Senate Standing Committee on Public Safety

Public Safety will become the order. Good morning. The Senate continues to welcome the public in person via the teleconference services for individuals wishing to provide public comment today's at Today's, today's participant number is 877-226-8163. That's 877-226-8163. An access code is 753-2581. That's 753-2581. We're holding our Committee hearings today in room 2200 in O Street Building. So I asked all Members of the Public Safety to make their way to the room as soon as possible so we can establish this quorum and begin our hearing.

We're going to start as a Subcommittee today. We have 38 bills on today's agenda, 12 of which are on consent. And AB 1544 by Assembly Member Lackey and 1616 by Assemblymember Lackey have been pulled from today's agenda. Because we have a full agenda, we're going to be limiting our calls to 10 minutes before we hear from our presentations. Well, we can establish a quorum, so we're going to start as a Subcommittee. And our first author is Mr. Berman. He's prepared we're hearing what are we hearing? 1539.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and senators. AB 1539 would address an anomaly in existing law. Right now, a voter is prohibited from voting or attempting to vote twice in an election in California. However, California law does not explicitly prohibit voting or attempting to vote in California and another state in an election that occurs on the same date.

AB 1539. Assemblymember Berman, the floor is yours.

The scenario covered by this Bill recently came to light in Santa Clara County when it was discovered that a couple who owned property in California and Oregon cast ballots in both states in the November 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016, and 2018 elections. Because California law does not explicitly prohibit the alleged conduct, the Santa Clara County District Attorney's Office deferred prosecution to Oregon officials, as Oregon has a law that unambiguously outlaws multi-state double voting.

This Bill would ensure that California does not have to rely on another state's laws to address the issue of multi-state double voting. I respectfully request your aye vote.

Do you have any primary witnesses in support?

I do not.

Okay. Is there any members here in the audience who wish to testify in support of 1539? Seeing none. Any witnesses in opposition of 1539? Seeing none. Moderator, let's go to our phone lines and see if there's anyone wishing to testify in support or in opposition of 1539.

To testify in support or opposition to AB 1539, please press one zero. And we have a comment from line 26. Please go ahead. Line 26, your mic is open. Mr. Chair, there are no other comments.

Great. Are there any comments by our committee member?

If we had quorum, I'd move your Bill.

Okay. Thank you, Senator. Well, at the appropriate time, we will look seek for a motion. Assemblyman Berman, would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for your aye vote at the appropriate time. I appreciate it. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up is Assemblymember Ramos and he's presenting AB 44.

Well, thank you, Mr. Chair and Senators. I would like to begin by accepting the Committee amendments. AB 44 is a continuation of working and dealing with the critical issue amongst California Indian tribes and tribes across the nation. On missing and murdered indigenous persons. Public Law 280 asserted jurisdiction of six states, California being one of them. And at a hearing, CLETS was ID'd as a gap in Public Law 280 in providing public safety to tribal communities in the State of California.

And just last week, we had another roundtable in Mendocino County, where it continues to be highlighted as a gap in providing public safety. AB 44 would grant tribal governments the ability to access the California Law Enforcement Transmittal Service, known as CLETS. CLETS is a computer network that gives police departments access to national databases that provide vital information that could prove timely to tribal governments here in the State of California on identifying who is coming into tribal lands.

Currently, tribal governments and tribal police departments cannot access CLETS and have to request access to Klets from their local sheriff's Department. This may lead to long delays in tribal police officers receiving important life-saving information, such as domestic violence, restraining orders, criminal records, and other vital investigation data. By providing tribal governments and tribal courts the ability to access this system, we can hopefully start to make inroads on the missing and murdered indigenous person issue here in the State of California and keep California's first people safe.

California is in the top five of unsolved, missing, and murdered indigenous people. With me today to testify is Dorothy Alther with the California Indian Legal Service and Chief of Police Greg O'Rourke from the Yurok Tribe.

Are your primary witnesses. Can you come forward at this time? You'll have two minutes.

Just here. Thank you. I'm Dorothy Alther, not Greg. I just wanted to point out one provision of AB 44 that also includes tribal courts, and Greg will speak more about law enforcement. But one of the issues that we encounter is that when a tribal court judge issues a protection order and that order is issued by the tribal court, it oftentimes doesn't make its way into CLETS.

If that victim goes off the reservation, encounters the abuser, and if they share for local law enforcement shows up and the victim shares with them her protection order, law enforcement will not enforce it unless it is in clutch. And this has been an ongoing problem. Both state and federal law require them to enforce it regardless of if it's registered. However, I have been dealing with this issue for over 10 years, and the real problem is getting the tribal court order from the judge into CLETS.

What this will allow the tribal court judges to do is directly input their tribal court orders into Klutz so that the victim, if they're off-reservation, encounter a situation where they're seeking enforcement of that order. State and local law enforcement will be able to see that it is in CLETS and is enforceable. So that is just one of the strong points that I want to make about AB 44, that it is not strictly law enforcement. It's also about domestic violence and protection. So thank you.

Thank you. Our next witness.

Good morning. My name is Greg O'Rourke and I am the Chief of Police for the Yurok Tribal Police Department. I've been in law enforcement for 23 years now, spent 12 of that time with the County Sheriff's Office up in Humboldt, and 11 years with Tribal Police. When you break down everything away from it, the goal and the role of a peace officer is to protect the vulnerable. That is what we signed up for with Tribal Police.

We are asked to protect a vulnerable community with historic trauma without the tools of our state counterparts within law enforcement. One of the biggest issues, of course, that we're seeing within the state is exodus of law enforcement, of veteran law enforcement. And yet tribal police are here with very specific ties to our community, with a very community-oriented policing strategy in which we establish trust and rapport with our communities. Our communities look to us to be able to provide the services that they need.

Because when it comes down to it, the community doesn't care what US code domestic violence falls under. They just know they want to stop getting beat up by their husband, so they call 911 and expect help. The fastest response available is going to be Tribal Police, not the sheriff's office. Just because of the geographic bounds that we are often restrained by. But without access to CLETS, that is the portal in which vital information is being shared with law enforcement.

CLETS provides information to the Automated Firearm System, to automated property system, to stolen vehicle database, to domestic violence restraining orders, to wants and warrants parole status, probation status. This is vital information that peace officers need to be able to access in the field, to be able to provide a fair and impartial, and fully informed decision to be able to affect our job to protect the public. And without that access, tribal police is being denied a tool that the rest of the state has access to. So AB 44 is that first step to be able to help provide that services to the community by allowing trouble police access to it. Thank you, and I'm appreciative of your time.

Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in support? State your name and your organization.

Pamela Lopez, on behalf of the Tule River Tribe. In support.

Thank you.

Christine Smith, California Partnership to End Domestic Violence. In support.

Thank you.

Good morning. John Rodriguez from Coyote Valley. Band of Pomo Indians. Chief of Police for the Coyote Valley Police Department. In support.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses in support? Seeing none now let's go to witness in opposition are there witnesses here in room 2200 in opposition to AB 44? Seeing none. Moderator let's go to our phone lines and see if there's witnesses in support or opposition of AB 44.

To testify in support or opposition to AB 44, please press 10. And first we will go to line 97. I'm sorry, line 97 disappeared. Line 105. Line 105, please go ahead. Yes, can you hear me? We can hear you.

Yes, this is Buster Atteberry Karuk Tribal Chairman, calling in support.

Thank you.

Line 65. Good morning. This is Michelle Castagne. I'm the Co-Executive Director of California Tribal Families Coalition in strong support thank you.

Good morning. This is Mendocino County Sheriff Matt Kendall. I am in strong support of this Bill.

Line 67.

Yes, opposition. I think that Americans should have their constitutional rights guaranteed on Indian lands in exchange for this.

Joelle McCoy from Aaron Reed and Associates. On behalf of PORAC. In support.

And line six. Line six. Your mic is open. Please go ahead.

Danielle Sorrelli from the Habematolel Pomo of Upper Lake, in strong support.

And at line 68.

Mr. Chair, Members, Ryan Sherman with the Riverside Sheriff's Association in support.

And Mr. Chair, we have no further comments.

Great. I would bring it back to the Committee, but I am a Committee of one, so Ramos would you like to close?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for those letting in to support and our lead witnesses, shows how important this currently is in the year 2023, that we're still trying to get public safety on tribal lands. And when the time is appropriate, I ask for your aye vote.

I just have one question. When the Chief testified, he says, making sure that women are protected who are constantly beat up by their husbands. What about husbands who are constantly beat up by their wives?

This is a Bill that talks about missing and murdered indigenous persons. All persons.

Okay.

I just want to make sure. Thank you. All right. Thank you. At the appropriate time, we'll seek a motion on this.

Thank you so much.

Thank you. Mr. Ramos, Ms. Bonta, you have let me look real quick. 114.

AB 1104. When you're ready, you may begin.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. In 2016, the Legislature directed the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to create a mission statement that moved away from punitive punishment and towards a more restorative justice approach. Despite the progress, the penal code has not been updated to reflect this change in our approach to incarceration. AB 1104, aligns Penal Code 1170 with CDCR's mission statement by making two critical changes.

First, it clarifies that once a person has been sentenced to a term of incarceration, the punishment goal of sentencing is satisfied, meaning that a person's incarceration alone is punishment. Second, it clarifies that the purpose of incarceration is rehabilitation and preparing for reentry, and highlights the critical role, community-based organizations have in providing that type of programming. People in prison should have access to quality rehabilitative programming.

Programs run by community-based organizations are best positioned to provide quality services to incarcerated people and decrease the chances of recidivism. Thank you, and with me here today, I have Ken Hartman with the Transformative InPrison Workgroup to testify in support.

Thank you. You have two minutes.

Thank you. I'm Ken Hartman, Advocacy Director for the Transformative InPrison Workgroup. We are proud sponsors of AB. 1104. TPW represents a coalition of more than 85 community-based organizations that provide healing, trauma-informed, restorative, justice-focused rehabilitation programs in all of California's prisons.

We are proud to be working once again with Assemblymember Bonta to continue the push to make positive changes to California's prisons, which ultimately improves outcomes for all Californians by clearly defining into the law that the purpose of incarceration is rehabilitation, education, restorative, justice, and healing. This Bill resets and raises expectations, and it signals the definitive end to the failed, purely punitive policies that propelled mass incarceration in our state. This Bill also recognizes the central role of community-based organizations in the remaking of our prisons.

As a formerly incarcerated person, I know how important it is to provide opportunities for growth and transformation. Including the voices and the presence of people most impacted by incarceration, particularly formerly incarcerated, increases the likelihood of success for our future fellow community members coming home. I would not be living the life I am living now without the care and support of community-based organizations inside and outside.

Last, I encourage all the Members of this Committee to go into the prisons and visit our Member organizations programs for yourself. I'm confident you will be profoundly impacted by the vital and powerful work they're doing inside. I humbly request your vote for this Bill. Thank you for your support.

Thank you. Are there additional witnesses in support? Please state your name, your organization.

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

Danica Rodarmel on behalf of Initiate Justice and the Grip Training Institute. In support.

Thank you.

Jim Lindberg, Friends Committee on Legislation of California proud co-sponsor, in support.

Thank you. Joshua DuBay, on behalf of California Attorneys for Criminal Justice. In support.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses in support here in room 2200? Seeing none. Now let's move to opposition. Are there witnesses in opposition of this measure? Seeing none. Moderator let's go to our phone lines for witnesses in support or opposition of AB 1104.

To testify in support or opposition to AB 1104, please press 10. And we have a comment from line 97. Please go ahead.

Joelle McCoy from Aaron Reed and Associates on behalf of PORAC. In opposition.

And Mr. Chair, we have a few more comments coming through. One moment, please, while we provide them with line numbers. And next we'll hear from line 35.

My name is Janie Doggs. I'm a volunteer with Moms Demand Action in Pleasanton, California, and I'm in support

Line 116. Line 116 please go ahead.

Hi, my name is Shahla De Leon, and I'm in Contra Costa County, and I'm in support.

Hi. My name is Suzanne Chase. I'm a volunteer with Mom's Demand Action in support

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members, Melissa Cosio with California for Safety and Justice In support

Hi. My name is Natasha Johnson. I'm from the National Institute of Criminal Justice Reform, and we are in support.

Annalise Ludtke of Young Women's Freedom Center in support.

And next, we'll hear from Line 47.

Hi, I'm Vitka Margo. With Mom's demand action and I'm in support.

Mr. Chair, there are no further comments.

Great. Let's establish quorum. Consultant, please call the roll.

Bradford here. Ochoa Bogh here. Skinner here. Wiener. Wahab.

All right, quorum has been established, bringing it back to the Committee. Are there any questions or concerns regarding this measure by Committee Members?

Item 32. Yeah, I would move the Bill.

All right. We have a motion by Senator Skinner. Yeah, do you? Okay, we'll give her one more minute to see if she has questions or concerns. Okay. Assemblymember Bonta, would you like to close?

Thank you. Chair. The state spends every single year, $14.5 billion on our state prisons. And we know that 95% of incarcerated people are released from prison back into our community. It's time that we put the R back into CDCR and recognize that right now, only spending less than 1% on rehabilitation and reentry services is not serving our communities well. It's not providing public safety. And it is our opportunity right now to fix this. With that, I respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you. We have a motion by Senator Skinner. We have a what was our due pass? Do pass to Appropriations Consultant. Please call the roll.

Item 32, AB 114 motion. Do pass to appropriations. Bradford aye. Bradford aye Ochoa Bogh. Skinner aye. Skinner aye. Wahab. Wiener.

That measure has two votes. We'll leave the roll open. Perhaps a Member sat on at the appropriate time. All right, at this point, I'm going to hand the gal over to the Vice Chair because I have to go present a Bill on another Committee. So. You want to no, we'll wait. Yeah, we can do the consent. Can we get a motion to consent calendar real quick?

We'll take a motion for our consent calendar. Bradford. Aye. Bradford aye. Ochoa Bogh aye. Skinner aye. Wahab. Wiener

Calendars out. We'll leave a roll up and perhaps.

We got a lot we'll move on to file item number 16, AB 355 by Assemblymember Alanis, welcome.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning.

Good morning. All right, when you're ready.

Okay. Well, thank you again, Madam Chair and Member AB 355 is a sensible approach in correcting an oversight in current law by allowing peace officer cadets enrolled in basic training prescribed by the Commission on Peace Officer standards and training. Better known as post or other certified training to use a tactical rifle while engaged in firearms training and supervised by a firearms instructor. Current law exempts law enforcement from restrictions on possession of assault weapons.

However, those exemptions apply to only sworn peace officers, not cadets enrolled in post-training. This has caused logistical issues with getting cadets adequately trained and certified during the academy in preparation for entry into the field training program. While cadets are required to train with handguns during the post-academy, under existing law, they are technically prohibited from going through the same training with the tactical rifles. However, post-appropriately requires proficiency in the use of these firearms.

So to resolve this conflict, some agencies have opted to graduate cadets without completing tactical rifle training, then send them back to receive the rest of the firearms training. As a sworn officer, this delays and unnecessarily complicates cadet training and their entry into the agency staffing ranks. Let me be clear. AB 355 does not allow cadets to use or possess an assault rifle anywhere but under the supervision of instructors during firearms training.

In fact, I've worked with the Brady Campaign to clarify that a loaned assault rifle cannot leave the premises of the training facility and narrowing the measure to limit the agencies eligible under this Bill. I want to thank the Brady Campaign for their engagement and productive discussion on this Bill. My office and the Brady Campaign negotiated in good faith to bring the current version before you. By making this technical change, we can ensure that cadets are properly trained on tactical assault rifles before they graduate. And with me today to testify in support is Jonathan Feldman with the California Police Chiefs Association. Thank you.

Perfect. Welcome.

Morning chair Members. Jonathan Feldman with the California Police Chiefs Association. I won't reiterate what the Assembly Member went over, but this has actually been a huge logistical issue for all agencies and streamline this, allowing them to get the training while they're at the academy so we don't have to graduate them out, send them back, and find time for doing all that when we're facing staffing shortages across the state is actually going to be a huge help. So appreciate the work here and appreciate the work from the Brady Campaign, too, to get this narrowed, focused, and the amendments do all that. So I ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. Seeing no other lead witnesses, we'll now continue with any witnesses in support of AB 355 here in room 2200. Seeing no other witnesses in support, we will now continue with any lead witnesses in opposition to AB 355 here in room 2200. Seeing none, we'll move on to any other witnesses in opposition to AB 335 355. Seeing none, we'll now move on to our witnesses waiting to testify via the teleconference service moderator.

If you would please prompt any individual waiting to testify in support or opposition to AB 355. We will begin to testify in support or opposition to AB 355, please press 10. And first we'll hear from line 126. Line 97,

Joelle McCoy from Aaron Reed and Associates on behalf of PORAC, the CAHP, and SFPOA in support

Ryan Sherman with the Riverside Sheriff's Association, the Corona Police Officers Association, Santa Ana Police Officer Association, and the California Reserve Peace Officer Association, all in support. Thank you.

Line 126. If you do have a comment, please press 10. Again, and Madam Chair, there are no further comments.

Thank you very much, Mr. Moderator. We will now bring it back to the dais for any questions or comments by our Members. I will move the Bill as amended, and appreciate your work with the Committee. zero, there's no prior to Committee. Correct? Apologies for my getting that little detail wrong.

Anyway, I will move the Bill and appreciate the work that you did on it to put it in this place. Okay.

Thank you, Senator.

I also just want to echo the comments by Senator from Berkeley. Sorry, from Berkeley. With regards to the collaboration. I always appreciate thoughtful collaboration between groups, stakeholders, in order to achieve the best possible outcomes when it comes to policy. So thank you for taking the lead on that Member Alanis, would you like to close?

Sure. Thank you for those comments. I just want to say thank you for you and those comments you made, and Senator Skinner as well. We have worked really hard, and it is it's great to get everybody's input on it and move the Bill forward. It makes you feel pretty good when it goes through. So thank you. And I request an aye vote thank you very much.

Madam Secretary, would you call the roll, please? Item 16, AB 355 motion is due passed to the floor. Bradford. Ochoa Bogh Aye. Skinner aye. Wahab. Wiener. Wonderful. We'll keep that on call for our absent Members. Thank you.

Thank you. Have a great day.

Likewise. Let me see here. We'll move on to item number seven, AB 67 by Assemblymember Muratsuchi. Welcome and good morning. Aloha, aloha.

Good morning, Senators, I believe. Do we have our witnesses here? Good morning. I'm presenting a Bill, Assembly Bill 67, that I know you, Madam Vice Chair. You're very familiar with the subject matter. It is a program sponsored by, or a Bill sponsored by the County of Los Angeles to try to replicate what has been a very successful program in not only Los Angeles County, but San Diego County 450 other homeless courts that have been piloted locally.

This Bill is proposing a grant program subject to appropriation, to be administered by the Judicial Council. This is following up on the Chief Justice's Work Group on Homelessness to try to provide, instead of adding to mass incarceration for minor criminal offenses, that we use the criminal courts, those charged with offenses like loitering in public, unlawful camping, to provide wraparound services, including housing, opportunity, navigation, mental health treatment, mental health treatment, expungement of criminal convictions.

Many of the obstacles that we know that the unhoused face in trying to get housed and to get their lives back on track. Currently, there are over 450 homeless courts in the State of California that are currently operating. And this Bill, again subject to appropriation, would provide for grant funding for these local programs to promote and support more of these successful programs throughout the State of California.

Here to testify in support of the Bill is City Attorney from Redondo Beach, Mike Webb. They have piloted a very successful Homeless Court program in my district in Los Angeles County. And we also have Los Angeles County Public Defender's Office, Thomas Moore.

Good morning. Our outdoor Homeless Court brings the courtroom to the community where the unhoused live. And that's the benefit in that it's a nonthreatening area where we bring all the resources that they may need to overcome the obstacles getting them permanently housed. We've had remarkable success. The number of people who attend Homeless Court averages just around 80%. We've had multiple court dates where we've had 100% of the unhoused, which never happens in a traditional court.

We bring all the services that they need, such as expungement that you'll hear Mr. Moore talk about, job training, mental health services, drug addiction services, and it's all there for the individuals. We've had a 44% reduction in our homelessness, and it's at a decade-long low this year. The county is not reporting on a by-city basis, but we hire an outside third party to do a census, and they said we have a further 16-and-a-half percent decrease.

It sets the individuals up for success. And I've been a prosecutor for more than 35 years. I'm more of a traditional prosecutor, but it's the one time that in my 35 years that everyone's interests are perfectly aligned. The defense, the prosecutor, the community members impacted by homelessness and the unhoused. We all have the same goal get them permanently housed and dismiss their cases. And everyone wants the same thing. And they're getting permanent housing.

We partner it with many of the things that assemble mirasuchi has in his Bill, such as transitional housing. And more than 50% of the people that are in both become permanently housed. The average number in our service provider area is down to about 17% exiting from transitional housing.

And so with this Bill, you'll have other communities throughout the state be able to adopt this, modify it to their particular community needs, and put people who are facing homelessness, and have, in many cases done so for decades, move them on a path of hope towards permanent housing in their future. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Webb. We'll now move on to our second lead witness, Mr. Thomas Moore.

Good morning. It's a pleasure to be here. An honor to present on behalf of the Public Defender's Office in Los Angeles County and just at the outset point out that Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors also supports AB 67. It's really an incredible opportunity to marry a court with community, and it brings those two things together in a way that is so unique. It's always a privilege to work with Mr. Webb. It's unique collaboration with prosecution and defense as well.

What we have seen is that when we are at the homeless courts, there's an atmosphere that yes, it is a court and it's presided with a judge, but it has the atmosphere of a resource fair because we can provide resources that this community and population needs in order to stop and break interrupt the cycle of incarceration that so many people who are unhoused face.

We provide also expungement services or records clearing services, because one of the key barriers to housing is often getting an ID card or having no record. So we do that. It's a step-by-step process. We do that and we have people because it's provider-driven. The providers bring people to the court that might not have a case on calendar, but are very happy to see that there are community resources that provide court services as well. It's accessible by the community.

I want to give you an example of a person that did have success in the Redondo Beach Homeless Court. I'll call her Michelle for the sake of confidentiality. She was found living behind a dumpster where she had been for years a meth addict. And when she was brought into the Homeless Court, she had been repeatedly arrested and then went back to the dumpster where she lived. When she was brought in, one of the key barriers she faced was having an ID card.

But to get it, she had to know her birth name. She didn't because she was adopted. So through the services of the case manager, they found out that she had been born in another state. And the court and city attorney, case manager, public defender, worked together to get her ID. Short story is that she's in permanent supportive housing. She's four years sober today, and she still has contact with providers in the community. So it's a success story that really works. And thank you for your attention and time.

Thank you very much for your testimony. We'll now continue with any other witnesses in Room 2200 in support of AB 67.

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

Chair, Members Jonathan Feldman of the City of Long Beach in support.

Good morning. Lizzie Cootsona, Shaw Yoder Antwih Schmelzer & Lange here on behalf of the City of Santa Monica and the California Faculty Association in support.

Joshua DuBay on behalf of the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice. We are neutral on the Bill. However, we are in discussions with the author's office and we look forward to continuing our talks.

Thank. You. Thank you. Seeing no other witnesses in support, will now continue with any witnesses in lead opposition witnesses for AB 67 here in room 2200. Seeing none, we'll now move on to any additional witnesses in opposition to AB 67. Seeing none, we'll now move on to witnesses via the Teleconference service. Mr. Moderator, if you would please prompt any individual waiting to testify both in support and opposition to AB 67. We will continue to testify. In support or opposition to AB 67, please press 10.

And Madam Chair, there are no comments.

Wow. All right, we'll bring the discussion back to our Members. Senator Skinner?

Yes, I will move the Bill. I think this makes a lot of sense because clearly some of the individuals who fall in this category end up tying up the courts a great deal because law enforcement picks them up for any number of reasons. And of course, just picking them up and either jailing them or even if there's no result of that, the continuation of going to court, going through court, being picked up by the police, et cetera, et cetera, is very costly and doesn't result in any kind of there's no result. Now, I would say that I think it's the appropriate direction and I support it and I will move the Bill.

But of course, one of our core problems is that we don't have enough housing yet for these folks. So I appreciate Redondo Beach's relaying of the experience that they have been able to secure housing for many. But I think obviously all of us know we also have to do a lot more to provide that housing. And we need to make sure that all of our jurisdictions are open to allowing and permitting such housing, because for some folks, not all.

It does have to be supportive services permanently. Not all. I mean, obviously the individual who is described, who is the meth addict and who is in such bad shape they were living behind a dumpster has gotten to the point where they probably don't need ongoing supportive services. However, there are some individuals who we know do, and it's smaller than most the public thinks, but it's still needed.

And many of our local governments are not the local government per se, but say residents are unwilling to allow such facilities to be permitted in their districts and that or in their communities. And of course, that goes counter to what we're trying to achieve here. So I know that this is kind of separate from the Bill, but we need both in order for this to work. But I move the Bill.

Thank you. If I may respond through the Chair, Senator, you know my district well, some houses are sliding. That's right. I brought that up on another Bill. But that's another discussion. But I want to make sure that you know that communities like Redondo Beach and even Torrance, because of the recognition that we need to have more housing options to be able to send folks, the unhoused who have been coming through the homeless courts to have housing opportunities.

Not only I think the homeless crisis may have more manageable numbers in suburbs like Torrance and Redondo Beach compared to some of our large urban areas, but as you heard from our public defender, Mr. Moore, they have succeeded in housing people. But moreover, even Torrance and Redondo Beach put up the tiny homes or the pallet shelters.

There was a lot of local opposition to that, but out of recognition not only that, we need to provide compassion for the homeless that are local in the South Bay, but also out of recognition of the 9th Circuit. Boise case that they need to provide housing opportunities in order to address encampments that even conservative communities, suburban communities in the South Bay have been building these tiny homes.

And so want to make sure that you are aware of is, as you said, it's a smart way that I think is not only bringing together prosecutors and defense attorneys, but also Democrats and Republicans. And perhaps if you can make sure that this is in next year's budget, I think it could be a smart tool as part of the overall fight against the homeless crisis.

Thank you, Senators. Thank you. Obviously a fan of the Bill. As you already know, I've tried to carry the Bill well, for the state, actually a grant program to be able to carry it throughout the state, because I've seen and heard and I've learned much from this actual from Public Safety Committee and realized the need to be able to expand both the capacity and the ability to have these courts in the rest of the state.

I believe only 38 of all of our counties actually have these courts in place or something similar to this, and we don't have enough funding allocated to this. So I'm grateful that you're carrying this Bill. If I'm not already an author, would love to be considered a co author when possible, if possible, I'd love to on that end, but with that, I will gladly be supporting the Bill today.

Thank you very much.

Madam Secretary, would you call the roll, please?

Respectfully ask for you.

I'm sorry. Would you like to close? Thank you. I'm all anxious. Just get it done.

All right.

Item seven, AB 67 motion is due passed to appropriations Bradford. Ochobog. Aye. Skinner aye. Wahab. Wiener.

We'll keep that on call for our absent Members. Thank you very much for presenting that today.

Okay, for Gabriel, I'll present from the dais versus going over to the podium.

So we'll continue with item number one, AB 28 by Assemblymember Gabriel, presented by Senator Skinner.

Great. Good morning. On behalf of Assemblymember Gabriel, I want to thank the Committee for the work on the Bill and accept the amendment. As all of us know, gun violence, unfortunately, has become a leading cause of death for our children. And according to the Centers for Disease Control, more children were killed by guns in 2021 than any year in the past 20 years.

What AB 28 will do is fund life-saving school safety measures and gun violence prevention programs through a modest excise tax on firearm manufacturers and dealers. The funds generated from this modest excise tax would be allocated to our California Violence Intervention Program, CalVIP. So the purpose of the Bill is to create a sustainable funding program that supports those programs and methods that have been proven to reduce gun violence and save lives. So I'd like to have our witnesses in support.

It is Stephen Norris from Juma Ventures and Mike McLively from Giffords Campaign.

Good morning. Thank you for your time. My name is Stephen Norris. I'm with Juma Ventures. A CalVIP grantee. Juma is a nonprofit social enterprise that operates businesses with the express purpose of employing young people. We make sure they earn a paycheck, learn to manage money, and gain essential skills like responsibility, teamwork, and how to communicate in the workplace. And ultimately, we connect them to their next job or educational opportunity. And 100% of Juma youth belong to low-income households.

The young adults we serve in Sacramento, San Francisco, and San Jose all live in underserved communities where the risk of violence is higher than neighboring communities with more resources. Youth employment is an evidence-based crime reduction practice that research demonstrates results in a 43% reduction in violence, a reduction that happens almost immediately. Supporting the need for programs like Juma's. CalVIP funding will allow us to serve 705 young adults over the three years of the grant period. Steve in, one of our program participants, sums it up best.

Joining Juma and going through everything the program has to offer, I was able to feel more comfortable in my own skin. It changed everything. I was able to redefine who I was. I never believed in myself much before, but at Juma, I have a feeling that I can do this. Juma's program is one of many CalVIP grantees that provides violence intervention and prevention strategies to Californians in need. Each program employs their own unique and innovative and effective violence reduction strategies.

The CalVIP funding source is critical to programs like Jumas, and we strongly support AB 28 to continue to reduce violence. Thank you. Norris. N-O-R-R-I-S. Thanks.

Thank you, Mr. Norris.

Good morning, Members of the Committee. My name is Mike McLively. I'm the Policy Director of the Giffords Center for Violence Intervention. Giffords is a national nonprofit organization named after former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, who was shot back in 2011 while hosting an event for her constituents. I'm here today not just on behalf of Giffords, but on behalf of all the members of our CalVIP coalition, which is the largest coalition that's statewide in the country that's focused on addressing community violence in our communities.

And I want to thank many of the members who made time to be here today and are filling up this room right now. Really appreciate you being here. Our top priority this year is the passage of AB 28. And that's because of the confluence of two different things. One is that violence is on the rise nationwide and here in California as well. We've had a 40% increase in violence, specifically gun violence, since the onset of COVID in 2020. And again, that's not unique to California.

That's being experienced in states across the country. At the same time, we're seeing record gun sales here in California and record profits for the gun industry. Californians are paying a price, literally and figuratively, for this increase in gun violence. Just to give you a sense, the average homicide, a single homicide, costs California taxpayers $2.5 million. And the annual cost of gun violence is $22.6 billion annually, of which 1.2 billion is paid for by taxpayers every single year.

So to help address this, AB 28 would place a modest 11% excise tax on the gun industry, on the sale of firearms and ammunition, and that would generate an estimated $160,000,000 to fund CalVIP and a number of other violence prevention activities, including school safety, relinquishment of firearms for those who've been prohibited, and other life-saving measures. This is a reasonable tax. It's not designed to prevent people from purchasing a firearm. When California wants to discourage the purchase of a product, we know how to do that.

Consider that for some tobacco products, we do an excise tax of up to 60%. And here we're talking about an 11% tax. This is similar to a national 11% excise tax that the firearm industry itself has praised. The money generated from that federal tax is used to protect wildlife. So we say to you here today, if we can support a tax that protects wildlife, we should be equally supportive of a tax that's designed to protect human life here in California.

This is exactly what AB 28 is designed to do. Through this modest tax, we will support permanently a suite of very effective violence reduction programs that will absolutely save lives while respecting the Second Amendment rights of gun owners. No other industry has the protections afforded to it that the gun industry does in this country. And California can again lead when it comes to putting people over profits. Thank you for your time, and we urge you to support and pass AB 28 out of this Committee. Thanks so much.

Thank you very much. Well, now, those were our two lead witnesses. We'll now continue with any other witnesses in support of AB 28 here in room 2200. Welcome.

Cassandra Wetstone volunteer with Moms Demand action in support.

Melissa Lovato, on behalf of the County of Santa Clara, in support.

Mary Lee Rosetto, Moms Demand Action volunteer and gun owner.

Mary Duplaw, gun violence survivor, in support.

Amy Seropian Moms Demand Action volunteer, in support.

Claire Senchyna, gun violence survivor, with Moms Demand Action in support. Thank you.

Alden Masson Moms Demand Action volunteer. In support.

Erin Chamberlain, Moms Demand Action volunteer. In support.

Kim Manfredi, Moms Demand Action volunteer. In support.

Jillian King, Moms Demand Action volunteer. In support.

Fiona Carol, Moms Demand Action volunteer. In support.

Julie Chapman, a volunteer for Moms Demand Action in support. Thank you.

Yara Judah. Volunteer for Moms Demand Action in support.

Ebony Antoine, survivor and founder of Broken by Violence, in support.

Bridget Kubowitz from Moms Demand Action, in support.

Martini Murphy, volunteer at Moms Demand Action. I'm from a family of hunters, in support.

Suzanne Lander volunteer with Moms Demand Action. Strong support.

Liz Russell. I'm a gun violence survivor and volunteer with Moms Demand Action in support.

Kim Howard with Moms Demand Action. In strong support.

Kelly Ryan volunteer with Moms Demand Action. In strong support.

Lori Wolf, volunteer with Moms Demand Action. In support.

June McGuire. Moms Demand Action volunteer in support.

Caitlin Collins. I'm a trauma surgery fellow at UCSF and a member of the Wraparound project. In support.

Hello. My name is Nick Andino and I'm here with 35 young people from United Players and West Bay organizations in San Francisco. And we are here in support.

Georgina Redmond, member of Moms Demand Action and volunteer in support.

Zeenat Yahya Policy Director at March for Our Lives in support.

Emily Hall volunteer for Moms Demand Action and district representative for Yolo County Supervisor Lucas Frerichs, in support.

Catherine Omorda. Volunteer with Moms Demand Action. In support. Thank you.

Jake Omorda, student and son of Moms Demand Action volunteer in support.

Tammy Shaw, survivor family member of survivor of gun violence. Moms Demand Action volunteer and in support. Thank you.

Rodney Robinson, father of three, volunteer for Moms Demand Action in strong support. Thank you.

Kenneth Andrews, credible mentor, Movement for Life, in support and in need of support. Thank you.

Voltaire Knox credible mentor, Movement for Life. In full support.

Isael Humphrey Grant Field Coordinator Program Manager for Movement for Life. In support.

Julius Thibodeau Hassan Executive Director for Movement for Life, in support

Leslie Jones mentor in support Movement for Life.

Carol Kinser. Elk Grove Moms Demand Action in support.

Von Griggs, Movement for Life. Credible mentor in support.

Danica Rodarmel, Initiate Justice, Smart Justice California, and Prosecutor De Lions of California in support.

Bernard Walker, Movement for Life. Credible mentor in support.

Heather Philips, United Players, in support.

CM Mckay, United Players. In support.

Michaela Kenosha. Michael Ruiz, West Bay United Players in support.

Sarah Jackson, United Players, in support.

Kamaya Phillips, United Players, in support.

Alex Navarro, Moms Demand Action in support.

Dominic King, Moms Demand Action volunteer in strong support

Ishawn Grayson United Players, in support.

Erazmo Martinez, United Players in support.

Itzel Garcia, United Players, in support.

Zanaya Chavez, United Players in support.

Arsh Khan, United Players in support.

Ellie Laffiti, United Players in support.

Regina Reyes, you always stay in support.

Finn Conway and Layla, we are in support.

Oliver West Bay. Support. Angelina, West Bay. Support. Tiffany. I'm from West Bay, and I support

Gabriella Gonzalez. United Players. In support.

Lizzie Kusana here on behalf of San Francisco Mayor, London Breed, San Francisco Board of Supervisors, City of Los Angeles and the County of Sonoma in support. Thank you.

Markey Sieger, on behalf of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors in support.

Rebecca Marcus, representing the Brady Campaign, in support.

Stephanie O'Shaw on behalf of the City of San Jose in support thank you.

Moira Topp on behalf of San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria and the full City Council in support.

Dr. Jay Doucet, trauma surgeon at UC San Diego, representing the California chapters of the American College of Surgeons in strong support.

Thank you. Seeing no other witnesses forward. A great turnout, great engagement by the Member by Member Gabriel So. Seeing no other witnesses in support of AB 28, we'll now continue with any lead witnesses in opposition to AB 28 here in room 2200. No pressure.

That's a tough act to follow. Goodness gracious.

Just saying.

For the record, my name is Michael Finley. I'm the Director of Government Relations for the National Shooting Sports Foundation. We are the firearm industry. We are America's trade association for firearm manufacturers, ammunition manufacturers, retailers, and ranges. I'm also here representing Gun Owners of California, the California Rifle Pistol Association, and the NRA. They could not be here. They had other obligations today.

And goodness, I want to say to everybody in the room, we think that the California VIP program is good and we want to see it funded as well. But adding an excise tax on all firearm sales and ammunition sales is not the right way to go. And, in fact, it's a little bit dangerous. And let me explain why it is.

The way that we fund and this is going to sound like a tangent, but it's important the way that we Fund wildlife conservation here in the United States, and it was brought up by a couple of the proponents of this Bill is through what's called the Pittman Robertson Act. And this is an excise tax that was put in place over 100 years ago.

And it gets redistributed towards the states and provides just in 2022, for instance, in California, provided over $35 million for habitat, wildlife restoration, water reclamation projects, enhancement, things of that nature, over $1.1 billion nationally. Now, what we heard from the proponents in previous testimony is that this tax is punitive in nature. It is designed not to be a tax for tax sakes, to be a small, modest one, but it is to stop firearms in General or sales that in itself can be challenged in court.

If that happens, the very wildlife programs that this country has developed in terms of the North American wildlife model of conservation could be threatened. That's just one thing. But I want to point to what Governor Gavin Newsom said the other day when he was visiting San Francisco. And he said, I'm sick of it. We have the laws in place, and I apologize. This is his language, not mine. We need to enforce those damn laws.

And when we look at previous studies about where violent criminals who are obtaining firearms are getting them from, it is over 90% through illegal means, whether it's straw purchasing, burglary, thefts. We need to concentrate on those methods of them getting it to stop and curb violence. Now, I know I don't have much time here. But we also want to let everybody know that we are about real solutions.

The national NSSF has put together a slate of real solution programs to curb things like straw purchases, lying for other people, which is that's what a straw purchase is. Making sure that our retailers and our ranges understand how to protect themselves from burglaries, making sure that we do work with ATF and other federal partners, law enforcement partners, to put our own money for rewards to catch perpetrators of theft and burglary.

With that, we really want to let you know that there are unintended consequences of this Bill. And while the Calvit program is something that we can all get behind in support, this funding should come from the General Fund and we should not impose another excise tax on it. So with that, we are strongly against the Bill. Thank you for your time.

Thank you very much. We have a second lead witness.

Hi there, Madam Chair, Members of the Committee. Mark Hennelly with California Waterfowl Association. We're a wetlands conservation group, restore and enhance wetlands and other waterfowl habitat, and represent about 20,000 members statewide. And we have been dealing with this tax proposal in other forms for many years now, so it's very familiar to us. Our main issue here is the Bill basically is going to double what we have in terms of excise taxes.

And essentially, if you add up all the other taxes, we're going to be looking at about a 30% tax on all firearms and ammunition. To us, that is a major disincentive then, for people to participate in hunting and the shooting sports. And it's also, as was previously mentioned, going to be a major disincentive then for folks to contribute to those Pittman Robertson funds that are so critical to our wildlife conservation efforts here in California.

Department of Fish and Wildlife gets about $30 million annually from that PR Fund. And so we see this really jeopardizing that in the long term. A couple of other things. The Bill would unjustifiably burden low-income Californians with these higher costs they can't afford then to hunt and participate in shooting sports. And you're basically asking citizens who are using firearms legally and safely to pay for the irresponsible or illegal acts of others. And we think that is not justified. And lastly, we just don't see that this Bill is going to do anything positive to directly address gun violence. So for those reasons, we ask your opposition. Thank you.

Sorry. Thank you very much. We'll now continue with any other witnesses in opposition to AB 28 here in room 2200.

Bill Gaines today speaking on behalf of the Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation.

I am so sorry. We're maxed out at two lead witnesses in opposition I'm just doing too. zero, me too. Okay. Sorry. I apologize.

No worries.

Please.

Speaking on behalf of the California Sportsman Foundation, the California Chapter, the Wild Sheep Foundation, the Rocky Mountain Milk Foundation, the California Houndsmen for Conservation, the California Deer Association, Tulare Basin Wetlands Association, Sassoon Resource Conservation District, California Bowmen Hunters, State Archery Association, the Black Brandt Group, San Francisco Bay Area Sci, Keller Wetlands and Waterfowl Council, San Diego County Wildlife Federation, and the National Wild Turkey Federation, all conservation organizations in strong opposition to AB 28.

Thank you. Thank you very much, sir.

Greg Hurner, on behalf of the nine chapters of the SCI California Coalition in opposition.

Thank you, sir. All right, seeing no other witnesses in opposition to AB 28, here in room 2200, we'll continue with all our witnesses waiting to testify via the teleconference service. Mr. Moderator, if you would please prompt any individuals or any of the individuals waiting to testify via the teleconference, both in support and opposition to AB 28, we will begin. I'm sorry, Mr. Moderator, I've been informed that we're maxing out the witnesses in support and opposition via the teleconference to 10 minutes.

To testify in support or opposition to AB 28, please press 10. And first we will hear from line 136. Please go ahead.

Jessica Craven, volunteer with Moms Demand Action and elected Member of the Los Angeles County Democratic Party. I'm also a mom. I am in strong support.

Line 135.

Hi, my name is Raquel with the National Association of Social Workers California chapter in strong support of this Bill. Thank you.

Line 103.

Laura Lane. On behalf of every town for gun safety, in strong support.

Line 152.

Gabriel Garcia with Youth ALIVE in Oakland in strong support.

Good morning. My name is Steve Roda. I'm with the NRA California Rifle and Pistol Association. And us. Navy veteran. And on behalf of 400 legal gun owners in Lake and Mendocino counties, I strongly urge the Committee to oppose Assembly Bill 28. Thank you, line 21.

Hi, this is Dr. Jenny Olney, a volunteer response command action in support.

Line 64. My name is Jeff Turner. I'm calling from Seaside, California. I'm a Member of California Rifle Pistol Association and the NRA and opposition of this Bill. Thank you, line 162.

James O'Brien, lifelong resident of California, life member of the NRA, CRPA Member, licensed sportsman for over 20 years. In opposition of AB 28. Thank you,

Line 145. Record line 145, your mic is open. Please go ahead and line 95. Line 95, your mic is hello? We can hear you. Please go ahead.

You can hear me?

Yes.

Oh, awesome. Okay. My name is Natasha. I'm from the National Institute for Criminal Justice Reform, and I strongly support this Bill.

Line 133.

Hi, this is Carlene Ellis, Member of the California Rifle and Pistol Association, the NRA armed women of America. And I am a competitive shooter and I strongly oppose AB 28.

Thank you, line 39.

Hello. My name is Elise Mackenzie from CRPA Armed Women of America, range safety officer and educator. And I oppose SB AB 228.

Line 131.

Hi. This is Diana Honick. I'm a Moms Demand Action volunteer in strong support of AB 28. Thank you.

Line 32.

Erica Best, Moms Demand Action Volunteer in support.

Line 151.

Hi. Good morning. My name is Darren Bedwell. I'm a Member of the California Rifle and Pistol Association and Gun Owners of California, resident of Sacramento County in strong opposition. Thank you.

Hi. This is Carol Rogers. I'm a volunteer with Moms Demand Action and I am in strong support of AB 28.

Tim Smith, Sonoma County Brady United Board Member and treasurer in strong support of Assembly Bill 28.

Madam Chair, this is Tim McMahon. I'm the chair of the South Sacramento Chapter of the California Rifle and Pistol Association and NRA. Member in strong opposition, line 51.

Sharon Jenkins Moms Demand Action volunteer in strong support.

Line 13.

Suzanne Burch from the Los Angeles chapter of Brady. Strong support.

Line 29.

Hi. My name is Rowan Tubau. I'm a volunteer with Students Demand Action. And strong support.

Hi, my name is Vita Caribbean. Volunteer with Moms Demand Action. Strong support for AB 28.

Line 45.

Laura Maher Moms Demand Action volunteer in support.

Ronald Mandel member Moms Demand Action in support.

Janet Sorrette Moms Demand Action, volunteer in Support.

Line 142.

Good morning. Julia Demlow, firearms owner and also Executive representative of the organization Women for American Values and Ethics, and we strongly support AB 28.

Line 48.

Hi, good morning. Aaron Rotor, Moms Demand Action volunteer and educator. strongly support.

Mark Rasmussen, a concerned American county resident, strong opposition to AB 28.

Hi. My name is Tara Hume. I'm NRA Member. And I strongly oppose AB 28.

Line 144.

Hi, my name is Mary Roselle, and I'm a Moms Demand Action volunteer and a gun violence survivor, and I strongly support AB 28. Thank you.

Line 149.

Hi. My name is Elizabeth Melmura. I am the administrator of Freedom Looks Good On Us. A reentry community of over 2000 people over California statewide in strong support.

My name is Richard Heiler, Folsom California and a survivor of gun violence, and I strongly oppose 88.

Line 10. Line 10. Please go ahead. Line 139.

Rachel Enciso Moms Demand Action volunteer and support.

Line 156.

Hi. My name is Tammy Von Buck. I'm a mother of two and a Member of Ventura County Gun Owners, and I strongly oppose this Bill.

Line 158. Line 158. Please go ahead. Line 161.

Yeah, my name is Berman Stout, CRPA life member, resident of Contra Costa County, Boy Scouts, volunteer, and strong opposition to AB 28. Line 18.

Hi, this is Donna Perham, volunteer with Moms Demand action. I strongly support AB 28. Thank you.

Line 117. Line 107. Please go ahead.

Hello?

We can hear you. Please go ahead.

Hi. Kayla Garcia Pipdani with Students Demand Action and strong support.

Line 130.

Sarah Borges. Mom Demand Action in strong support.

Line 49.

It Debbie McDaniel Lindsay with San Diegans for Gun Violence Prevention in strong support.

Good morning. Amanda Swanson, volunteer with Moms Demand Action in support

Line 60.

Catherine Campy with Moms Demand Action gun violence survivor, in support.

Linda Wheaton. Moms Demand Action volunteer in support

Line 11.

Hi, my name is Lori Herbert. I'm a volunteer with Moms Demand Action in Pleasanton in very strong support.

Line 53

Trina Warren, retired teacher and Moms Demand Action volunteer and strong support.

Line 84. Line 84, please go ahead.

Lindy Purcell with facts, grandparents in action, and Jonas Philanthropies in strong support.

Tiffany Treta, volunteer with Moms Demand Action and mother of gunshot survivor. In full support.

Line 75.

Caitlin De Chico, Vice President of Survivor Services with three strands global foundation. In support.

Line 34

Anna Lay I'm a volunteer with Moms Demand Action. For Gun Sense, and I believe we need way more attention to healing and violence intervention Im in strong support

Line 47. Line 47, please go ahead. Line 40. Next. Line 40, please go ahead.

Hi, Julia Camita, I'm a policy intern with Cleanearth4kids.org and strongly support.

All right, Mr. Moderator, we're going to take one more witness via the teleconference service, and we have reached our max time after we've gone over it. So one last caller, please.

Okay, last witness is line 19

Shirley Lewandowski, Moms Demand Action volunteer in full support of this Bill. Thank you.

And ma'am, you probably didn't hear, but your emphasized support on the Bill was actually very much appreciated by the audience present here from 2200. So having heard from a portion of our callers, we have many who were unable to present or to testify via the teleconference service. If you haven't done so, I believe that they can still submit their comments in support and opposition via the website, the portal. So we encourage you to do so.

We do want to hear your voice, and your voice does matter. So thank you very much to all our support and opposition witnesses here that were able to attend the Committee hearing. We'll now bring it back to the dais.

Thank you. I think the dialogue from the supporters and opposition has been what one would expect. But I think that what I guess I would like to say in closing on behalf of Assemblymember Gabriel, is that while there was expression from opposition that rather than using such an excise tax, we should use General Fund.

Now, the Assembly Member did not provide me the General Fund estimate of what we are already spending as a result of gun violence, but it is very significant, and that is General Fund costs. So we are already expending a huge amount of General Fund money, whether it's through victims compensation, our courts, our law enforcement, you name it, through General Fund. And to not ask gun owners to bear some of that cost to help us with dealing with the gun violence epidemic I think is unreasonable.

I think it is reasonable to ask. So with that, I respectfully ask for an I vote on behalf of Assemblymember Gabriel. Okay, so we'll wait until we have other Members present. Thank you.

All right, thank you. And I am going to take the gavel and is that take the gavel so you can go to. Okay. Can I just make some sure. I do just want to really quick so we're in a pickle right now, literally, we have several committees going on at the very same time, and many of our Members are either presenting bills or they're presiding over other committees. And so we're literally trying to shuffle everybody around to get where we need to be. So we apologize.

It's not of disrespect that some Members are not here or leaving, but just the fact that we're literally trying to shuffle everybody between Senate and Assembly committees, including a Public Safety Committee that's currently going on in the Assembly as well. So I just wanted to sort of speak on behalf of those individuals that are law abiding, upstanding individuals in the State of California who one collect guns.

It's part of their culture, their family culture, as well as the sportsmanship that this is a sports for them and the impact that that will have on the sporting space on that end. But I also wanted to note, because it was mentioned earlier today, the importance of having this excise tax that would ironically impact those that are law abiding citizens trying to pursue both guns and ammunition in a legal way.

But I just wanted to note that I have in my notes here that in 2022, the budget, the General Fund actually allocated $76 million to the CalVIP program. And in 2023, 2024 budget, it has proposed $75 million to the program. So the Legislature has actually done a very I'm not going to call it a great job. I'm not sure how that compares in funding.

But I just wanted to have for the record that the Legislature has actually allocated this funding towards the program in light of what is being proposed here with the 11% excise tax, which, once again, it would just impact those law abiding citizens that are trying to purchase those in a legal manner, not going through the alternative.

One of the concerns that I have, and I just want to put that on the record, is and we're seeing this also in the illegal growth that are happening in the State of California. When we tax an industry very highly and we continue to tax it, it becomes punitive, and it actually disincentivizes the right people from doing the right thing. And that's one of the concerns that I have with this particular Bill on that end, that it does actually go after law abiding individuals that are trying to do it the right way.

I'm just going to liken it to what is going on and the issues that we're seeing and the laws that we're currently seeing to fix that issue is the fact that we have overtaxed the legal grows in the City of California and it's causing a problem with an increase in illegal grows in the City of California. So don't want to create that type of environment. We already have something that's happening already in that end. And so I just wanted to have that for the record. And we look forward to voting on this once we have the quorum. So now we'll pass this over to Chairmanship, to an acting Chair.

Apologies before you run out. I heard in saying that I did not have the information. I want to just correct. I do have the information on what the estimates of the cost of gun violence in California is. The estimates are that gun deaths and injuries cost California 22.6 billion annually. And of that, 1.2 billion is paid directly by taxpayers.

So if we compare that to the 70 billion or 72 million, the 72 million we put to Calvip versus a $22 billion cost, I think there's a great disproportion. So just wanted to put that on the record because I erred in saying I didn't have the information. All right, so now we will move to our I am now taking over being chair. I've got the gavel. We're going to move to our next Bill. And the next Bill is Assemblymember Kalra and he will be presenting AB 58.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Starting with AB 58, a 58 is a simple build that would extend the sunset date of the Young Adult Deferred Entry Program until January 1, 2026. This program authorizes selected counties Alameda, Butte, Napa, Nevada and Santa Clara counties to allow young adults between 18 and 25 years of age who have committed a nonviolent felony to voluntarily enter into a program that will offer age appropriate services in the juvenile system.

Evidence has shown that these individuals are still undergoing significant brain development that could lead them to making impulsive decisions and result in a felony conviction, jeopardizing any opportunities for them in the future. This program has shown to be effective and has had a positive outcome for individuals of this age group by providing resources designed for rehabilitation while holding them accountable for their behavior in a meaningful way.

By extending the sunset date by two years, AB 58 allows pilot counties to continue offering this program to give transitional age youth the best opportunity to receive age appropriate services as the state evaluates its impact for future action. Testifying in support with me today.

Thank you. I appreciate you're going to the witnesses because I was going to say there's no opposition listed and if I could move it, I would move it. But we'll proceed.

Yes, expedition. I appreciate that. We used to have a single witness, Danielle Sanchez, with the Chief Probation Officers.

Great.

Thank you. Chair and Committee Danielle Sanchez. On behalf of the Chief Probation Officers, very pleased to support AB 58 and appreciate the Assembly Members work on this important issue. In the interest of time and the long agenda, I'll keep my comments brief, but did want to note that for this program, individuals who are charged with felonies these young adults importantly receive age appropriate services such as cognitive behavioral therapy, mental health treatment, vocational training, education and related services.

I think importantly, this balances treatment and community safety needs through age specific programming and reentry services, as well as the ability for the individual to have their charges dismissed upon successful completion when determined that the individual would be a good candidate for the program taken.

I think together, these programmatic elements seek to give young adults the skills and supports needed to successfully complete their program, mitigate further involvement within the justice system, and onto more sustainable, healthy pathways back in the community through these services and reentry services. So we see this as an important Bill to ensure continuity in all of these services for these young adults. And so, for those reasons, we are pleased to offer our support and ask. For your support today. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support?

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

Madam Chair Members? Well, actually, Madam Chair, Cliff Costa, on behalf of the California Judges Association, and specifically on behalf of our incoming President, judge Erica Yu from Santa Clara County, who I believe the Committee received a copy of her letter. We are in strong support. Thank you.

Any other witnesses in the room in support? Seeing none. Do we have any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. We'll go to the phone lines. Moderator go ahead. This is for AB 58.

To testify in support or opposition to AB 58, please press 10. And we have a couple of comments coming through. It'll just be one moment, please, while we provide them with their line numbers. And first we'll hear from line 15. Please go ahead.

Brandon Cabrera, Santa Clara County DA's office. In support.

Line 54.

Annalisa Ruiz with the Youngman Freedom Center. In support.

Line 73.

Christopher Ian from the Santa Clara County Public Defender's Office in support.

And Madam Chair, there are no further comments.

Thank you very much. Moderator so given that there are no other comments we will allow you to close.

We ask for an aye vote at the appropriate time.

Wonderful. And as I indicated, I am happy to move it once we get to that point. And now we will go to your next Bill, which is AB 1082. Yes, AB 1082.

Thank you. Madam Chair. AB 1082 would prohibit poverty tows when a vehicle is towed as a debt collection mechanism due to unpaid parking tickets. This Bill would also prohibit immobilizing the vehicle in this case, or sending just one unpaid parking ticket to the DMV to place a hold on the driver's registration renewal. Lastly, the Bill would make changes to the parking ticket payment plan, program guidelines to make it more workable for low-income Californians. Thus, encouraging more payment of accrued tickets.

Using tows to collect unpaid parking tickets is a costly method that does not make our streets safer and does not generate revenue, as the analysis cites. A 2022 report by the Auditor of the City of San Diego found their towing program cost the city about $1.5 million a year. They also found that 27% of all tows resulted in a Lien sale, leading to unrecoverable costs. Towing for parking tickets is not only a money loser, but it is also likely unconstitutional.

In a recent case in Los Angeles, the court denied the city's motion to dismiss a lawsuit alleging that LA's late parking ticket tows are unconstitutional. As a result, the city immediately instituted a moratorium on boots and tows for five or more unpaid parking tickets. Additionally, a case in San Francisco is before the California Court of Appeal. They have already issued a very favorable tentative ruling where the court expressly rejected the city's argument.

Their interest in deterring parking violations and non payment of parking fines justifies warrantless seizures of vehicles. California has been a national leader in ending policy that disproportionately punish people experiencing poverty, recognizing that these laws do not make individuals more likely to pay, but instead trap them in debt. With me to provide supporting testimony is Danica Rodarmel on behalf of Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights, sponsors of the Bill.

Thank you. Good afternoon. AB 1082 is a narrowly crafted Bill. The Bill leaves in place two dozen other reasons to tow a vehicle, literally every other reason except for unpaid parking debt. Since the introduction, opposition to the Bill has repeatedly mischaracterized it as going much further than it does submitting opposition that includes provisions of the Bill that were previously changed and sometimes provisions of the Bill that weren't there at all.

At this point, I've gotten enough parking tickets while working on this Bill as would allow the City of Sacramento to have the DMV hold my registration if I hadn't paid them. I accrued these tickets not because I'm some scofflaw who doesn't care about parking rules, but because I'm a human. A human who missed that a place I park sometimes happened to have a loading period where you can't park there.

A human who once forgot to extend her parking time on her app while in this building, trying to convince people not to tow people's cars for unpaid parking debt. A human who once arrived back at her car just a few minutes past the end of her parking time without realizing it. A busy human who sometimes makes mistakes and thankfully had the money to pay those tickets. But what if I hadn't?

Are any of those good reasons to take what is the most valuable asset I have ever owned? The asset allows me to get me to work, to the Doctor to pick up my nephews when my sister, who's a single mom, is at a Doctor's appointment. I think not. And I urge your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Other witnesses in support?

Leslie Caldwell Houston for the Public Defenders Association. In support.

Eric Henderson ACLU California action in support.

Jim Lindbergh. On behalf of the Friends Committee on Legislation of California. In support.

Cynthia Castillo on behalf of. Western Center on Law and Poverty, a proud co-sponsor, as well as Smart Justice and Initiative Justice.

Kate Vander Tuig on behalf of Futures Without Violence,in support.

Christine Smith to California Partnership End Domestic Violence in support.

Felipe Kelly on behalf of the Ella Baker Center in strong support.

Any other witnesses in support? Seeing none, let's have our main witness in opposition, or two witnesses in opposition, if there are.

Thank you. Madam Chair and Members, Matthew Cyberling on behalf of the California Mobility and Parking Association. CMPA is opposed to AB 1082, which would largely eliminate most, if not all, of the viable tools that local governments have at their disposal to actually effectively enforce parking. A city's option to tow or immobilize a vehicle can only be exercised after five or more unpaid delinquent parking tickets. In each case, the citation was placed on the vehicle at the time of the violation.

A copy of the citation was sent to the driver of the car. 21 days later, another notice was sent to the same person informing them that their parking ticket was about to go delinquent. And only at this point can the car be put on a list to be immobilized or potentially towed if found in violation.

Again, at this point, 15 different attempts have been made to contact that person and urge them to enroll in a monthly payment program, at which time, if the driver opted to enroll in a $25 per month payment program, it would remove them from the list or the threat of even being towed or mobilized.

We agree with the Committee concerns or the concerns raised in the analysis that the Bill eliminates all tools for enforcing out of state plates those of whom don't pay in state registration and at which time we'd have no ability to immobilize or tow a car if it had an out of state plate that was continually habitually violating parking laws.

Lastly, we appreciate the analysis pointing out that the maximum amount due under the payment program cap put in by AB 1082 would amount to $300 per year, which is far less than a monthly cost in cities like San Francisco or Los Angeles. We've worked diligently with our communities and stakeholders over the years to put in place viable payment programs to allow people to work away at their amounts due once they've accrued these tickets, and AB 1082 will effectively neutralize our municipal parking efforts. For these reasons, we urge a no vote.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in opposition?

Madam Chair Members, Corey Salizo on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association, in opposition. Thank you.

Chair Members. Jonathan Feldman, California Police Chiefs Association. Opposition.

Morning. Chair, Members, Jason Bryant, on behalf of the California Downtown Association, we're opposed

Any other Members, witnesses in the room in opposition. Seeing none, let's go to the phone lines. Go ahead. Moderator queue up. This is AB 1082.

To testify in support or opposition to AB 1082, please press 10. And. First we will hear from line 186. Please go ahead.

Hi, this is Sabrina Hamm. On behalf of Free From and the center of Responsible Lending in support.

Hi, this is Annalise on behalf of Young Women's Freedom Center in support

Line 125.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members, mostly Trisha West, California for Citizen. Justice and Support and line 109.

I'm Lisa Kerry, a concerned California citizen for those who live in neighborhoods where they excuse me.

It's just me, too. Are you in support or opposition?

Support.

Okay, great. Next.

We have no further comments at this time.

Wonderful. So I'm the only one in the diaspora. I'll make a comment, but then I'll let you close. Assembly Member given the number of people, unfortunately very, very unfortunately, who now in California, in effect, reside in their cars, including a great number of students, to have this circumstance, as much as I appreciate having been served in local government the local government wants to be able to collect that payment on that unpaid ticket to remove that car, in effect, removes their residence and has great, great consequences.

And there are certainly people who. May just be not responsive to paying their tickets, but most people who do not pay their tickets because of the variety of consequences it's dragged out, it affects your registration. It affects various other things that's because they cannot pay. And many, many years ago, more years ago than I want to admit to, or rather not admit to, but rather would age me. I was in divorce proceedings and our household had a single vehicle. That single vehicle was under the registration of the other person.

But this person, my ex zero, you about you could have the car. I'm like, zero, great. This is great. Of course, when I get the car and I go to register under my name, I find it has 35 unpaid tickets, which I was not in a position to afford to pay, but I was able to. My work allowed me to take the time off, to go to court and be put on a community service to deal with these tickets that I had not accumulated anyway.

But most people are not in that circumstance. They neither have the time to be able to go to court, nor do they have the time to do or the circumstances for which to address those things. So I think that this Bill is more than reasonable. I would be happy to move it, but I am not able to. And I will allow you to close.

Thank you. Madam Chair, I think you point out the importance of this Bill. I think that the ability right now for one ticket to be able to send it into DMV to suspend someone's or affect someone's registration, I think is totally egregious, given the offense of having an actual single ticket.

But to the chair's point, there are many low-income Californians working families that have one vehicle that are shared by three or more people in a household and that are used to go to work, they're used to go to school, that are used for critical needs for the family. And it's hard to believe that every single family member is going to know how many tickets may be attached to a certain vehicle and to punish that family and put them in a spiral towards poverty. Further debt is certainly a punishment that's far greater than the infraction. So with that, at the appropriate time, ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Assembly Member We'll now move to your next Bill, which is AB 1726.

Thank you. AB 1726 clarifies the record-clearing provisions enacted under SB 357 and SB 239 are workable for immigration purposes by declaring convictions under formal penal code Section 653.22 and 647 F are presumed legally invalid due to specified defects that existed at the time of the convictions. The Legislature has previously repealed and dismissed convictions for loitering with the intent to commit prostitution and prosecution with a prior conviction by someone who knew they had HIV AIDS.

However, under federal law, deportation proceedings can still be based on a vacated conviction unless the reason is due to a legal or procedural defect at the time it was entered. In cases where state law does not explicitly use certain language, a conviction can remain for immigration purposes even though the state erased it. As such, immigrant populations are inadvertently subjected to a two-tiered justice system where they unfairly face additional consequences, such as deportation for convictions based on outdated laws.

AB 1726 corrects this oversight and ensures everyone has full access to the post-conviction relief intended by the Legislature. Here to testify in support is Ashley Madness on behalf of the DeCrim Sex Work California Coalition and Jackie Gonzalez, Policy Director with the Immigrant Defense Advocates.

Hi. My name is Ashley Madness. I'm a steering committee member of Swap LA, testifying on behalf of Swap LA as well as the DeCrim Sex Works California Coalition, which is sponsoring AB 1726. AB 1726 ensures that various record-clearing provisions that have been enacted in recent years are also able to benefit people in the context of immigration proceedings. Existing law provides expungement relief for persons convicted under former Penal Code sections 56 3.22 and 647F, but that relief is ineffective in certain immigration contexts.

AB 1726 allows immigrants to benefit from that record-clearing relief even in the context of federal immigration proceedings. This Legislature appealed Penal Code Section 65 3.22 because it created opportunities for law enforcement to engage in discriminatory policing that targeted black and brown women and Members of the transgender community. Likewise, penal Code section 647 F was based on fear and limited medical science at the time, and penalized sex workers who were living with HIV and was repealed. Recognizing the prior law's disparate impact on vulnerable communities.

These reforms allowed individuals to vacate their prior convictions but weren't phrased properly for the criminal expungement provisions to assist people seeking immigration relief. Under federal law, for immigration purposes, a conviction is considered vacated only if it was legally or procedurally defective at the time it was entered. So 1726 creates a presumption that each conviction was invalid at the time it was entered.

Rather than merely vacating them without giving any reason, we removed the old penal code provisions and provided a way for people to leave those records behind them. We need to ensure that this remedy works for everyone. No one should be arrested for showing too much skin, no one should be prosecuted for having HIV, and no one should be deported because of California's past mistakes. Thank you. These reasons swapped the DeCrim Sex Work for California support AB 1726 thank you.

Appreciate. Thank you. Any other witnesses in support?

Good morning. My name is Jackie Gonzalez, and I'm currently the Policy Director of Immigrant Defense Advocates, a project focused on immigrants in detention in the state. Previously, I served as co-director of Santo De Gala LA Rasa's immigration program, helping to grow it to one of the largest removal defense providers in the state. AB 1726 is a critical reform. As you've heard today, it's necessary to protect some of the most vulnerable members of our immigrant community from unfair deportation.

It resolves a loophole that unfairly impacts immigrants and noncitizens alike and creates equal protection under the law. As this Committee has heard certainly many times before, immigration laws in this country and how they are applied are extremely complex. Over the course of my career, I've represented hundreds of individuals in removal proceedings and can attest to the fact that individuals are often unfairly punished because of criminal convictions that were vacated by state law but still viewed as convictions under federal law.

This unforgiving standard routinely results in the deportation of individuals who would have otherwise had a pathway to remain in this country and pose no threat to our communities. AB 1726 will ensure that individuals who may be eligible for relief from deportation can access that and are not deported on a technicality. Even for those individuals who are not actively facing deportation, certain criminal convictions make it really risky to apply to become citizens, lest they end up in immigration court.

In these cases, even though someone is not imminently deportable, they remain in limbo in our country, unable to apply to become U.S. Citizens. The practical effect of this is that they remain ineligible for economic or social opportunities they would otherwise be able to access, relegating them to a life of further instability instead of reintegrating them into our society. AB 1726 ensures these populations can benefit from the reforms that resulted from repealing California penal code Section 647, F, and 653.22. I respectfully ask for your support. Thank you.

Thank you. Very good. Keep going, please. And this is me, too.

Lacey Matters on behalf of ACLU, California Action, proud supporters of AB 1726.

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

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

Good morning. Derek Morgan, on behalf of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights here. In support.

Alice Kessler, on behalf of Equality California, in support.

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

Thank you. Okay, any other additional witnesses in support? Seeing none now. Opposition witnesses here in room 2200? In opposition, seeing none now. Moderator let's go to our phone lines and see if there's any individuals wishing to testify in support or opposition to this measure.

To testify in support or opposition, please press 10. At this time, you. And first we'll hear from line 135. Please go ahead.

Hi. My name is Raquel. I'm with the National Association of Social Workers California chapter, and we're in support of this Bill. Thank you.

Line 70.

This is Kathy Brady. I'm the directing attorney of the Immigrant. Legal Resource Center, and we are strongly. In support of this Bill.

Line 140.

This is Onyx Starrett, Deputy Public Defender at the Santa Barbara Public Defender's office. We are in strong support of this Bill.

And we have no further comments.

Do we miss opposition here in the room? Is any opposition here in 2200 on this measure? All right, seeing none. Bringing it back to the Committee. Is there any discussion on debate on this item?

I will move the Bill.

It's been moved by Senator Skinner. And what do we have real quick?

It's due pass to appropriation.

We have a due pass to appropriate.

Oh, it's just due pass.

Due pass. Okay, we have a due pass. Would you like to close?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to ask for an aye vote.

All right, consultant, please call the roll on AB 1726.

Item number six, AB 1726 motion is due passed to the floor. Bradford aye. Bradford aye. Ochoa Bogh. Skinner. Aye.

Skinner. Aye. Wahab. Wiener.

We'll leave the roll open for absent Members. Thank you, Mr. Kalra. Dr. Weber, you're up next. And you have two items, AB 269 and AB 1584.

Thank you. Good morning, Chair. I'm here to present AB 268 which seeks to address the deficiencies in California's local detention facilities raised by the California State Auditor Office and raise standards of care for incarcerated people. Federal law requires county sheriff departments to provide adequate medical care for individuals in their custody. In California, the Board of State and Community Corrections, also known as the BSCC, was established in its current form in 2012 to provide statewide coordination and technical assistance for local justice systems. Among other things, the BSCC is tasked with developing minimum standards for local detention facilities and expecting and reporting the facility compliance. In total, there are about 550 local detention facilities in California. These include jails, which can house people for significant periods of time while serving sentences or awaiting trial, and are typically operated by county sheriffs. In 2021, the California State Auditor Office investigated the San Diego County Sheriff's Department and discovered 185 individuals in their custody died from 2006 through 2020, more deaths per average daily population than any other large county in the state. Additionally, with the recent DOJ investigation into Riverside County Jails for the deeply concerning allegations related to conditions of confinement, excessive force and other misconduct the need for this Bill is urgent. Local advocates in my district have long called attention to the dangerous conditions and the large number of suicides and other deaths, particularly in San Diego County jail facilities. But more importantly, many counties around this state have faced litigation in the last decade related to conditions in their county jails. The prison law office alone has successfully litigated cases related to jail conditions in Contra Costa, Riverside, Fresno, Santa Barbara, Sacramento, Santa Clara, and San Bernardino counties, many of which revolved around inadequate access to medical care, including mental health care. The 2022 state audit findings confirmed the already extensive public record documenting the tragic loss of lives, systemic failures, and inadequacy of oversight. The Auditor noted that, quote, given the annual number of incarcerated individuals, deaths in county jails across the state increased from 2006 to 2020, improving the statewide standards is essential to ensuring the health and safety of individuals in custody in all counties. End quote. AB 268 codifies numerous recommendations that the Auditor suggested to improve the health and safety of incarcerated individuals in all detention facilities outlined by the Auditor's office. It will require the BSCC to develop and adopt regulations that align with best practices related to performing intake, health evaluations, and safety checks requiring ongoing correctional staff training. This Bill also adds two additional Members to the board, the Secretary of Health and Human Services or their designee, who has a medical degree and a mental or behavioral health specialist. The need to add these two Members is critical, as their expertise and knowledge can help guide the board to establish practices that prioritize an individual's mental and physical health. Speaking in support with me today is Jonathan Clay representing the County of San Diego. Thank you.

You have two minutes.

Great. I'll try and keep it way under that. Good morning, Mr. Chair, Committee Members. Jonathan Clay here. On behalf of the County of San Diego. We're pleased to be standing here as a co sponsor with Assemblymember Weber. As the Assembly Member identified, the State Auditor raised significant and serious concerns about the systematic issues within Sheriff's Department policies and procedures related to mental health provisions and the performance of visual checks. From the county's perspective, a mistake and time in jail shouldn't cost anyone their life, and that's a heartbreaking situation that we've been facing. The county fully supports state legislation and action to implement changes in accordance with the state auditors reports and recommendations, and we feel that AB 268 accomplishes that. Specifically looking at the BSCC and adding new Members to that Committee, we think the BSCC is the right statewide entity to provide the leadership, coordination and technical assistance to county jails. The county believes that the BSCC is also the correct entity to develop and adopt standards for the appropriate care and training in the jails. While the county cannot directly change the policies and procedures of the Sheriff's Department, the county is working collaboratively with the new sheriff in San Diego and command staff to increase staff position, support, and fund much-needed infrastructure improvements to the jail system, establish key partnerships with the sheriff, behavioral health and Helping Human Services. With that, we respectfully urge your support of this measure. Thank you.

Thank you. Additional witnesses in support. Please state your name and your organization.

Danica Rodarmel on behalf of Initiate Justice in support.

Eric Henderson on behalf of ACLU California Action in support.

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

D'Artagnan Byrd Asking California in support.

Paul Simmons with the Depression Bipolar Support Alliance of California in support.

Any additional witnesses in support here in the room seeing none now. Witnesses in opposition? You're the primary witness in opposition. You have two minutes.

Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Members, Cory Salzillo on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association. In opposition to the Bill. Historically, we've had concerns with growing the size of the BSCC, feel the board has an appropriate current composition, and worry that adding to it, notwithstanding the importance of the delivery of medical and mental health care, will dilute the operational efficacy of the body. Governor Newsom noted this concern in his veto of a similar Bill from last session, saying, quote, BSCC has had a 13-member board since 2013. I am concerned that adding two Members unnecessarily grows the board and could impede its ability to timely carry out its mission. And further, while the BSCC is the appropriate venue for setting minimum standards for detention facilities, we think this Bill goes too far. By installing specific standards into statute, the BSCC board Members, practitioners, and other stakeholders undertake a near-constant revision of the Title 15 standards for adult and juvenile incarcerated populations. This process generally results in well-negotiated and achievable standards that are subject to scrutiny and the review of experts and those who will be asked to implement those standards. Statutorily setting these standards interferes in this process and precludes the BSEC and those it oversees from being nimble when changes are necessary. For those reasons, we respectfully ask for your no vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses here in the room in opposition? Seeing none. Let's go to our moderator, go to our phone lines, and see if there's witnesses in support and or opposition of AB 268.

To testify in support or opposition of AB 268, please press 10. And Mr. Chair, we have no comments.

Hey, we'll bring it back to the Committee. Is there any further discussion or debate on this item? Senator Ochoa Bogh.

Hello and welcome. Dr. Weber. Grateful to have you here. And as you know, I'm a huge fan girl fan of Dr. Weber, Assembly Member. So I am in support of the principle of what you have here in the Bill. However, I do have a question with regards to currently the current Member and what the Governor stated in his veto message. So, two items. One, I would love to hear your thoughts on whether or not you did anything within this Bill to accommodate the concerns that the Governor had. And number two, if there was any consideration in having these roles be filled with the current 13 Member board right now, including the fact that we have as one of the Members here, a community provider of rehabilitation, treatment or services to adult offenders appointed by the speaker of the Assembly. Number two, there's a community provider or advocate with expertise in effective programs, policies and treatment of a at promised youth and juvenile offenders. And then there is another one here appointed by the Governor subject to Senate confirmation. So I was just kind of wondering, is there any capacity within this 13 current board to be able to fill these two positions? And number two, did you do anything within the Bill to accommodate the governor's veto message?

Right? Thank you, Senator, so much for those questions. We have been working with the governor's office very closely ever since he decided to veto it. And so actually, with the addition of the Secretary of Health and Human Services, that was actually a request from the governor's office. So initially the Bill said a specific medical provider and a separate mental health provider and working with the governor's office, they actually requested that it be the Health and Human Services secretary or their designee who would be a medical health provider if the Secretary of Human and Health Services was not able to fulfill that role. So, yes, we have been working very closely with them to allay his concerns and also to explain the importance of having someone with a medical background, an actual medical provider, to deal with medical issues and make sure that the standards. So if someone comes in with high blood pressure, diabetes, seizures, they have a protocol that is evidence based and medically justified to take care of those people, because we do have a lot of people incarcerated with medical issues. At the same time, we also have a good number of people who have mental health issues, your schizophrenia, your bipolar, your depression, your anxiety. So you need someone on the board who has expertise in that as well. I am a physician. I'm an OBGYN. I do not do mental health. Me trying to be the expert and to help make sure that what you have as evidence based would not really work well if I was covering both roles. And so having discussions with the governor's office, they do recognize now that it is important to have two separate ones and looking over the content or the current makeup of the BSCC, I would be fine with removing some of those who are in public enforcement because there's a lot of them there. But the ones that you mentioned, like the community officers or the community Members that work in some of these behavioral health clinics or these juvenile services, they have a specialty which is separate than this in the medical profession as well. So there is a lot of duplication on the BSCC within those within the Police Department or the enforcement area, but the ones that are there that are not in that area, they are very specific to addressing certain needs within, unfortunately, the incarcerated community. But what is not there are those who have expertise in medical history nor in mental health. And unfortunately, we have a lot of incarcerated people who have medical issues and mental health issues. And what you're noticing is that their intake is not adequate and these people are coming in and dying even before they're convicted.

So just as a follow up through the chair, so in other words, you'd either consider removing two Members in the current board Member for the opposition's sake. I'm trying to just explain the two scenarios. And the options that we could have is either remove some of the individuals with the law enforcement background in order to fulfill these two, or add two additional Members to the board to meet those specific capacities. And the only final remark that I would probably have, I will be supporting your Bill today. The only other consideration that I would put on record or place on record is the fact that, and I'm not sure what exactly determines the difficulty of getting everybody together and conducting the business that was mentioned in the veto message by the Governor. But the only concern I would have with adding two additional Members would be the fact that it would continue that thought process, that it would make it difficult to promote and conduct the business of the board. And that's my final thoughts. But thank you very much for carrying the Bill.

Thank you

Thank you, chair, Assembly Member, I appreciate your working with the administration's concerns, and I think the Bill makes a great deal of sense, and I'll move it.

Thank you.

Thank you. We have a motion by Senator Skinner. We have a due pass to Appropriations. Dr. Weber, would you like to close?

Yes, thank you so much. There is definitely a crisis of incarcerated people dying behind our bars. AB 268, in my opinion, is really a simple Bill. It takes what our State Auditor recommended so that we could improve the health and safety of those who are in our care and make sure that we have people on the BSCC who have the knowledge and expertise to make sure that our standards, our regulations when these individuals come in, are evidence based, so that we will have a decrease in our deaths behind our jails. And I respectfully ask for your I vote. Thank you.

Thank you. We have a motion by Senator Skinner. Consultant, please call the roll.

Item 10. AB 268 motion is due passed to Appropriations. Bradford aye Bradford aye. Ochoa Bogh Ochoa Bogh Aye. Skinner eye. Skinner eye Wahab Wiener that measures out.

We'll leave the roll open for absent members. And now we'll move on to your second item, AB 1584.

Thank you. Good morning. Okay, I'm here to present AB 1584, a bill that will modernize the state's competency to stand trial process. Currently, if an individual is facing charges, they cannot be tried or convicted while they are incompetent. If a doubt is raised on a defendant's competency, the court must suspend criminal proceedings and set a trial to determine whether the defendant is competent to stand trial. And criminal proceedings may not resume unless and until a person is found competent.

Once someone is determined to be incompetent in a felony case, the judge has no choice but to commit that person to the state hospital for restoration. Even if other treatment options would be more effective, like community-paced treatment, diversion, or conservatorship. The number of people found incompetent to stand trial in California has far outpaced the state's ability to provide timely service and response. The Department of State Hospitals projected that as of June 30, 2023, the waitlist for competency restoration will exceed 1400 persons.

As a result, people may wait months in jail before they are placed in a restoration program. Most who are found incompetent and then restored to competency often cycle back through the very same process. They were released to the same conditions that led to their incarceration managing symptoms of serious mental illness without housing, treatment, or support.

For these reasons, AB 1584 does the following. Provides judges with the discretion to refer individuals who have been found incompetent to stand trial to mental health treatment when restoration to compensation is not in the interest of justice. If requested by the defense, requires the court-appointed mental health expert to evaluate whether a person found incompetent to stand trial is eligible and suitable for mental health diversion. Requires appointed mental health experts to return competency evaluations within 30 days absent good cause for an extension.

And finally, the bill requires any hearing for mental health diversion to take place within 30 days of a finding of incompetency. We recently amended this bill to address concerns raised by stakeholders. If mental health diversion is not successful, an individual can be referred back to the competency restoration process. The goal of AB 1584 is to promote speedy access to treatment for these severely and acutely ill individuals, reduce court and county detention facility costs, and increase judicial efficiency by limiting the setting of unnecessary jury trials.

This bill is sponsored by the ACLU and the California Public Defenders Association. And here to testify with me today is Shelly Lynd from San Diego County, whose son has been impacted by the IST process, and Stephanie Regular, an assistant public defender out of Contra Costa County's Public Defender Office and a board member of the California Public Defenders Association. Thank you.

Great. Each of you will have two minutes. You may begin your testimony.

My name is Shelly Lynd. I do live in San Diego. My son Abe is 46 years old and has had a long history with schizophrenia. He has no history of violence. Schizophrenia stole from Abe what the rest of us take for granted. For the past five months, Abe has been in jail for a nonviolent offense tied to his mental illness. He's not been convicted, he's not been tried, just locked up.

In January 23, I called the police and tried to request the 5150, but was denied. That same day, my son took himself to a hospital and was turned away. Also on that same day, he entered a bookstore and tried to use a gift card I gave him. He became upset when they asked him to leave and allegedly made violent threats. He was arrested, charged with a felony, and deemed incompetent to stand trial.

After 23 years of severe mental illness, it is unlikely my son will ever become competent. However, he must wait for up to two years while the state attempts to restore him. Also, he can be prosecuted for refusing to leave a bookstore while in a mental crisis. The current system provides no other option. In the past five months, I've watched my son deteriorate. Jail is a noisy, scary place. The mind of a schizophrenic is a noisy, scary place. Lately, I'm in constant grief.

I grieve for the life he is missing. I grieve as I watch, helpless. He is caught in the spokes of the criminal system, a system we call justice. He entered an unheard plea of not guilty as he was taken to a cell. Left alone with his voices, his confusion, and fear. Five months in a cell and no explanation that he can understand, he decompensates. And even if Abe were to achieve competency, where is the justice in prosecuting him for being mentally ill?

I want to shed light on the cruelty of the system and the immense suffering it inflicts on people like my son and those who love him. You are the only hope I have left. I support AB 1584 because I want to know in the future, courts will have more tools to help people like my son access the treatment they need and achieve outcomes that better serve both public health, public safety interests for all Californians. And thank you very much for this opportunity.

Thank you for your testimony. Next witness.

Thank you. Good morning, Chair, committee members. My name is Stephanie Regular. I'm a board member of the California Public Defender Association, proud co-sponsor of AB 1584. I have also been a public defender for 22 years and have represented clients specifically related to competency to stand to trial for the past 12 years.

And in the past 12 years that I've been doing this work specifically related to competency, there have only been a handful of cases where I've actually seen the competency restoration process make a difference in my client's life. Where that brief period of time that they've spent in the hospital has been enough to provide stability so that they could return to a stable, healthy life outside of jail. Those cases are the exception. Most of my clients spend months in a jail cell.

They then go to the hospital for a few months to receive basic information regarding the court process. They then return to a jail cell and are ultimately released to the street to return the same cycle again. There are some clients who I have represented for years, and each time they come back into jail again and again, they become more and more unrecognizable from the person who I represented years ago.

The debilitating nature of their mental illness has turned them into something or a person that I can barely even recognize anymore. AB 1584 creates pathways to actual mental health treatment and a continuity of care that cannot be accomplished through our existing competency restoration process. This bill does not remove the court's ability to refer somebody for restoration and ultimately for prosecution. It doesn't do that.

But what it does do is that for those cases where it serves no one's interest to restore the person and to prosecute that mentally ill person, it provides pathways to actual treatment. It provides the ability for courts, gives them the discretion to actually make a difference in that person's life. For these reasons, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Additional witnesses in support. Please state your name and your organization.

Danica Rodarmel on behalf of Initiate Justice and Smart Justice California, in support.

Megan Chung with the Steinberg Institute, in support.

Rachel Bhagwat with ACLU California Action, a proud co-sponsor of this bill. Thank you.

Derick Morgan for the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights. Here in support.

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

Paul Simmons with the Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance of California, in strong support. Thank you.

Any additional witnesses here in the room in support? Seeing none. Now, we'll move to opposition. You have two minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. Cory Salzillo on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association. In opposition to AB 1584. This bill does not necessarily take away judicial discretion, except for a circumstance in which the court finds that it's not in the interest of justice to restore the person. And in that circumstance, when a court makes that finding, the judge has two options: refer that person to diversion or dismiss the charges against the person. That's the bill.

The finding that a person is not mentally competent to stand trial is an acknowledgment that the person is not currently able to understand the charges they face and not able to participate in presenting their defense. It's not a question of whether or not the person is mentally ill, whether or not the mental illness contributed to the state of mind that led the person to allegedly commit the crime that they're accused of.

Many defendants who are found incompetent to stand trial can be restored to competency, often simply by resuming previously ceased medication. Some cannot. But the determination of competency, again, is tied to whether or not the person understands the proceedings against them. A temporary inability to fully participate in criminal proceedings should not be a complete off-ramp to accountability. But that's what AB 1584 provides by allowing judges to send a person to diversion or dismiss charges altogether.

As of June 26, the waitlist for persons pending placement for 1370 IST treatment per the state hospitals was 894. That number is down from the high watermark during COVID of over 2000. The Department has done quite a lot in the way of community restoration, diversion, more jail-based competency treatment programs, and they are getting that list down. We're concerned about the public safety impact of creating this off-ramp for culpability, and we'd ask for your no vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Next witness.

Good morning, Chair and members, Kim Stone of Stone Advocacy on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association in very respectful opposition. There's a lot that the author and the supporters said that the district attorneys agree with. We absolutely recognize the waitlist and length of delays at the state hospital and are very concerned about that, too. The Incompetent to Stand Trial Solutions Working Group made a report of recommended solutions in November of 2021, where the state hospital did say that over 66% of the defendants who were initially found to be incompetent were able to have their competency restored.

And we have seen an increase in the number of people found to be incompetent to stand trial over the last decade. And it is true, California has been unable to provide timely services to these individuals, and they deserve it, and we should do so. We are concerned about removing the prosecutor's ability to seek a jury trial on the issue of competency. And we are concerned with the possibility of dismissing the case against the person and not providing them with any treatment. So the case goes away and there's no treatment to them. that is really not ideal for the defendant and not ideal for the victims. For those reasons, we respectfully oppose. Thank you.

Thank you. Any additional witness? Please state your name and your organization.

Amy Westling, Association of Regional Center Agencies. We are not in opposition but wanted to acknowledge the work that the sponsors and author's office have done in addressing some of our concerns and really appreciate that.

Thank you. Any other witnesses here that might be in opposition or in between seeing? None. Moderator let's go to our phone lines and see if there's witnesses wishing to testify in support or opposition of 1584.

To testify in support or opposition to 1584, please press one, zero. And we have a comment from line 135. Please go ahead.

Hi, Raquel with the National Association of Social Workers California Chapter in support of this bill. Thank you.

And line 125. Line 125, your mic is open, please go ahead. And Mr. Chair, we have one more comment coming through. It'll just be one moment, please, while we provide them with their line number. Line 92, please go ahead.

Yes, Nicole Calderon in support.

And we have no further comments at this time.

All right, we're going to bring the discussion back to the committee. Are there any questions or concerns in regards to this? Senator Ochoa Bogh.

Yes. So I feel for the mom that spoke today, who is, with regards to her husband, to her son I just wanted to when looking at the issue at hand, I think it's one of the reasons why I carried a bill with regards to increasing funding and expanding the capacity for our homeless mental health ports, because they've been actually very helpful in addressing some of the issues that I've learned since being on public safety, which is the fact that we're incarcerating many people that should not be incarcerated, either because of the homeless situations that they find themselves or because of the mental health, their behavioral health on that end.

Which is why I author those bills. And unfortunately, they died. But I think one of the major concerns that we have, and the problems that we have is one, we don't have the bed capacity to accommodate people in the State of California when it comes to people suffering from behavioral health. And we have to do a better job, which is why I was supportive of Senate Member Muratsuchi's bill. Well, that has to do with specifically homeless, but with a component of mental health.

So supportive in a lot of those measures. But in reality, I share the concerns that we had by our lead opposition witnesses in that end. And I think that the angle in which I would like to see this is actually helping expand the bed capacity, the health care workers within that space that we desperately need in the State of California.

We have a short supply of and increasing the judges that we need in order to make sure that these courts are available to people in this area. I think overall, as a state, we're suffering from behavioral health, which is why I take a huge personal responsibility in the way that I express myself as elected as a leader in the State of California, and why I try to model what we need to see. We don't want to exasperate.

We want to make sure that we have the resources and advocate for those that are suffering both in public view and many of those who are suffering privately. I won't be able to support your bill today, but I do want the public to know that we are working in other areas to ensure that we have the resources and the infrastructure to meet the needs of many of our community members in California suffering from behavioral health.

Thank you, Senator, for those comments. And before I respond I do also want to thank my witness, Mrs. Shelly Lynd, for flying all the way up here from San Diego to testify here and be so open and honest about what many people would keep private. But it's very important that we are all able to hear your story because you're not alone. And unfortunately, your story is not unique.

And this bill is aiming to prevent other mothers and fathers and sisters and brothers and children from experiencing what you are experiencing right now. So thank you so very much for that. And Senator Ochoa Bogh, you are right. We as a state are failing in our evaluation and treatment and management of behavioral health. And unfortunately, the current method that we have within our incarcerated system is also another failure. It's not just about expanding beds.

Yes, the estimate was that it was going to be 1400, but I guess the number is actually 900. It should be zero. Right? So there's a lot of people that are just waiting in jail for a placement into a hospital facility, a hospital bed, but the reality is that that is a Band-Aid, because more than 70 people who go through this restoration 70% of people who go through this restoration process are rearrested upon release.

And when you look at a 10 year period, more than a third of people who are found incompetent are rearrested again and found incompetent again. So even though even if you build more hospital beds or more hospitals, that in itself is not the answer. Because once they are released, they're found incompetent, they're given the medications, they're propped up, they're ready to go back in front of a judge and now you're competent to stand trial, they quickly spiral out back into that incompetency state again.

And so that's the thing about allowing a judge to have discretion to use some of these other programs that have been shown to work long term and not just a Band-Aid to actually fix the problem long term. So that is what this bill does. I really appreciate Stephanie and all of her work on this bill. She in this area I consider to be the expert because she has been doing this.

She's been seeing these patients, I say patients, but individuals, and she said cycling over and over again. And so what we have, what our opposition would like to maintain, is not working. And building more beds, unfortunately, will not fix the overall problem. So with that, I completely understand and you know I respect you, but I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

All right. We're seeking a motion on this measure. We have a do pass to appropriation to recommendation. All right. Okay. All right. We have a courtesy motion by Senator Ochoa Bogh. Consultant, please call the roll.

Item number 11 AB 1584. Motion is do passed to appropriations. Bradford. Aye. Bradford, aye. Ochoa Bogh. No. Ochoa Bogh, no. Skinner. Wahab. Wiener.

We'll leave the roll open for absent members. Thank you, Dr. Weber. All right, we're going to do one more, then we're going to break for lunch. Folks, we have to go to caucus. Our respective caucus is at noon, so we're going to have Assemblymember Bauer-Kahan present 862.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Senators. I will be brief. AB 862 requires county sheriff's offices statewide to submit a report to the Legislature that focuses on the board of stating community corrections, success rates, and reducing recidivism. This bill will ensure that our counties are better using state funds as they receive them and also reduce recidivism, therefore making our communities safer. With me here today in support is Lesli Caldwell-Houston with California Public Defenders Association and Danica Rodarmel with Transformative In-Prison Work Group.

You have two minutes.

Good morning. Lesli Caldwell-Houston, and I am pleased to be here to testify on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association in support of AB 862 offered by Assembly Member Bauer-Kahan. We as a society are always calling for data as it is how we know what works and what does not. Requiring sheriffs to report the nature of their anti-recidivism programs and the program success rate in reducing recidivism can tell us what is working and what needs to be changed or reworked.

We know that recidivism can be reduced by addressing the criminogenic needs of the individuals in the criminal justice system. As public defenders, we always urge our clients to participate and complete all available programs. Without data, we don't know definitively what is truly successful in endeavors to reduce recidivism. As a lawyer, public defender who was involved in the early Prop 47 trying to set up the various programs, et cetera, we had really very few clues. So the data is extremely important.

Local sheriffs are responsible for providing these important services and looking at success rates will assist local authorities in determining how to best distribute our resources, even if it takes money to get the data. Because it is the sheriffs that provide the services, we need their data. Thus, this bill's requirements are critical to the overall success in reducing our recidivism rates, and therefore, we urge your yes vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Next witness.

Danica Rodarmel on behalf of the Transformative In-Prison Work Group. I applaud the Assembly Member for her persistence in getting this policy passed. I echo much of what Lesli had to say, and I'll just add that this understanding gives us the opportunity to also invest in resources in the community before somebody ever ends up in a juvenile facility or a jail or a prison because people absolutely should not have to go to jail in order to access supportive services.

Finally, I will say, I can only imagine that the opposition doesn't want this data openly available because they know that jails don't work. Our criminal legal system is a severely inadequate way to actually break cycles of violence and create well and whole communities. I urge your aye vote.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses here in the room in support of 862? Seeing none. Now we'll go to opposition. If you're the lead primary witness in opposition, you have two minutes.

Mr. Chair and Members, Cory Salzillo on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association in opposition to the bill despite prior witnesses presuming what I'm going to testify to or what sheriffs want. Sheriffs across the state provide meaningful rehabilitative programming to inmates with the desire to enhance their reentry into society and reduce the likelihood that people reoffend. Unfortunately, this bill is ambiguous. We are not afraid of data. We are not opposed to collecting data.

This bill has been vetoed at least twice, it's died three or four times in some version, and the reason is is because there's not a way for us to gather the recidivism data that is desired. Most of the stuff in this bill: what programs do you offer, how often do you offer them, who gets them, fine. We can tell you that.

But when the bill says you have to tell us who's been arrested, who's been convicted after three years from them being released from your jail, and what programs did they get to make a determination as to whether or not the program that you offered in your county worked, how do we know that? What system do we use to ascertain that information? Does somebody at each jail have to sit around and call the 57 other jails and say, we're doing our recidivism study on Mary Kennedy?

Has Mary Kennedy been to your jail in the last three years? No offense intended to the Chief Consultant, but for my example, that's the only way we're going to get this data. There's no court system. There's no database, and I'm not saying that's a good thing, but that's the reality of it.

The witness mentioned money, and if there needs to be money, this bill, the prior bill that was vetoed, none of the bills have had any appropriation in it to say, 'here, let us help you come up with a system.' All that's happened is a significant population of offenders was realigned from the state to the county in 2011, we were put in charge of them, put in charge of their custody, put in charge of their supervision, expected to provide them programs, and now we're getting beat up for saying, 'well, you don't have any data on whether or not the programming that you're providing--because we told you you had to provide it--is working.' We're happy to provide data if we have it. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses in opposition to 862 here in the room? Seeing none. Moderator, let's go to our phone lines for witnesses in support or opposition of 862.

To testify in support or opposition to AB 862, please press one zero. And we have no comments at this time.

And we have no Members for comments here as well, so we'll hold this item until we return from lunch and seek a motion at that time.

Thank you, Mr--

Would you like to close?

Sure. I just want to correct the record. The bill has never died in the Legislature. It has only been vetoed by the Governor. The Legislature has long believed that data is helpful and I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Well, this is our last item before going to lunch. We'll be on lunch and we'll return at 1:30 here in room 2200. So we'll see you back here at 1:30. Thank you.

And we're going to start at the top of the order, not with Assembly Member Petrie-Norris. So she's going to have to wait for a while. You're up next. Come up. He almost had a heart attack. You're presenting AB 508.

Alright.

Let's have it.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Pleased to be here today to present AB 508. This bill will expand probation time limits from one year to a maximum term of up to five years for environmental criminal cases in order to give the justice system a sufficient period to protect the health and safety of local communities and the environment. This need for expanded regulatory oversight was really highlighted for me in a profound way during the 2022 oil spill that occurred in Orange County.

The defendants pled no contest to the criminal charges, which included failing to immediately report a discharge of oil into our state water system, water pollution, and killing protected wildlife. The defendant was then ordered to pay criminal fines and was placed on probation. The probation terms include significant training requirements, an update to internal procedures, submitting new contingency plans, revising inspection time frames, and many other requirements.

A one-year probation term simply does not allow enough time for the appropriate regulatory oversight in order to ensure that the defendant has indeed made the necessary changes to ensure that such a violation does not occur again. AB 508 will help protect our communities from serious environmental hazards and ensure that entities that are placed on probation for violating California's environmental laws actually complete the corresponding terms and conditions by expanding the probation time limit to a maximum of five years.

Pleased to be joined today by William Fallon with the Orange County District Attorney's office who will provide additional testimony.

You'll have two minutes.

Thank you. Thank you, Chairperson Bradford and distinguished Members of the Committee. My name is William Fallon, and I am a senior Deputy District Attorney with the Consumer and Environmental Protection Unit in the Orange County DA's Office. On behalf of my office and District Attorney Todd Spitzer, I'm here to strongly urge a yes vote on AB 508. As you just heard, at approximately 4:00 p.m. on October 1st, 2021, an underwater pipeline operated by Amplify Energy and its subsidiaries ruptured off the coast of Orange County.

The pipeline's leak detection system issued eight alarms warning Amplify crew members of the leak. However, after each alarm, Amplify resumed pumping oil after incorrectly determining there was no leak. By the time Amplify finally shut down the pipeline and notified Cal OES of the spill, 16 hours had elapsed and nearly 25,000 gallons of crude oil had been pumped into the waters off the coast of Huntington Beach. I was one of the attorneys who prosecuted this case along with the Attorney General's Office.

Ultimately, the defendants pled no contest to six misdemeanor charges and were ordered to pay a state criminal fine of 4.9 million dollars. They were also placed on informal probation with specially tailored terms meant to ensure Amplify's policies, procedures, and training programs were strengthened so the problems that occurred here are never repeated. However, these types of changes generally take time to create and fully implement.

Unfortunately, because misdemeanor probation is limited to only one year, the state criminal justice system will quickly lose the ability to enforce these probation terms. Our mission in prosecuting environmental crimes such as the OC Oil Spill, is to protect the health and safety of the people of our communities, our environment, and its precious natural resources.

Often, this requires enforcement of probation terms for a period of years to ensure companies come into compliance with the law and take seriously their obligation to be a responsible corporate citizen and a steward of our environment. We thank Assembly Member Petrie-Norris for bringing this important legislation, and we strongly urge a yes vote. Thank you.

Great. Are there additional witnesses in support of AB 508? State your name and your organization, please.

Audrey Ratajczak on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association in support.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses here in room 2200 that's in support? Let's move now to opposition. Are there witnesses in opposition to AB 508? Seeing no one come forward. Moderator, let's go to our phone lines and see if there's individuals wishing to testify in support or opposition of AB 508.

To testify in support or opposition to AB 508, please press one zero. Mr. Chair, we have no comments.

We'll bring it back to the Committee and it's Committee of one, and I will allow you to close at this time.

Well, thank you, Mr. Chair, and I want to thank the Orange County District Attorney's Office for the tremendous work that they have done in partnership with the California Attorney General's Office related specifically to the Orange County Oil Spill and for their partnership on the spill, and with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. If my Colleagues ever return, we might get a motion. Thank you. Thank you. Alright. Oh, you have another one, that's right. You have two.

Yeah.

The next one is AB 1027.

Mr. Chair and Members, AB 1027 will strengthen California's efforts to combat illicit drug trafficking online by enhancing transparency and strengthening business record retention policies for social media companies operating in California. And let me start by providing some context for the Bill and the issue that we are trying to address with AB 1027, which is the fentanyl crisis, and specifically the proliferation of fentanyl trafficking online.

As you, Mr. Chair and Committee Members well know, fentanyl is the most dangerous and deadly substance in the world circulating on the illegal drug market today. Just two milligrams that's two grains of sand is enough to kill. And in recent years, fentanyl related deaths have skyrocketed. Here in California, 17 people die each and every day because of fentanyl poisoning. And two disturbing trends have really dramatically increased the dangers of fentanyl. Number one is that fentanyl today is everywhere and in everything.

It's laced into street drugs, and it's also in counterfeit prescription drugs that are sold as Xanax, Oxycodone, Percocet. And number two, fentanyl is being trafficked on social media sites. So in 2023, dealers aren't lurking in dark parking lots or remote street corners. They're on sites like Instagram and Snapchat, targeting our kids on what the US DEA now describes as a drug superhighway. As a mom, and as a Legislator, this keeps me up at night.

And alongside many of my colleagues on both the Assembly and the Senate side, we are working to develop a comprehensive approach to combat the fentanyl crisis in California, and AB 1027 is one part of that strategy. AB 1027 will strengthen reporting and retention requirements for social media companies. Specifically, the Bill will require updates to policy statements regarding drug related offenses.

It will require social media platforms to retain for 90 days data on accounts that are removed for violation of a platform's, policies that prohibits the distribution of drugs, and establish a dedicated point of contact in the Attorney General's Office to manage proactive reports related specifically to trafficking activity. There is a need, and I think a really important opportunity for social media companies to assume a larger role in combating the online trafficking of illicit drugs that are occurring on their platforms.

And so I'm grateful for the partnership that we have had with law enforcement, with social media platforms, as well as with parent advocates as we've crafted this Bill. So pleased to be joined today by two witnesses, Lizzie Kutzona, representing TechNet, and then Amy Neville, who is joining us from the Alexander Neville Foundation. And we'll be providing testimony.

Okay, each will have two minutes. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members, my name is Lizzie Kutzona, and I'm here on behalf of Technet. We're very proud to be in support of AB 1027. I'd like to first thank the author and her staff for their continued dialogue and collaboration on this Bill and on this very important issue. AB 1027 takes a significant step towards strengthening collaboration between law enforcement and social media platforms to fight online drug trafficking and fentanyl overdoses.

Our social media platforms recognize their role in curbing this kind of activity on our platforms, and they take aggressive action to identify, remove, and block content and accounts that attempt to exploit these platforms and their users. AB 1027 will help law enforcement and prosecutors as they work to identify and catch drug dealers. It requires platforms to retain information related to legal activity that violates their controlled substances policies. To be clear, this Bill does not force platforms to hand over this information.

It remains under the platform's control. Law enforcement would still, under Cal ECPA, be required to obtain a search warrant in order to access any retained information. This Bill also creates a clear and designated point of contact within the Department of Justice, where platforms can submit reports about contact or activity or accounts that they believe pose an imminent threat to human life. Again, we very much appreciate the author for her leadership to combat the illegal sale of controlled substances and protect online users.

For these reasons, we respectfully request your aye vote on AB 1027. Thank you.

Thank you. Next witness.

Hi, all. Thank you so much for having me here today. Again. My name is Amy Neville, and I am here representing the Alexander Neville Foundation. I'm also Alexander's mom. He should look familiar. We've been here before. When it comes to the Fentanyl crisis and social media changing, fixing social media for our children is the thing that I am most passionate about. It is number one on my list of things that we need to fix to create a better future for our kiddos.

But I'm going to share a little bit about my family's experience in this space. So one morning three years ago, I tried to wake my son Alexander, and I couldn't. Instead, his dad immediately began chest compressions while I called 911. Alex had taken a single pill the night before and he succumbed to death by hypoxia. He was incapable of breathing anymore because that's what Fentanyl does. Fentanyl destroys lives. Snapchat and other social media platforms are the easiest way to get a hold of it.

It was the summer of 2020, and COVID meant that Alex got to spend more time with his skateboard, gaming, scouting, and meeting up with his friends. He was pretty normal in those regards. A skinny 14 year old young man with high school just over the horizon. Earlier, Alex had started experimenting with cannabis. As parents, we thought we were prepared to help him through this experimental phase, but then Snapchat and Fentanyl entered the picture.

We knew the basics of Snapchat and did our best to audit Alex's online behavior. What we didn't know is that he had connected with illicit drug dealers on Snapchat, who lied and persuaded Alex to try other drugs that were marketed to be OxyContin and Xanax. In the last 10 days of his life, Alex started trying these drugs because he was convinced they were safe. It turns out, as we all know now that no illicit drugs are safe from these places.

They all now contain fentanyl, methamphetamines, or some other deadly substance that can be pressed to look like legitimate pharmaceutical grade pills, or it's mixed with other things like cocaine and heroin. We didn't find out about any of this until it was too late. Now tens and thousands are dying each year from the same combination social media and illicit drugs.

Snapchat is the main method for our younger generations to communicate and is therefore ripe with predators who sling drugs, spread child abuse materials, extort people, encourage suicide, and much, much more. With this landscape in mind, it seems like a small request to have social media companies assist law enforcement when crimes occur and people die on their platforms.

Two key points of AB 1027 will require social media companies to clearly post their policy on illicit drug sales in their service terms, including how long they keep the data on those accounts requires a social media company to retain for 90 days information on content that has been taken down and that violates their service terms. This Bill is a small but important step towards keeping our kids safe online. Alex could not be saved, but through swift and intentional action, there are many more that can be. Thank you again.

Sorry for your loss, and thank you for sharing your story. Are there other witnesses in support? Please state your name and your organization as you come forward. Thank you.

Ben Trefo with the League of California Cities in support.

Thank you.

Megan Chung with the Steinberg Institute in support.

William Fallon with the Orange County District Attorney's office in support.

Audrey Ratajczak on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association in support.

Thank you.

Afternoon, Mr. Chair Members. Ryan Sherman with the Riverside Sheriff's Association in support. Also the police officer associations of Arcadia, Burbank, Claremont, Corona, Culver City, Fullerton, Marietta, Newport Beach, Nevada, Palos Verdes, Pomona, Riverside, Santa Ana, Upland, California Reserve peace officers and the deputy sheriff's associations of Monterey County and Placer County all in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses in support here in the room? Seeing none now. Witnesses in opposition.

Becca Cramer-Mowder. On behalf of ACLU California action in respectful opposition. We appreciate the author's intent to address the Fentanyl crisis. However, addressing this public health problem must respect constitutional rights. Unfortunately, AB. 10207's requirement that social media platforms hold on to certain information for 90 days conflicts with both the federal and California Constitutions.

AB. 1027 runs afoul of the Fourth Amendment and Article One, section 13 of the California Constitution, both of which protect against unreasonable searches and seizures by government. When the government mandates that information be retained by whoever possesses it, whether a person or an online service provider, that requirement constitutes a seizure. AB 1027 requires blanket seizure of information lacking constitutionally required probable cause, with particularized suspicion required for government seizure. AB 1027 has additional constitutional issues as well. In 2020, voters passed Prop.

24, also known as the CPRA, which lays out consumer privacy protections, including giving users the right to have companies delete information about them by mandating that platforms retain certain information for 90 days. AB 1027 attempts to create an exception to Prop. 24's protections. The amendment restrictions embedded in the CPRA are unambiguous and were intended to prevent legislation that erodes privacy protections. Because AB 1027 does not further the purposes and intent of the CPRA and does not strengthen consumer privacy, it both violates Prop.

24, and constitutes an invalid legislative amendment of an initiative statute contrary to Article Two, section 10 of the California Constitution. For these reasons and others, we respectfully oppose AB 1027.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses in opposition to AB 1027? Seeing none in the room. Moderator let's go to our phone lines and see if there's individuals wishing to testify either in support or opposition of AB 1027.

To testify in support or opposition to AB 1027, please press 10. And first we will hear from...I apologize. They disappeared. We do have a couple people queuing up. One moment, please. Will we provide them with their line numbers. And first we'll hear from line 227. Please go ahead.

Thank you. Senator and Committee Members, Arnel Dino from the Fentanyl Solution Group in strong support of this Bill whose time has come. Thank you.

Line 231.

Hi, Hayley Tsukayama Electronic Frontier Foundation in respectful opposition.

Line 214.

This is Lori Mccarmick from Riverside County. I approve of it. I support 1027.

And Mr. Chair, there are no further comments.

Thank you. And since we're still lacking additional Members, I just want to thank you for bringing this measure forward. And I want to be clear, you are taking the Committee amendments that were discussed in Judiciary?

Yes.

Okay. And I also want to thank you for working with Senator Wiener on the language specific issues that he outlined. So I appreciate that as well. And at the appropriate time, we'll seek a motion on this measure. Thank you.

Thank you.

Would you like to close?

Yes, and I would just note a couple of things in closing. So, number one, certainly as we work to develop legislative and policy solutions to combat the Fentanyl crisis in this Bill, and in other measures as well, certainly put paramount importance on protecting the privacy and constitutional rights of Californians. And as we crafted the language, worked closely with Legislative Council to ensure that the proposal before you does not violate the Fourth Amendment.

And as we work to develop a comprehensive approach to the crisis, this Bill is certainly not something that stands alone. This Bill is something that we are working on as part of a comprehensive approach that includes investments in education, more investments in treatment, investment in prevention programs.

And I think stronger accountability for our tech platforms is an important part of that puzzle and an important part of the work that we need to do to ensure that we can help keep our kids in our community safe online. So with that, I will respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. At the appropriate time. We'll seek a motion. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. All right, now we're moving to Mr. Holden. He has AB 304. Let me see. I missed one of them. He has two of them. Wow.

I'll be brief.

I'll be brief. We have AB 280. Thank you. Okay. Well, thank you, Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee. I'm here to present Assembly Bill 280, the Mandela Act on Solitary Confinement. As we all know, years of research continue to confirm that solitary confinement causes deep psychological and physical harm, but it remains common in jails, prisons, and detention facilities across California.

And although this bill does not affect our state and psychiatric hospitals, it is important that we shed light on the practice of seclusion, a practice similar to solitary confinement whereby a patient is locked in a bare room without a timeline for release. Because seclusion goes undocumented much of the time, patient advocates and family members often left to piece together how long patients have been isolated. The consensus among mental health experts, human rights organizations, and the United Nations is that prolonged solitary confinement amounts to torture.

In 2016, the National Commission on Correctional Health Care stated that a period of confinement beyond 15 consecutive days is inhumane, degrading treatment, and harmful to an individual's health. The lack of human contact and endless monotony causes deep depression, paranoia, and some even suffer hallucinations. Others experience large fluctuations in weight and chronic pain, and due to extremely restrictive conditions, chronic health conditions either go untreated or are mistreated.

AB 280 provides a definition of what constitutes solitary confinement across all facilities in California in alignment with the UN Mandela rules, and imposes limits on how it can be used. Additionally, this bill would prohibit the use of solitary confinement for vulnerable populations, such as pregnant women and those with serious mental and physical disabilities. To state the obvious, people who need specialized care should not be locked in a room the size of a king-size bed without access to the services that they need.

I would like to extend my gratitude to the Governor and his Administration for the positive conversations on this topic. From the discussions we have had, it is clear that the Governor also shares my interest in reducing the use of solitary confinement to emphasize positive rehabilitation techniques instead. While I appreciate the work of the Governor, his Administration, and CDCR, there are areas where I remain concerned. For example, I believe that it is imperative that we prohibit the confinement of pregnant women in isolation.

It is also important that we protect our young people and those who are severely disabled from the effects of solitary confinement. I'm hopeful that with continued effort, we can close these gaps and work towards a fuller consensus with the Governor. As I've mentioned before, several states, including New York and Colorado, have already taken critical steps to minimize their use of solitary confinement. California must join these states and the international community to set well-defined standards and limits on the use of solitary confinement.

This begins by recognizing that prolonged solitary confinement is torture and setting uniform and consistent limits on how solitary confinement is used. Here with me to testify in support of AB 280 is Hakim Owen, who will speak on the impact solitary confinement has had on his life, and Margot Mendelson with Prison Law Office, which has been involved in numerous settlement agreements with CDCR and jails throughout the state. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. You'll each have two minutes. You may begin.

Thank you. Hello. My name is Hakim Owen, and I'm here to share my lived experience as a solitary survivor. I'm from Sacramento, but I never imagined that my journey would lead me to this moment. Today, as an undergraduate at UC Berkeley with the Underground Scholars Program and an advocate with the California Mandela Campaign, I am compelled to raise my voice and shed light on the heartbreaking reality faced by countless human beings in this country.

My first contact with law enforcement came when I was 18 years old. As a result, I was placed on probation and soon thereafter subsequently found myself in prison for the first time. Over the many years that followed, I was subjugated to several lengthy periods in solitary confinement. Be certain, solitary confinement is a different level of hell. My knowledge is not only derived from the pain that I felt personally, but also from the disturbing sights that I witnessed from within those walls.

While in solitary confinement, I observed two individuals take their own lives, one of whom was 20 years old and about four months away from being released. His cries for help still echo in my mind, and I am haunted by the way in which his pleas were disregarded. These atrocities occurred in the dark, but I am standing here today because I understand that it's my responsibility to speak out. Because the impact of solitary confinement is profound, it leaves an everlasting scar on the mind, body and soul.

Even to this day, I carry the weight of all that trauma within me, and it took every ounce of my strength to overcome its devastating effects. The opposition will come forward and argue that solitary confinement is necessary for the safety of institutions, individuals, and society, yet we have seen time and time again that this practice does more harm than good.

When a person is eventually released back into society after enduring solitary confinement, they return broken and ill-equipped to cope with the pain that they have endured. You are setting them up for failure and perpetuating a cycle of violence and suffering. The opposition will attempt to convince you that there are only two choices: solitary or general population. This is fallacy. Numerous models and examples exist that demonstrate humane and safe alternatives exist to isolation.

We must acknowledge that California can and must do better on the issue of solitary confinement. It is within our power to find alternatives that prioritize compassion, healing, and true rehabilitation. Thank you guys for your time.

Thank you. Next witness.

Good afternoon, Chair. My name is Margot Mendelson, and I am the Legal Director of the Prison Law Office, a nonprofit law firm that advocates on behalf of incarcerated people. Our organization represents over 100,000 people in prisons and jails across the state. We fight to ensure adequate health care, curb abuses of incarcerated people, and reduce rates of incarceration across the state. As part of our work, my colleagues and I spend a great deal of time inside California prisons and jails.

We have extensive contact with our clients, and we conduct regular site visits in locked facilities throughout the state. Solitary confinement is an issue of major concern to our office and to our clients. I want to emphasize that the use of solitary confinement is rampant in this state right now. People in California prisons and county jails routinely spend upward of 23 hours a day locked in concrete cells with little to occupy their minds.

Many of our clients get out of their cells as little as 15 minutes a day, and the primary contact they have with other human beings is screaming through locked cell doors. Our clients in solitary confinement experience racing thoughts, paranoia, depression, uncontrollable weeping. They tell us that they have bouts of anger, difficulty with mood control, and profound disorientation as a result of the sensory deprivation. These harms of solitary confinement are well established. Incidents of suicide and self harm are vastly higher in solitary confinement units.

Many of the mental health impacts of solitary confinement are permanent, meaning that they don't just affect the person while they're in solitary confinement, but also upon their release to general population and later to the community. In county jails in this state, the use of solitary confinement is particularly excessive and unprincipled. Many county jails use solitary confinement in the absence of adequate mental health resources, including for people on suicide watch or experiencing acute mental health crisis.