen with other forms of surveillance, even when California law prohibits sharing information with those states, California law enforcement agencies have still continued to do so in some circumstances.

So we strongly urge your aye vote and help protect vulnerable populations. Thank you.

Thank you. Other witnesses in support. And this is the Me Too.

Lesli Caldwell-Houston, California Public Defender's office in support.

Becca Kramer matter on behalf of If/When/How: Lawyers for Reproductive Justice and Electronic Frontier Foundation, both co sponsors, as well as for Immigrant Legal Resource Center and Greenlining in support.

Tracy Rosenberg on behalf of Oakland Privacy. In support.

Jason Schmelzer here on behalf of TechNet. In strong support.

Any other support in the room? Okay, now we'll hear from the primary opposition.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Kim Stone of Stone Advocacy on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association, we do appreciate the author's commitment to limit the Bill to abortion and gender affirming care. The District Attorneys Association has no interest in promoting searches or investigating people for committing perfectly lawful activity, despite the fact that we have an agreement of the minds and the principles of the bills, as is often the case with lawyers.

And we have had multiple meetings with multiple lawyers over multiple days, some of which your staff has had the good fortune to attend and have not yet reached agreement on language that does limit the Bill to abortion and gender affirming care. The Bill in print prohibits the use of these warrants in all cases.

So even if there was, like a bombing of a Planned Parenthood, the law enforcement who was trying to investigate who bombed the Planned Parenthood, would not be able to try to find out who was there by trying to look up cell phone data or reverse warrant searches. We understand that is not what the author intends to do, but the language in print does do that, and so we remain opposed should the Bill move on. We will continue negotiations. Thank you.

Any other major witnesses in opposition? Are you listed as a primary opposition or is this a me, too?

Me, too. Okay. Go ahead.

Me, too.

Chair Members, Jonathan Feldman with the California Police Chiefs Association. You know, we also appreciate what the author is trying to do here. We haven't gotten there on language, but we have the same position as the Das. We are not interested in investigating people seeking abortions or gender affirming care here, so we hope we can find that balance. Thank you.

Madam Chair and Senators, Matthew Siverling, on behalf of the Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs and the California Peace Officers Association, thank the author, her staff, and the Committee for their Hard work and hope to continue trying to thread the needle on this Bill. Thank you.

All right. Any me toos on that? Other me toos without anything but a me too now, please. Thank you.

Bernie o'ada, Los Angeles County sheriff's Department. On behalf of sheriff Robert Luna. Oppose unless amended.

Okay, any others? All right. Moderator, key up the phone lines, please.

For support or opposition to AB 793, press one, then zero. We'll go to line 28.

Craig Pulsipher on behalf of Equality California in support.

We'll go to Line 77.

I'm with capital advocacy on behalf of the Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriff, the California Fraternal Order of Police, the California Statewide Law Enforcement Association, the Long Beach Police Officers Association, the Sacramento County Deputy Sheriff's Association, and the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Employee Benefit Association. Also in an oppose unless amended position.

We'll go to line 80.

Crystal Kitos. On behalf of the City of Beverly Hills in respectful opposition. Thank you.

We'll go to line 27.

Analisa Ruiz on behalf of Young Women's Freedom Center in strong support.

We'll go to line 60.

Raquel from The National Association of Social Workers, California chapter and we strongly support this Bill. Thank you.

We'll go to line 71. Line 71. Your line is open.

This is Joelle McCoy from Aaron Reed and Associates on behalf of the Peace Officers Research Association of California PORAC and the California Association of Highway Patrolmen CAHP in opposition.

Madam Chair, we have no further support or opposition.

I had a me too. I forgot. Could I do it quickly? Sorry. San Diego Deputy District Attorneys Association in San Diegans Against Crime. Thank you.

All right, so we're now returning to the dais and I will comment. Assemblymember Bonta, thank you for bringing . . . know ,I realize that lawyers . . . always kind of threading the needle on the right language is always tricky. And I can appreciate on one level what is trying to be--what DAs and others are trying to make sure this doesn't do. But I think that from my point of view, the importance of what it does do is what needs to prevail here.

Because when we have the circumstance that we have, as you pointed out, where states are criminalizing people for things that are essential health care and completely legal in California, there should be no ability to use these crazy devices to track them down and criminalize them. So I completely support the Bill. I am being chair right now. I can give it to the real chair. So I can move the Bill and I move it.

Thank you. Any closing? Oh, sorry, Senator Ochoa Bogh?

We just got into back to the Committee. Yeah. So I appreciate the intent, and welcome, Member Bonta, glad to have you here. I appreciate the intent of protecting medical privacy. I really do in that regard. The concerns that I have and I appreciate the witnesses, the first witnesses with regards to the comments on protecting the privacy of unwarranted searches for personal homes and just keeping that privacy for home. I'm so not a Big Brother kind of a person on this case. I appreciate that.

The concern that I have right now in supporting the Bill in the Committee is the fact that we don't have any language and it just keeps going and it just keeps passing with the faith that it will be resolved at some point, which I hope that it does by the time it gets to the floor. But we haven't seen anything concrete.

Do you have any estimate as to when we could see the actual language for the Bill in addressing the concerns so that we don't impede the unintended consequences of the Bill, which would be the inability to track criminals that engage in human trafficking and other crimes. So do you have any estimate as to when we could see that language, when that would be readily available for us to see?

Sure. I mean, first, just to clarify, there are certainly a lot of tools still available to law enforcement to be able to pursue issues related to human trafficking, bombing, any of the sort.

Those age old enforcements that have been used for the past 100 years in law enforcement, including subscriber information, warrants, or the ability to have law enforcement be able to still with an identified person, be able to identify a particular device and seek further information about that, gathering surveillance information through automatic license plate recorders, from body cameras, whatever it might be. The intention is to be able to provide additional language. And there are many versions of this in draft form already prior to the Judiciary Committee, which we will have to go to.

So you do have the draft language available?

We have a version of draft language that does not meet the commitment that I made right now to ensure that it's narrowly scoped in a way that ensures that the sponsors and stakeholders of the Bill are comfortable with. And that really kind of strikes the balance of providing a broad enough protection to our civil liberties as we seek medical treatment and care, while also ensuring that law enforcement has the ability to use this under certain circumstances.

The Bill in place right now, as we see it, the intent of the Bill protecting the privacy and the importance of protecting medical privacy for individuals, I think it also merits the opposing side of how valuable this is as a tool for law enforcement to be able to locate human traffickers and missing children, which is why I'm very careful in ensuring that we don't lose this as a tool for law enforcement as we move forward.

So it's equally important, which is why you have this Bill, trying to use it to protect those using sorry, those individuals as is as a tool to do the other part. So I'm going to respectfully oppose the Bill today, but I look forward to looking at the language, and I hope, I really do hope that there's language that comes together to address the circumstance protect medical privacy, as well as ensuring that we have it as a valuable indispensable tool for human trafficking and missing children. Thank you, ma'am.

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

Thank you. I respectfully request your aye vote. We will continue to work on this and believe that we will be able to strike the very careful balance that we need to to ensure that we are not only protecting our medical privacy, but also our civil liberties, our Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizures, as well as being able to ensure that we have the ability for these. I'll stop there.

Thank you. The Bill has been moved by Senator Skinner. Can we call vote?

Motion is do pass to Judiciary Committee? Wahab? Aye. Wahab, aye. Ochoa Bogh? No. Ochoa Bogh, no. Bradford? Skinner? Aye. Skinner, aye. Wiener? Aye. Wiener, aye.

Thank you. That bill's on call. Assembly Member, before we move on to AB 1186, I would just like to add myself to lift the call for AB 600. Ting, item number nine.

Motion is due pass to appropriations. Current vote is three to zero. [Roll Call]

AB six number item 9. The Bill is four to one. The Bill is out.

Yes. Can we lift the call for item number 22? AB 1089.

Motion is due passed to Judiciary Committee. Current vote is three to zero. [Roll Call]

That's four to one. That Bill is out. All right, we will move back to Assembly Member Bonta for AB 1186. Item number 15. Assembly Member, the floor is yours.

Thank you. Chair and Members, I would like to express my appreciation to your Committee staff for their time working on this Bill. I authored this Bill because our current youth restitution system is broken. Restitution was meant to make crime survivors whole, but in reality, it's just creating a perpetual cycle of debt, especially for poor black and brown families. Young people and their families cannot afford to pay restitution and face significant financial burdens from these orders.

The inability to pay restitution often creates long lasting financial harm and instability that prevents young people from moving forward in their lives. The system isn't working for crime survivors either. Each year, about 12,000 youth in California are ordered to pay restitution. The average amount of restitution ordered is about $1,559. However, because most youth cannot pay, only a fraction of crime survivors ever receive any compensation. Public records data indicate that shows that statewide, only about 20% of youth restitution ordered since 2010 has been collected.

Much of the outstanding youth restitution owed is years old and unlikely ever to be paid. To add to all of this, many young people who cause harm are crime survivors themselves and who have experienced trauma. AB 1186, the repair act, fixes this broken system. AB 1186 eliminates the existing system of direct restitution for youth and makes crime survivors harmed by youth eligible for financial assistance.

Through the California Victim Compensation Board, youth will be ordered to participate in non-monetary alternatives to encourage reflection on the impacts of their actions, including restorative justice conferences, community service programs, skill building, and job opportunities. AB 1186 makes our youth restitution system work better for everyone, both for crime survivors and youth who owe restitution by providing crime survivors with more equitable, timely, and stable compensation, and setting both the young person and the harmed person on a stronger path towards meaningful accountability, rehabilitation, and healing. Thank you, and as witnesses today I have Artist White, who is a Dream Beyond Bars Fellow with courage.

And you only have one witness?

One witness.

You will have two minutes. Thank you.

Hello Senators. My name is Artist White. I'm a community organizer with Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice and the Young Women's Freedom Center. I'm a juvenile justice systems impacted young person. As a youth, I experienced firsthand the harmful effects of restitution. Growing up poor, I faced all types of challenges, especially when it came to basic needs such as food and housing. I vividly remember a time in 9th grade when my friends and I would leave the high school campus for lunch while they could afford to pay for food, my stomach would growl with hunger.

At that point, at the age of 14, I felt the need to resort to illegal activities just to feed myself. Sadly, the decision still led to my first interaction with the juvenile justice system and incarceration. Throughout the legal proceedings, I was never asked what resources I needed. Instead, I was criminalized, which pushed me further into poverty. At 17 years old, I was homeless.

Probation wasn't helping me, so I ended up going back to Juvenile Hall so that I could qualify for foster care. AB 12 housing. Again, I was charged with restitution fees, which for a 17-year-old are extremely difficult to pay. Even though I work, it's still not enough to survive. The system led me to drop out of high school due to incarceration and the need to make money and work.

And now restitution debt could hinder my ability to secure housing and good credit when my foster care housing expires. It is worth mentioning that in the case for which I currently owe restitution, no third party was harmed. Yet, I was still ordered to pay, which is supposed to be for making a person whole again. Youth often resort to committing crimes to pay off restitution and survive.

AB 1186 will replace youth restitution with state funds for survivors of crime, which will reduce barriers for young people trying to get back on their feet and streamline support for families who are impacted. Please vote yes on AB 1186 so others do not have to go through what I did.

So we will now move on to Me Too's, name, organization, and that you support. Again, we'd like to move through this quickly.

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

Justin Rausa, Office of Attorney General Bonta, in support. Thank you.

Danica Rodarmel, Initiate Justice, Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights, the Transformative In-Prison Workgroup, and Guiding Rage into Power, in support.

Tatiana Lewis with Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, in strong support, as well as the Melvin Collaborative and Dignity and Power Now. Thank you.

Bethlehem Desta with the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, in support.

Ed Little, on behalf of Californians for Safety and Justice, proud co-sponsor in support.

Lawrence Cox, with Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, and also All of Us or None, in strong support.

Melanie Kim, San Francisco Public Defender's Office, co-sponsor in support and on behalf of the San Francisco Financial Justice Project, also a co-sponsor in support.

Justin Kollar, Alameda County District Attorney's Office, in support.

Cynthia Valencia ACLU California Action, in support.

Rayvon Jones on behalf of the Dream Beyond Bars Fellowship. Strong support.

Alex Diaz on behalf of the Underground Scholars Initiative at UC Berkeley, in strong support.

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

Sonja Tonneson-Casalegno, on behalf of Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice, in strong support as a co-sponsor. Thank you.

All right, seeing no other witnesses, can we move on to opposition? You will have two minutes.

Kim Stone, Stone Advocacy, on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association, in respectful opposition. Marsy's Law and the California Constitution does give victims a right to restitution, and not all kinds of crimes are eligible for restitution under the Victims Compensation Board. And so we fear that some victims may be left out and therefore must stand in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other opposition? Witnesses? Seeing none. Moderator, please prompt the first individual. Name, org., and that you support or oppose.

For support of opposition for AB 1186, press one, then zero. We'll go to line 25.

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

We'll go to line 27.

Annalisa Ruiz, on behalf of Young Women's Freedom Center, a proud co-sponsor, as well as Sister Warriors Freedom Coalition, in strong support.

We will go to line 21.

Francisco Carbajal, founder of Peace Angle Up, focusing on victim-centered restorative justice programs and community co-creator of the District Attorney's juvenile diversion program, in support.

And we'll go to line 60.

Raquel from the National Association of Social Workers California Chapter. We strongly support this Bill. Thank you.

Madam Chair. We have no further support or opposition.

Thank you. We'll move the conversation to Committee Members. Senator Ochoa Bogh.

Thank you. So there's a fine balance. I've been very supportive of measures that have tried to find that balance of holding people accountable and also giving victims their opportunity to be compensated. My question, and just for clarification, just for the audience and for myself, as it stands right now, and I don't know the details when it comes to the restitutions that the youth have to pay, but is that equivalent to-. How does the restitution come to be?

How do they decide how much the youth has to pay? So, that's my first question. And then to follow up that, in the case, are parents subject to those restitutions, being responsible for those when the youth is not able to pay that back?

So, yes, parents are currently liable for the youth restitution, which is why this is a Children and Families Bill, essentially. Just to address some of the other questions that were raised, or commentary that was raised under Marcy's Law, Prop 8, and Prop 9, they were unambiguous in limiting the right to seek and secure restitution from people convicted of crimes, not from juveniles adjudicated delinquent.

And so youth restitution is essentially set based on an order determined by the judge relative to the harm that was caused and determining and quantifying the cost of that restitution. On average, we know that it's about $1,500 to be able to do that. The other issue is that we are already not actually ensuring that victims have the ability to be compensated. This leads to many instances where over 80% since 2010, have actually not received the compensation that they should have received from the way that the system is set up right now.

Is that from the youth?

So currently it's a direct compensation from youth, but localities spend about $3.1 million annually to try to collect that restitution. They're unsuccessful in doing so. And as you heard from our witness who is a youth, that debt just follows them and their parents.

So that restitution doesn't have to be paid while they are in the juvenile justice system or on probation?

It can follow them through adulthood.

So let me ask you something. When they are in the youth facility, are they allowed to work? How are they expected to pay? How does the court in the system expect the youth to pay this restitution? Are they supposed to be working while they're in the juvenile justice system? Are they supposed to be doing community service that equates to the restitution? That is, I'm assuming, the judge's discretion, the amount that is being.

So not all youth who are ordered to pay restitution are in a facility. They are saddled with debt that they need to pay. I think the courts are essentially silent on how that gets paid. What we know, in practice, is that youth end up having to work a job while they are trying to go to school.

They, as was shared, seek to be able to gain quick cash which could cause them to commit another crime, increasing their likelihood to recidivate in order to be able to do that and are essentially saddled with debt, either them and their family to be able to provide those funds which they don't have. Alternatively, a child who has the ability to, or family who has the ability to, write a check faces absolutely no consequences.

So there is not actually, right now, an opportunity to have meaningful accountability for youth. And it's entirely based on whether or not you have the ability to pay that.

You mentioned the fact that there are parents who are able to just write a check and just pay the restitution, which is the responsibility. Primarily, I would say if this youth is not being held responsible by the parents who pay that restitution through jobs or through whatever, it means a legal way of making that money to pay that restitution, then the parent's responsibility, as a parent, it falls on me to make that the case.

Whether it's writing a check, if you have the ability to write the check, or to work extra to make sure that that is being done is a responsibility. I think the concern that I have, in principle, is the fact that if we remove this, and I understand the concerns that you have about this being carried on and being across that the child or the youth have to carry through adulthood.

I think the concern that I have, in principle, is the fact that if we don't hold the youth accountable financially for whatever financial repercussions their actions may have had or hold the parents accountable for their child's behavior as a responsibility for every parent should be, is that now, if I understand this correctly, it will now fall on every taxpayer to fill that responsibility of that youth and that parent is now falling on every taxpayer for responsibility to be able to pay that.

Is that the way that the system would be changing with this current Bill?

Make no mistake, in the current system right now every taxpayer is paying for the broken system. As I've stated, $3.1 million a year is spent by localities to try to seek that restitution. So every taxpayer is already not being well served by this.

And quite frankly an opportunity for a youth to have meaningful accountability that leads to opportunities to participate in restorative justice, to be able to participate in youth development programs, to be able to have a full opportunity to understand the consequences of their actions, and to seek accountability through the opportunity to be rehabilitated is a far better measure to ensure that the collective community is well served as well as the individual who is harmed and the individual who has harmed the youth who has harmed, than the simple act of in instances where they can, writing a check or having to deal with the financial costs and consequences of being burdened with debt over time.

Which keeps them from being able to get a job, which keeps them from being able, to often, of getting bad credit, of not being able to get housing. An action and a decision that they make has far-reaching impacts on their ability to be whole and contributing members of our community as youth and into adulthood and that is not a practice that we should be promoting in the State of California.

So Member Bonta, for the record, I absolutely agree with you on the alternatives on what our youth should be having or experiencing in order to be productive citizens of their community. Absolutely, without a doubt. I think the consequence or the concern that I have right now is the way that this Bill would reorganize it. I don't think is a better, with regards to the financial component of it.

I'm not sure that the taxpayers would be in a better position either. Whether one way or I'm not sure that this is the other. I haven't looked into the space a little further but I don't think that this fixes the financial burden on the taxpayer we paid in 3.1 million in the current system. But, I'm kind of curious to see what it will look like with this new system with the taxpayers also being responsible for that financial restitution.

So I completely agree with the merit of the restorative educational opportunity that you mentioned. Absolutely. Without a doubt, I am 100% on that end. But the financial cost of it, I think will probably be very similar with that regard with no personal responsibility on the parents.

I really take a pause at the idea that parents are not seeking personal, are not involved personally in taking responsibility for the actions of their children when they are needing to be able to support their child, in seeking alternative means of accountability beyond a financial incentive. And the reality is that our parents and our taxpayers are paying it and victims are not receiving these funds either.

So if we have an opportunity to be able to reorganize, as you said, the California Victim Compensation Board payments so that victims can actually receive the money that they have, that they don't get re-injured every single time they don't get a check, that they get re-injured every single time, they have their harm not actually taken care of, I think that we're moving in a step in the right direction.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

I think I'm going to finalize my comment with the fact that I believe wholeheartedly in the merit of the Bill. I'm not sure that financially it works for me with regards to and I don't think a lot of the taxpayers would agree that financially it's going to be different on the taxpayer. I think it's the same thing without the responsibility component of financial owning of the action.

So with that, I'm going to abstain on the Bill because I do believe in the merit, but I do not believe that it's going to be a better system necessarily. I would like to look a little bit further on that.

Thank you, Senator. No further comments. Assembly Member, would you like to close?

Thank you. I think it's time to make sure that we create a youth restitution system that better supports crime survivors and our youth and their families. And I respectfully request your Aye vote.

Thank you. Do we have any motions, a motion? Motion? Thank you. Senator Wiener has moved the Bill. We can call a vote.

AB 1186. The motion is due passed to Appropriations. [Roll Call]

Aye. Wiener, aye.

Thank you. That bill's on call. I appreciate your time. So I just want to say for those that have been waiting in the audience, our next Assembly Member is supposed to be Assembly Member Berman presenting AB 1420. I saw him earlier, not sure if he's here or not here. Next would be Assembly Member Bauer-Khan, AB 301. Saw her earlier, not sure if he's still here. Assembly Member Villapudua, sorry if I butchered your name, 701. And then Assembly Member Fong, 732 and 733, and then Assembly Member Kalra. So I will go first with, Assembly Member, if you would like to present on 701.

Thank you, Chair and Members. I'm proud to present AB 701 today to crack down on fentanyl epidemic and save lives across California. I think by now we all know the statistics. Fentanyl is 50 times stronger than heroin, has been responsible for 83% of the opioids related deaths in the state over the recent years. We've all heard about and seen the chilling effects this poison has across our streets in every district. Fentanyl traffickers have exacerbated opioids addictions throughout this state.

So it is time to start holding them accountable for the destruction they've caused. AB 701 provides equity and closes the loophole for how we enforce fentanyl compared to other dangerous substance. Members, it simply doesn't make sense that our judicial system is more lenient on this poison compared to other substance that are far less lethal. By addressing this discrepancy, we can begin to show how families crying for help that we are taking this crisis very serious.

AB 701 establishes a high possession threshold of one kilo, allowing us to target the traffickers at a high level dealers rather than the users. With me to testify today is our San Joaquin County District Attorney, Ron Freitas.

Good morning, Committee Members. Thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak in strong support of Assembly Member Carlos Villapudua's Assembly Bill 701. As the elected District Attorney of San Joaquin County, I see firsthand the damage, pain and loss that fentanyl inflicts upon the citizens I've been elected to serve.

Assembly Bill 701 uniquely provides equity on how we enforce fentanyl compared to other deadly substances and closes a loophole that has prevented district attorneys such as myself from cracking down on fentanyl, as we are able to do with other lethal drugs. Just last week, I'm sure you may have heard, the California Highway Patrol seized enough fentanyl in six weeks to kill the entire City of San Joaquin... of San Francisco, three times over.

Last year, in San Joaquin County alone, we seized over 982,000 doses, 20 pounds worth, enough to kill every man, woman and child in my county. I'm asking for passage of Assembly Bill 701 today, not just to allow myself and other district attorneys to adequately deal with large scale dealers of fentanyl, but for justice for the victims and family members poisoned by this drug in our community. I urge your aye vote on Assembly Bill 701 and yield back my time to the author.

Thank you so much. Do you have any other witnesses? Okay, so we are going to move on to support witnesses. Please state your name, your org, and that you support. We move through this quickly.

Kim Stone, Stone Advocacy for the California District Attorneys Association in support.

Thank you.

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

Madam Chair and Members, Matthew Siverling on behalf of the Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs and the California Peace Officers Association in support. Thank you.

Seeing no other witnesses. Opposition witnesses, you will have two minutes.

Good morning, Member and Chairs. My name is Jeannette Zanipatin. I'm the California State Director for Drug Policy Alliance, here in respectful opposition to AB 701. DPA is a nonprofit organization promoting drug policy grounded in science, compassion, and health and human rights. One of our main concerns is that this approach will not help solve the overdose crisis in California, but will instead make it worse. AB 701 is premised in the same logic that increasing penalties for fentanyl will disincentivize the possession of this substance.

However, this is a flawed assumption as the drug market is driven by demand rather than supply. In fact, in 2018, the Pew Charitable Trust points out to the aggressive approach to drug crimes does not translate into lower drug use, arrests, or overdose rates.

Specifically, 701 would apply a range of enhancements that will not reduce the availability or use of fentanyl, but will likely contribute to long term incarceration of low level drug sellers or persons in possession of substances that may be contaminated with fentanyl without knowledge of the person in possession of that controlled substance.

Fentyl offenses are already covered under current weight enhancement and a defendant convicted of a drug offense involving a mixture of heroin and fentanyl or cocaine and fentanyl would be subject to the same weight enhancement under current law. Low level sellers rarely know that they are distributing fentanyl and have no control over the amount in their product. This bill would not reduce the inclusion of fentanyl in the drug supply as it takes place higher in the distribution change.

Additionally... change, sorry. Additionally, the cost of incarceration for three years under this bill and CDCR will be at a cost of 380,000 for those three years. If we incarcerated 15 individuals in county jail for three years... sorry, in state prison. It would cost the state about 4.77 million. In comparison, if we instead took a public health approach, the cost to fund methadone for an individual is 6500 and the cost for medicated assisted treatment is 6000. It would be healthier, safer, and better for public safety to send people to methadone treatment or buprenorphine treatment than to incarcerate 15 people for three years.

Sending a person to prison for an additional 25 years makes no difference in the drug availability. Funding a robust voluntary drug treatment system is far more fiscally prudent investment. We are facing a humanitarian crisis that demands health based solutions.

Time.

Thank you.

Thank you. Next speaker, you will also have two minutes.

Good morning, Lesli Caldwell-Houston on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association in respectful opposition. AB 701 feels like the same war on drugs mentality. We already know that relying on ever increasing penalties does not work. We know that this bill would not reduce the distribution of fentanyl. It would not prevent overdoses. It would not reduce the supply of fentanyl, nor would it reduce the demand for this drug. Worse, it could discourage the effective methods of dealing with the opioid crisis.

The primary risk of overdose on fentanyl results from its unknowing ingestion. This process of adding fentanyl to other drugs or making it look like other drugs is done early in the production process. Therefore, we know that sellers often don't even know they're distributing fentanyl as it takes place high in the distribution chain. Sorry. California voters have signaled again and again their preference for a health approach to drug offenses and their desire to unwind the War on Drugs. Efforts such as this bill need to stop. We need to pivot to a new and better approach than the War on Drug's ideas. For these reasons, we respectfully request your no vote.

Thank you so much. Appreciate your time. Any other opposition witnesses, me too's? Again, name, org, that you oppose. Very quickly.

Bethlehem Desta with the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, opposition. Thank you.

Angie Shin, Ella Baker Center, in opposition.

Melanie Kim, San Francisco Public Defender's Office, in opposition.

Cynthia Valencia, ACLU California Action, in opposition.

Sonja Tonnesen-Casalegno, Communities United For Restorative Youth Justice, opposed.

Ray'Von Jones, Dream Beyond Bars Fellowship, opposed.

Thank you. Moderator please prompt the first individual.

For support of opposition to AB 701, please press one, then zero. We'll go to line 15.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Nicole Wordelman, on behalf of the Orange County Board of Supervisors, in support.

We'll go to line 41.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Kyra Ross on behalf of the City of Burbank, in support.

We'll go to line 25.

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

We'll go to line 60.

Raquel from the National Association of Social Workers California Chapter, and we oppose this bill. Thank you.

We'll go to line 16.

Line 16. Your line is open.

Ethan Nagler on behalf of the City of Bakersfield, in support.

We'll go to line 85.

Natalie Page, brother fallen to victim of fentanyl poisoning, strongly support.

Line 71. Line 71.

Joelle McCoy from Aaron Reed and Associates on behalf of the California Association of Highway Patrolmen and the Peace Officers Research Association of California, in support.

Madam Chair, we have no further support.

Thank you. We'll move the conversation to Committee Members. Committee Members, any questions, concerns, thoughts? Okay. Seeing none. Okay. Senator Wiener.

Thank you. Thank you Assembly Member. I'll be honest, I'm struggling with this Bill because on the one hand, obviously, it's a really large amount of fentanyl. And one of the huge challenges with fentanyl is in terms of interdiction, it doesn't take more than a few truckfuls of fentanyl entering the country to basically supply the whole country.

So even really aggressive, and this isn't, I know, so much an interdiction Bill, it's partially, even the most aggressive interdiction doesn't take that much slipping through to really foil our supply restriction plans. On the one hand, if this is directed at people who are sort of drug sort of kingpin kind of people who have huge quantities because the folks who are dealing on the street are probably unlikely to have this quantity, I don't have a problem with that. But these enhancements also apply broadly.

For example, transporting, someone could be driving a truck, just basically a low-level person who's driving a truck, and they could then get stuck with 25 years in state prison. It's even unclear to me if you have to even know what you're transporting. And I don't know all of the case law on that, but it's not clear from the statute itself. And then we're stuck not only with that person being in prison for a long time, but we then have to pay for it.

I know generally cases of this size are probably more likely to go federal regardless. So I'll just be honest that I'm struggling with this because I appreciate what you're trying to do and the huge quantities are a problem.

But, could you comment on that kind of situation where someone is perhaps driving a truck and may or may not may know that there's drugs, may not if they do, they may not even know what kind of drugs, and they're more of a low-level person, and they might get hit with a multi-decade enhancement.

So let me state that we are not going after the user at all. We're not going after the nickel and dimer drug dealer. A person that's carrying a kilo knows that. They have to know that. They're in it for the money. If they're carrying a kilo more.

I'm talking about drivers, someone driving a truck. Sorry to interrupt. I get if you have it on like you're carrying, I get that you probably know, but someone say, because transporting is also part of this, so someone who's just some low-level person who's, like, can you just drive this truck from here to there. I'm just curious what your take is on that, and especially if they may or may not even know what exactly they're carrying.

Right. Let me address that.

Senator, you bring up a very good question. The enhancement would not apply because without knowledge of the possession of the drugs, of the kilo, you cannot be convicted of the transportation. And while being transported of the transportation, guilty of the transportation, you would not then be eligible for the enhancement.

Is that case law though because in the statute itself, it doesn't seem to say that. Where are you getting that from?

We can only prosecute individuals that knowing. Also, this is not going after the victims or the users of the crime. What we've seen in the last three years is that there's six times the amount of overdoses in San Joaquin County alone. So this is very important that we do impose this and have this.

But, I'm sorry, in terms of knowing, because the statute itself doesn't say knowing. And I'm just wondering if you could tell me where you got that from. Is that?

It's under the Health and Safety Code 11352 for transportation.

I don't see it there. And again, that's why I'm wondering if this is coming from case law interpreting it. I don't see it in the statute itself. I'm asking a good-faith question.

We have to prove knowledge. So simply, merely transporting without knowledge would not qualify. And all DAs are held to that standard.

But is that knowledge inferred from the quantity itself?

No, it's actual knowledge. So either from the circumstances or other factors leading up to it.

And the circumstances wouldn't be just the fact of the quantity? Because I know like, for example.

Maybe if you had a kilo, I'm sorry for interrupting. Go ahead.

No, but let's say yeah. And again, I'm focusing more on the transport because if someone has it, they're carrying a big three kilos of fentanyl. There's a pretty good chance they know what they're doing. They probably don't think they're carrying a bag of flour, most likely. But, transporting on a truck where there could be 20 things in your truck and then there was a few kilos. A few kilos does not take up that much space.

I'm just curious, would the quantity itself be enough to say? You were transporting three kilos, so you must have known because for, like, possession with intent to sell drugs, my understanding, sometimes the quantity will come in as evidence to say you had so much on you. That was not for your personal use. You were intending to sell it.

Right. And those are very good questions, and I think the devil is in the details. If an individual had three kilos in a backpack and they were getting on a bus, then that would be transportation. We would agree with that, and then those circumstances would be hard to say that that individual didn't know that they were transporting three kilos. If a person has an 18-wheeler and one kilo was found somewhere in the frame of it, that would be very hard for us to show knowledge.

And I think district attorneys across the state, without additional evidence, such as fingerprints on the packaging or other phone calls or other statements showing that there was knowledge there, could not prosecute that case without there being knowledge. So I think the devil would be on the details.

Okay. Thank you. Would you like to close?

I would.

Senator Bradford?

No. I too have concerns with this, but to say knowingly, I've known dozens of individuals who are doing time right now, who was in a car, not knowing that there was a gun in the car or drugs in the car, so that's a little too shaky for me to say. I've yet to see anyone exonerated for saying I did not know and still was convicted, especially black and brown people who were naive, so I need some more insurances that someone unknowingly had something in the car is not going to be charged with a crime.

Okay. Would you like to close?

I would. Again, I'm not going after the user. Sorry? I'm not going after the user. I'm actually going after the person that is out there you know, not even the person that's selling, the pushing it on the streets. I'm actually going after the folks that are bringing this in by the kilos. I visit rehabs, I've even visited your rehab in San Francisco. I visit rehabs all over the State of California and trying to see what works, what doesn't work. Delancy is a great place, but I'm going to tell you Senator, this is not a drug.

This is poison and you know it. You know it in your streets. You're seeing it. We're seeing it across the state. I visit San Francisco and you can just see it. I mean it's all over. Right. But it's not a drug. It's poison.

I know. And it's not just San Francisco, it's everywhere in the states.

I know that. I'm just trying to point this out. People are dying every day. Parents are calling us. We've had the best testimony of folks of people of color basically saying my kid has died from this and we are upset. We've had folks try to come up here to testify and we're just not being heard and we cannot turn our backs to this anymore. You know, all of you guys up here know this and we continue to turn our backs trying to say that we're just going to incarcerate more people. BS. That's not the way it is.

Okay. We are going after the person. These are folks that are bringing it by the kilos. They're here. They're not getting caught and this Bill does something. This saves lives. Understand this is not a drug. This is poison. It's changed our streets. It's changed our whole communities out there. Getting worse, and we're so behind. And if we don't do something today, guess what?

We're going to be talking about this the next three, four, five years is going and say, God, we wish we would have done something, and it's sad. With that, I respectfully ask for an Aye vote.

Thank you. Do we have a motion? Moved by Senator Ochoa. Okay, so moved by Senator Ochoa Bogh. Can we call over? Did you want a question? We moved past that.

Yeah, I think I might have turned it on. So my question is, because I hear a lot of concerns with regards to. I'm a co-author of this Bill, so happy to support it, which is why I moved the Bill, because I do have concerns. And the fact that it's not already included it's actually, I think is a great idea that you are taking the initiative to do that.

But I did have a question through the chair from my colleagues if they're willing. I'm a little, I'm not sure what the word is, concerned I guess. I'm kind of curious, actually, I have a curious mind right now as to this notion of that people are aware that they're carrying or aware that they're selling it in the quantities of amounts that they're carrying, like a backpack or something.

I'm kind of curious as to what that looks like because anybody can say, well, I didn't know, but do we need to do something more narrowed as far as a Bill goes that says, well, when can you not say, I did not know, or what is actually knowing that you're actually selling? Because, I mean, nobody's going to say, well, I knew I was selling this, or unless it's an ad, so what does that look like?

Well, through the chair?

Yes.

Yeah, I mean, this is something that criminal law deals with 365 days a year, all the time in a million contexts, having nothing to do with drugs, have to prove knowledge. Because when you're talking about sending someone to state prison for potentially 25 years or three years or five years or 15 years, these are not light enhancements. These are significant enhancements and if you're going to do that, it's not unreasonable to have some sort of knowledge requirement. And prosecutors prove knowledge every day.

And knowledge is not just about like, did they say, I knew this, you proved knowledge through various forms of evidence. That is not like, a weird thing for prosecutors to have to do. And in fact, what we heard from DA, from, I think, San Joaquin County, that they think they have to prove knowledge here.

I don't see it in the statute, but it might be that case law requires that, and I don't pretend to be an expert in the case law on drug sales, but it's not, that's not an abnormal thing for prosecutors to have to prove some level of intent or knowledge.

So I just want to highlight that obviously, this Committee has taken on a number of issues, and obviously, fentanyl is a growing crisis in our state, as well as many people, very deeply concerned about it. The main goal that I think a lot of Members have is not to incarcerate individuals due to pure ignorance or not understanding exactly what they're driving or anything like that. I often want to help Members push their Bill.

I am wondering if you would be open to any amendments to just clarify language, as you heard from my colleagues of their concerns. I understand what was stated, but we also have other individuals who are also lawyers and have seen kind of what exactly happens when people have charges against them. You obviously have individuals that are supportive as is, but would you be willing to make an amendment to clarify some of the language and concerns that our two Senators here?

I would. Yeah.

So I'm willing to support moving this Bill out of Committee today. I reserve my right on the floor, but I'm willing to help support moving this out of Committee. I would like some more information about knowledge requirements because these are very harsh enhancements, but I'll support moving it out of Committee today.

All right, thank you. So would you like to close again?

I would. I'll work with staff, and I respectfully ask for an Aye vote.

Thank you. So can we have a motion to move? Yes. All right. Can we call a vote?

Motion is due pass to Appropriations. [Roll Call] Thank you. That bill's on call. I appreciate your time. Our next presenter is Assembly Member Berman 1420.

No good. No. Yeah.

Thank you. Madam Chair and Senators. AB 1420 would ensure that the Department of Justice has the authority to inspect and write citations for any violations related to the sale, transfer, and storage of firearms. California has one of the strongest firearm laws in the country, and these laws save lives. Having these laws are important, but it's equally important to ensure the laws are being adequately enforced. Currently, the Bureau of Firearms under the Department of Justice lacks inspection authority on many of California's strong firearm laws. There are only a handful of statutes that allow for Bureau of Firearms to inspect and even fewer statutes that allow for any sort of civil fines to be issued. AB 1420 will broaden the Department of Justice's inspection authority to ensure these laws are being enforced and any violations are remedied. And here with me today is Candice Chung with the California Department of Justice. Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

You will have two minutes.

Good morning, Madam Chair. And Senators. My name is Candice Chung, and I'm a deputy Attorney General with the office of Attorney General Rob Bonta, who is pleased to sponsor this Bill. On behalf of AG Bonta, I'd like to thank Assembly Member Berman for his leadership on this issue and for authoring this Bill. California has enacted some of the strongest firearms safety laws in the nation, but unfortunately, the laws authorizing DOJ to inspect and cite firearms dealers have simply not kept up with the evolution of our gun safety laws. For example, the current list of violations that DOJ agents can cite for does not include a slew of important safety measures that have been passed in the last 13 years, such as whether a dealer is sold or transferred assault weapons, whether they hold a valid dangerous weapons permit, or keeping records of off roster weapon sales. AB 1420 will give the DOJ authority to check firearms dealers for compliance with a more comprehensive updated list of laws. More importantly, this Bill will expand our authority to assess progressive penalties, including civil fines, when dealers fail to correct violations which will incentivize compliance. This is an important measure to ensure that firearm sales and transfers are being conducted in a safe and lawful manner, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Do we have any other support witnesses? If you are a Me too, state your name, your org and that you support. We'd like to move through this pretty quickly.

Crystal Opalata with Everytown for Gun Safety in support.

Anna Ayoka Meedes with Los Angeles Unified School District in support.

Cassandra Whetstone volunteer with Moms Demand Action in support.

Linda Wheaton with Moms Demand Action in strong support.

Thank you.

Erin Chamberlain with Mom's demand action and support.

Katherine O'morta with Moms Demand Action in strong support.

Susan Burns. Moms Demand Action. Strong support.

Kim Manfredi moms demand action in support.

Alex Navarro moms demand action in support.

Justin Kohler, Alameda County District Attorney's Office in support.

Jamie Minor representing the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Also in support.

Thank you. Seeing no other support witnesses, can we get our opposition? Opposition. Again, you will have two minutes.

Thank you. Madam Chair, Members of the Committee for the record Dan Reid, National Rifle Association. Also here for National Shooting Sports Foundation. In strong opposition. Licensed firearms dealers are already subject to inspections and scrutiny and a litany of federal and state and local laws that allow for inspections. These are good, law abiding businesses, and so we don't feel that there needs to be more onus put on them. Also, our biggest objection comes to the requirement of email addresses as part of firearm transfers. We have a lot of questions about what's the purpose of requiring email addresses when receiving, transferring, purchasing firearms. What are these email addresses going to be used for? What happens when someone doesn't have an email address? As you are aware, there's been a leak of gun owner information. What happens when you also attach email addresses to it? Also, recently, there was a passage of AB 173, which mandated personal identifying information on gun owners be turned over to the UC Gun Violence Research Center along with other nonprofits. There's litigation currently on this. Now, not only are you going to take all their personal identifying information, but also include email addresses. Does this mean gun owners are going to get outreach from researchers? What happens? Is this going to link to social media accounts? There's a whole host of issues, and I see that my two minutes are up, and so I appreciate you indulging me, but with that, we're in opposition. Thank you.