Assembly Standing Committee on Public Safety

Can I go? I'm waiting for that little second hand to get there. Ready? Good morning. The Assembly Public Safety Committee is now called to order. We don't have a quorum yet, so I'll go ahead and read the aforementioned. All witness testimony will be in person. There will be no phone testimony option for this hearing. You can find more information on the Committee's website. Assembly CA gov committees. Let me begin with some of the off calendar bills.

Item number six SB 99. Umberg, courts remote proceedings for criminal cases pulled by author. Item number nine, SB 442, Limon, Sexual Battery, pulled by author. Item number 18 SB 796. Alvarado-Gill threats. Schools, places of worship pulled by author. Speaker Pro TEM Atkins has requested to go first. All authors will begin afterwards. You may begin. I think Mr. Portantino will understand. And we'll start as a Subcommittee.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and I already thanked my colleague for letting me go ahead. I appreciate it very much, and I'm pleased to be here today to present SB 5119. It's a Bill that will bring additional transparency and accountability to our county jails, specifically around in-custody debts. I'd like to start off by saying I'm pleased to accept the technical amendments suggested by the Committee and certainly I want to thank the Committee staff, your Committee staff, and you, Mr. Chairman, for this work.

In 2020, there were over 150 in-custody deaths statewide. And while SB 519 is intended to provide oversight for the whole state, I come at this issue from a local perspective. Over a 15-year span, 185 people died in San Diego jails, the highest rate of in-custody deaths in the state. In 2021 alone, there were 18 deaths in San Diego's jails.

In 2021, members of the San Diego legislative delegation called on the State Auditor to review the alarming and troubling deaths occurring in custody in San Diego. Last year, the State Auditor released its report providing a series of recommendations, primarily at the local level, to prevent future deaths. While many recommendations have been implemented at the local level, and I would thank Sheriff Martinez for that, there are still lingering questions about how we can bring more transparency and accountability to prevent any further deaths.

And many local jurisdictions across the state are actually grappling with similar problems. In 2020, 218 people died in custody in Riverside County Jail. In 2023, seven people have died in Los Angeles County Jail. So far, there are at least, and this was really shocking to me, at least 10 counties that are in federal consent decrees right now. Most involve the delivery of health care to people in custody.

But local governments have limited control over the policies and procedures adopted by a Sheriff's Department, even though a county Board of Supervisors is required to approve a sheriff's department's budget. And interestingly, county boards of supervisors bear the responsibility of settling lawsuits involving in-custody jail deaths, but have limited authority in requiring the Sheriff's Department to enact policies to reduce in-custody deaths.

For example, San Diego County jails and deaths in those jails and injuries have cost San Diego taxpayers almost $50 million in legal settlements and jury awards in just the past five years. So, SB 5119 is intended to provide local governments and the public important information in order to help address these issues at the local level. Specifically, SB 519 does the following it ensures that full reports of investigations relating to in-custody deaths are publicly accessible. This is consistent with the auditor's report.

It would expand the mission of BSCC to promote the legal and safe conditions for youth, inmates and staff in local detention facilities. Now, originally, the Bill would also have reauthorized local Board of Supervisors to create a local Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to run a jail. However, in conversations, and as a sign of good faith in those conversations with law enforcement stakeholders, this provision was removed and substituted with an alternative accountability measure.

Specifically, it creates a statewide local detention monitor within the Board of State and Corrections to review in custody deaths and the delivery of health and mental health care. This monitor is modeled after the Office of the Inspector General, who would issue recommendations to both the state and local detention facility to help address the problems with its county detention facilities. So I'm going to continue to work, obviously, with opposition on this alternative accountability provision to address their concerns.

Mr. Chair, colleagues with me today to testify in support of the Bill, with your permission, is Paul Parker, Executive Officer at the San Diego County Citizens Law Enforcement Review Board. We call them CLERB. And Yusef Miller, who is with the North County Equity and Justice Coalition.

You both have a total of five minutes. You split it up any way you want, whenever you're ready to be, or all three of you have three, or whatever.

Thank you very much. Good morning, Mr. Chair again. My name is Paul Parker. I'm the Executive officer with the San Diego County Citizens Law Enforcement Review Board. We're a civilian oversight entity over the San Diego County Sheriff's Department. We conduct independent investigations into all detention facility-related deaths. In 2021, there were 18 deaths. In 2022, there were 19 or 20, depending upon whose statistics you cite. And so far this year, there have been nine.

Unfortunately, CLERB, family members, community Members, and media representatives are not privy to internal affairs or administrative review records. This lack of transparency, combined with statutory and case law limitations placed upon California civilian oversight entities, prohibit public discussion of these investigations and leave family Members in the community without answers to the most basic of questions what preventative measures were undertaken? What the Department do well? What could it have done better? Was the death preventable? Was anyone responsible for it? Were they held accountable?

What policy changes were implemented. As a former medical examiner coroner executive, I've interacted with thousands of grieving family Members during the past few decades and know that they are provided minimal if any, relevant information during and after the investigation into a law enforcement-related death, which can last several months to a few years.

I know all too well that when a family member is not told details about a death, they will fill in the blanks for themselves, obviously with speculation and conjecture, thus coming to oftentimes incorrect conclusions. Many times, litigation is the only option available for families to learn all the circumstances surrounding the death of their loved ones. Persons in county custody are certainly vulnerable. They are reliant upon the county for their care and well-being.

Creating a local detention facility monitor within the BSCC will have zero fiscal impact to a county while permitting a local entity, the Board of Supervisors, by resolution to exert a level of control by calling for an audit or review of policies, practices, and procedures. The creation of this detention facility monitor will also result in additional oversight relating to in-custody deaths and delivery of medical and mental health care.

Creating this monitor through the BSCC will result in more control at the local level, a quicker response to detention facility issues or concerns, and most importantly, the Saving of Lives Clerk supports Senator Atkins efforts to increase transparency around detention facility-related deaths and better management of detention facilities. SB 519 may not prevent all deaths or relieve the pain the families experience in the event of a death, but will certainly help solve the mysteries left unanswered and the stories left untold by the status quo. And with that, I defer to Mr. Miller.

Thank you, Mr. Chair staff. My name is Yusef Miller. I'm with the North County Equity and Justice Coalition. The Saving Lives In Custody Campaign of 2020. We support as a campaign SB 519, and not only us, the families who are directly impacted by this Bill and by in custody deaths support this Bill in San Diego. County. These families have been monitoring and watching this Bill and its advancement as it's been developing, and they know that it impacts their loved ones.

The transparency portion of this Bill is so critical because not knowing is an insult to injury. They've already lost their loved ones, and sometimes for more than a year. They don't have the facts on how their loved one was lost. They don't have any facts on toxicology or manner of death. All they have is ideas and space where they can fill in the blanks. As Mr. Parker said, this transparency is crucial and something that should not be negotiated on.

It should be apparent that whatever can be transparent and open to the public should be for the public good, for the sanity of these families, and for humanity's sake. Accountability is also an issue that transparency exposes. Transparency exposes systematic and programmatic failures. In any system, so we can reach out and root out whether it's a bad policy or a bad actor. We have to admit that we have bad actors.

In the case of Elisa Cerna, a doctor, and a nurse are now being charged for involuntary manslaughter for the neglect to death of Elisa Serna. And we have other cases like this. We believe in San Diego, County, the highest in custody death rate in the state last year. We're also supported by other counties in the State of California, Riverside County. Those families have come together looking for support and transparency and accountability. LA County has joined us in this quest for a transparency.

Sacramento and San Francisco, all families coming together for this fight. And when we have an entity that takes over because of any neglect from the sheriff's Department, we would ask as the families, we would ask that that person or entity, they specialize in decarceration a method of alternatives to incarceration to drop our footprint of incarceration.

Okay, go ahead, finish. Your five minutes are up, but finish.

Okay. To manage incarceration with that focus decarceration for not only our adults, but also our youth detention centers. We've had loss of life in youth detention centers in San Diego and most recently in LA, which caused the closing of two youth detention centers. We respectfully ask for you to pass this.

Thank you very much. Any witnesses in support? Name and organization only.

Natasha Minsker. Smart Justice, California, in strong support.

Good Morning. Marco George, on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association. In support. Thank you.

Good morning. Adriana Sanchez Ochoa with NextGen California, on behalf of NextGen California and immigrant defense advocates and strong support.

Thank you. Are there any witnesses in opposition? Could you make some room for Mr. Salzillo?

Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Members.

Good morning.

Cory Salzillo, on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association. Regrettably, but respectfully, in opposition to SB 519. We appreciate the recent amendments to address the governance issue in terms of moving the jails out from under the control of the sheriff. That said, we're concerned about this duplicative additional layer of oversight that the creation of this independent detention monitor portends.

Just as we've discussed before in this Committee, county jails and sheriffs are currently overseen by the Board of State, Community Corrections, state DOJ, federal DOJ, state courts, federal courts, district attorneys, county grand juries, voters, to name a few. We also understand and share the desire to reduce deaths in custody, but this Bill conditions the additional reviews on the request of the Governor, the Legislature, or Boards of Supervisors. We're concerned that this construct will fall victim to political whim, resulting in invasive and burdensome investigations.

The Bill grants significant, largely unfettered access to records and staff, which creates workload and resource challenges for county agencies. There have to be considerations about things like attorney client privilege when it comes to cases that are going to be litigated, because the reality is cases involving deaths are often litigated, and there has to be some consideration of that notion. And I think we're making progress and working on the records portion of the Bill, but the detention monitor is very much concerning.

And on the notion of the monitor, lastly, I'll say the ability of the monitor require employees to be interviewed, creates substantial concerns relative to employee labor and due process protections, which I'll leave to my colleague. But for those reasons, we respectfully ask for your no vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Yes, sir.

Good morning, Committee Members. I'm David Mastagni. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today. On behalf of PORAC, I'd like to thank the Pro-TEM for working with us on this Bill. We appreciate the amendments that have been made to date, but must oppose the Bill as currently written. PORAC doesn't oppose the establishment of a local detention oversight entity with the authority to review in custody deaths investigations, issue reports, and recommendations for improvements.

Our concern is that the authority granted the oversight entity in this Bill violates core labor and constitutional rights of employees. First, the Bill expressly provides for the impairment of existing labor contracts. Secondly, the Bill purports to grant the monitor the power to compel local employees to submit to interrogations without proper legal authority. The power to compel an employee to provide a statement is derived from the employment relationship and the threat of discipline of determination for failure to cooperate.

For example, Post in its licensing statute, derives similar powers from the threat of license revocation for non-cooperation. The monitor has no employment relationship or licensing authority and thus no power to compel local employees to provide testimony. Thirdly, the Bill violates employees' rights against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment because these investigations and questionings often involve potentially incriminating questions.

Our Supreme Court in Linebarger carefully balanced public employee Fifth Amendment rights against the need for public employers to know about potential misconduct in holding that an employer can compel testimony from an employee. And that's the key. So long as there's a grant of immunity, the monitor doesn't have that power. In Spielbauer, our Supreme Court affirmed Linebarger and expressly held that public entities have no power to force public employees to waive their Fifth Amendment rights as a condition of continued employment.

For example, in the Post Licensing Bill, it expressly provides for recognition and accommodation of the exercise of these constitutional rights. In closing, Porak looks forward to continuing to work with the Pro-TEM and her staff to address these concerns and improve this Bill.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in opposition? Name and organization?

Good morning. Lieutenant Julio De Leon from the Riverside County Sheriff's Office on behalf of Chad Bianco, sheriff of Riverside County, in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in opposition? We'll bring it back to Committee for questions, comments? We don't have a quorum yet. We can't move the Bill yet. Did you want to close and maybe thank you. Answer some of the statements that were brought up.

Mr. Chairman. Thank you. I would make two points very quickly, understanding you have a huge agenda today. The public disclosure piece of the Bill, there's two pieces the transparency on the information provided to families, and then the comment about workers rights being unconstitutional. The public disclosure piece of the Bill builds upon transparency of former bills run by Senator Skinner, SB 1421, and SB 16 relating to officer involved shootings. So this Bill matches that identical framework and applies it to in custody jail deaths.

This is the piece that if there is privileged attorney work product, we clarify that courts may use in camera review to determine what is protected and what isn't. To the second piece, I would also say the statewide monitor in the Bill I mentioned in my comments is modeled after a statutory framework of the Office of Inspector General, which oversees CDCR. Correctional officers are protected under Pobar, and we haven't heard that OIG violates the rights of those correctional officers. So this is modeled after existing frameworks.

But of course, we will look at this. We'll continue to have conversations. We still are moving through a process. But just to respond to those comments, and I would, at the appropriate time, respectfully ask for your support. And again, with my thanks to the Committee for working with us.

Thank you and thank you for bringing this is very important, I think, on both sides, transparency and finding out what's going on in the jails and why people are expiring while they're in custody is I think both sides really do want to find out what's going on and ultimately stop it. So when the appropriate time, we'll bring it up and take a vote.

Thank you. Thank you very much.

Now, Mr. Portantino AB 596, SB I'm sorry, wrong house. SB 596. Item number 14, school employees protections. Whenever you're ready to begin.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Committee Members. Today I'm presenting SB 596, which would expand current teacher protections. Specifically, the Bill would make it a misdemeanor to harass a school employee or make credible threats against the employee or their family for the reasons related to employees course of duties while they are away from school sites. Frankly, I wish I wouldn't feel it necessary to do a Bill like this. We have become a society where simple things like teaching accurate history has inflamed people.

Some of you may know that swastikas were even brought into a school board meeting in my district. This is 2023. We shouldn't be having that type of conduct at a school board meeting. And so it makes me partly sad to be here to present this Bill, but I also feel the need to emphasize that folks who are doing their job shouldn't be subject to harassment and threats in their private life when they're with their families. Getting a cup of coffee or going to a movie theater.

According to a recent study from UCLA's Institute for Democracy, Education and Access and the UCR Civic Engagement Research Group, 65% of California high school principals surveyed--65%--report substantial conflict over education issues in those schools. Topics at the center of the conflict include instruction about race and racism, LGBTQ plus student rights books in school libraries, and social emotional learning. Principals participating in the study reported that individuals connected to outside organizations have resorted to threatening school employees. Again, I think that's important.

The vast majority of parents just want their kids to have a good education and are not engaged in this type of activity. And when I ask parents who express concerns to me, which I'm happy to hear, I ask them if they intend to threaten or harass somebody, and they say no. And I said, well, then there's nothing to fear with this Bill. As a school parent myself, PTA Member, I know that parents want the best for their children.

And this Bill does not infringe upon any parents'rights to advocate for their children at PTA meetings or school board meetings or during IEP meetings. Disagreements with academic standards are inappropriately lamed at the hardworking teachers and administrators and others, and it makes me sad. Existing laws has measures in place to hold individuals accountable for causing substantial disruption at a school site. However, the protections currently in place do not, in my opinion, adequately and clearly apply to incidents that occur off campus.

And that's what we're trying to address here. So when people are in their private lives. SB 596 seeks to expand current law in an effort to protect school employees. In doing so, the Bill would ensure that our school employees can continue fostering supportive and inclusive learning environments to help students thrive and unencumbered by fear. On a final note, as I mentioned before, I understand the importance of parental involvement. It's critical, it's central. That's why we have school board elections. That's why we have public meetings.

But conversations with parents in my district and from the ACLU and others, we've tried to be reasonable. We've tried to take clarifying amendments. And I'm going to continue to review all the suggestions that bring forward. Frankly, one thing that we didn't think about was special needs children. And I know that was raised that should this apply to special needs children? And that's an amendment that I'm going to look to take beyond this Committee. Because, again, that's not what we're trying to address.

We're really asking people to advocate and not hate to love your children and your neighbor's child and just conduct yourself like you would at your grandmother's house. We can argue with our sister at Thanksgiving and kiss them at Christmas. This is not about not having a principled conversation. It's about should somebody be threatened and harassed for teaching, for doing their job under state law. And I would say they shouldn't. And that's why I respectfully ask for an aye vote when we have a quorum.

And with me we have Toni Trigueiro from the California Teachers Association and Tristan Brown from the California Federation of Teachers to also advocate for the Bill.

Thank you both. Five minutes total.

Mr. Chair. Toni Triueiro on behalf of the California Teachers Association to add to the remarks of the author. In 2022, the Rand Corporation released the results of a survey of almost 4000 teachers and principals nationwide, showing, among other things, that 61% of the principals and 37% of the teachers surveyed reported experiencing harassment about politicized, topics which contribute to burnout, frequent job related stress, and symptoms of depression.

Additionally, schools, and particularly teachers, have increasingly become targets of parents and other individuals and groups seeking to limit specific types of instruction, namely critical race theory and topics related to gender and sexuality. RCTA Members believe school employees should be safe from aggressive and violent behaviors, as well as physical, verbal and psychological abuse, particularly given the documented increases in the number of confrontational activities faced by school employees.

We believe all efforts to establish practices and protocols guaranteeing the safety of school employees must be immediate and far reaching. Such efforts benefit the school community by impacting teacher retention and recruitment and ensuring appropriate conduct within the community at large. Acknowledging the educational workforce shortages and the ongoing issues around teacher recruitment and retention issues, SB 596 offers an additional layer of safety and security that our students and school employees deserve. CTA respectfully asks for an aye vote when the time is appropriate.

Thank you.

Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members, Tristan Brown of CFT, Union of Educators and Classified Professionals want to echo the comments of the author. It is a sad day that we have to talk about this topic. And it is a sad era that we live in now, where people who once had just the right for their own opinions, now apparently have rights to their own facts.

And those facts, with air quotes have radicalized individuals to not just stop our election in DC years ago, but also group up and attack educators for phantom issues, as my colleague mentions, issues of quote unquote grooming children or providing diversity through critical race theory. And these things could not be further from the truth. Educators are here to do a job that is on sacred ground and help the next generation become equipped with the skills they need to survive in this world.

That is all we try to do. And unfortunately, when we asked our Members what is the world like right now? They came back with stories of harassment, of stalking, and of threats to their lives and their family members lives. It is just simply unfortunate that this is the era we live in.

So while we are sad that this Bill has to be written, we are grateful to the author for taking the leadership in doing this and grateful that he is willing to listen to some of the objections. And I know that we're going to land this plane with a good policy here and make sure that everyone is protected.

And California can say public education is an institution that should be beyond reproach and should be held to a higher standard and you shall not threaten it. It is the foundation of any democratic society and that's what our Members wish to do. So we thank you for voting aye today on this important Bill.

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

Thank you. Mr. Chair, Members. Andrea Ball on behalf of the Glendale Unified School District in support.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair, Members. Sam Nasher with the Los Angeles County Office of Education in support.

Thank you.

Good morning, chair and Members, Jessica Hay with the California School Employees Association in support.

Thank you.

Alia Griffing with the American Federation of State County Municipal Employees in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Megan Baier with the Association of California School Administrators in support.

Thank you. Now, are any witnesses in opposition?

Five minutes between the two of you, whenever you're ready.

Thank you. My name is Allie Snyder. You want to know why parents are upset? Here are some examples from my school district, Davis Joint Unified School District. On a school trip out of state, my friend's daughter and a boy shared a hotel room by themselves because both identify as nonbinary. Against her mother's wishes, our own district policy and despite the obvious dangers to both children, school representatives felt this overnight room arrangement was the best way to respect the student's gender identities.

Unfortunately, words do not change biology. Girls who say they are nonbinary are still at risk of rape and pregnancy, even when they don't identify as Members of a sexually dimorphic species. Here's another example. This book is offered to kids as young as 12 in my son's school. In language targeting kids, it encourages using sex apps and performing sex acts. I quote Perhaps the most important skill you will master as a gay or bi man is the timeless classic The Hand Job.

A good handy is all about the wrist action. Rub the head of the cock back and forth with your hand. A bad handy is grasping a penis and shaking it like a ketchup bottle. Finally, rubbing two peens together in one hand feels awesome. Mega combo handy. End quote. Ask yourselves if these examples would make you seriously alarmed for the safety of your children. Would you remain calm if your kid's school didn't stop such obvious endangerment?

Rather than criminalize parents who are terrorized by the grooming of their children, the state should penalize the pedophiles responsible for it. The most effective way to protect school employees from angry parents is for the state to stop mandating schools sexualize their children. Please vote no on SB 596.

Yes, ma'am.

Hello. My name is Nicole Young, and I am the mother of six and the chapter chair of the Placer County Moms for Liberty Group. SB 956 has it all wrong. Schools don't need to be protected from parents. Kids need to be protected from sexualization and indoctrination by schools. Senator Portantino knows exactly why parents are upset teaching transgenderism and inappropriate sex ed courses. The Bill references both of these codes.

The number of kids with gender confusion is growing exponentially because of the schools asking for pronouns, sometimes daily. Telling kids that they could be born in the wrong body instructing them to keep secrets from their parents, but go ahead and connect with strangers online. Schools are the pipeline to gender clinics. Recently, in my community, a wellness center on the high school campuses advertised a family friendly drag show to minor students 12 and above, encouraging the kids to dance for cash tips.

A new low. This group called The Landing Spot, didn't inform parents. Landing Spot reps were on campus during school hours without proper background checks or MoUs. It was through the Freedom of Information Act we learned it was the teachers clearing out classrooms to allow these people access to the children. I encourage you, parents who have not been previously aware of what's going on, utilize the Freedom of Information Act and then you can see why we are also concerned. It is not harassment to be concerned.

Minor children are being sexualized and encouraged to dance provocatively in drag for adults in exchange for cash. There is a penal code for that solicitation of a minor. This Bill is designed to stifle parents voices. We will not shut up. In fact, it is our duty to our children to get louder. Please vote no on SB. Five, nine, six.

Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in opposition?

Good morning. Chairman David Bolog from the San Fernando Valley parents and San Fernando Valley alliance in opposition. Thank you.

Good morning, Carmen-Nicole Cox, on behalf of ACLU Cal Action, in respectful opposition on constitutional and equity grounds. Thank you.

Nicole Pearson, attorney, founder, Facts Law Truth Justice, representing over 60,000 community Members in vehement opposition to this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Mrs. G, and I'm here on behalf of my three children and all of Orange County, and I oppose this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. We'll bring it back to the Committee. Mr. Zbur.

Senator Portantino. Thank you for bringing this Bill. I am looking at the news every day and frankly am appalled at really some of the activities that adults in our communities think are appropriate and appropriate behavior to direct at teachers and school staff Members. And I know that there's been some one of the comments about the Bill is that some of the activities may be captured under other laws.

But I think in a case, the times that we're living in, I think we need to send a clear message that attacking and threatening our teachers is something that's just unacceptable. And so I do think a new law is important and appropriate, and I will be supporting it. I noted a couple comment letters, and I just would like to ask you to look at these after the hearing. One is comments related to whether this would apply to people that are, to students essentially under 18.

I do worry a bit if it applies. I don't think students should be subject to this. So if it's not clear in the Bill, I didn't have time to work my way through and figure that out. I ask that you remove that because I do think that there are some school districts, frankly, where LGBTQ and students of color and other vulnerable communities could be targeted by hostile school districts for discipline. And I just want to make sure that that Bill isn't used in that way.

The other thing is, I saw that there was a late letter from ACLU that came in last night that had a couple comments in it, one of which related to what happens at school at sort of board meetings. And I do think that there are free speech rights that calls into question and would just ask that you look at the ACLU letter carefully and consider some of those amendments.

So with that, at the appropriate time, if I'm here, I'd love to move the Bill and we'll be supporting it.

Thank you. Any other comments? No, you may close.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And yes, I share the concern on age and students. And originally it said a person, which would have been a broad definition, ACLU asked for it to be non student. We offered adult making a distinction between an 18 year old and a 14 year old. And so I was hoping that would sort of hit the sweet spot because I do think there is a difference between an 18 year old and a 14 year old.

And we don't want to target 14 year olds or 15 year olds with this at all. And in that late letter too, they reference special needs students. And so we will look at that as well because we don't want unintended consequences, I guess. Finally, I grew up in the 70s with a gay older brother and I remember what he went through back then, the snickers, the teasing, the maligning.

And then I think about today, we have a situation where three in five LGBT teenagers think about suicide. Two out of five straight teenagers think about suicide. I mean, we have to be cognizant and loving of all our students. And part of that is having a nurturing school environment where educators are free to teach and administrators are free to administrate and follow best practices and the law of the land. And nothing in this Bill takes anyone's rights away to oppose the law.

To advocate, to say what was said today. Nothing in this Bill. And there's actually a provision in the Bill that says constitutionally protected free speech will not be part of this. And so this is a difficult conversation for some, an easy conversation for others, but I'm determined to make sure that we protect our students first and foremost and protect those who want to educate our students as well. And so with that, when you have a quorum, I would respectfully ask for an aye vote.

And I think this is an important issue to discuss as a parent of two children who are teachers, one who I've talked her out of several times, who want to be a board Member. So I thank you for the amendment or the part about school board meetings and that they need to be decorum. We can argue about anything like we did here today. We can hear any diverse opinions. I encourage that. But we should not.

And I think this is the purpose of your Bill, it should not evolve to where it becomes violent. And we've seen that happen in other places, not just here, but other places. Even in my own LA City Council, it can get a little raucous. And it's hard for people to continue to do the business of the people. And so I understand where you're coming from. It's really important. And as the parent of a gay teacher, my son, I understand what you're trying to do.

I wouldn't want him harassed while he's having his free time or just being able to teach the kids biology. He has advanced biology and an advanced calculus teacher. And so while he's teaching advanced calculus, I wouldn't want somebody coming in there yelling at him because of whatever. So I understand where you're coming from. Let teachers teach. You and I have talked about it. We've always had a thing where we don't. And that's probably the only thing.

And if we could get past that one thing that we've discussed, I think we would get there. And if it doesn't make out of this Committee, I think you should seriously consider that one amendment so we can nail this, because it is important that we do something, especially after hearing the testimony today. I got a real life example of what you're dealing with.

And so we need to do something, and we just got to make sure we don't tip it in a way where it gets too far to the left or the right that we stay right down the middle. So that's where I'm coming from. So, again, I thank you for bringing this forward, because I think it's an important topic that we need to discuss. We need to discuss openly and most important, calmly and rationally. That's what this whole system is about.

And when we get a quorum, we'll take it up for a vote. Thank you. The next one I had, Mr. Bradford. But you don't look like Mr. Bradford. You look like Mr. Seyarto. Okay, then you can come on up. Seyarto, number 19. I'm on an AB kick today. SB 19. Item number two.

It used to be an AB.

Yeah, it used to be an AB.

Thank you, Honorable Chair. And I am here to present SB 19. So first, I'd like to thank you and the Committee for your work and indulgence on this very important bipartisan bill. It probably looks a little familiar to those that were on the Public Safety Committee last year, and it has not changed much other than it's been a year delayed. And we can't take any more delays in addressing this issue. What this does is it establishes a California Fentanyl Abuse Task Force.

And the task force membership is very diverse. It includes representatives from nonprofits, the health agencies, and the legal system. As members of the Legislature, we have all heard the stories and the data on the potency and availability of fentanyl and how it is poisoning kids and members of every community. An epidemic of these proportions deserves a response that brings together the best of our state's resources, which is what this task will aid in doing. And hopefully, at the end of this task force, we can all pull in the same direction and address this crisis. So, Members, I respectfully ask for your aye vote when the time is appropriate. I did not bring a witness up in the interest of time.

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

Nicole Wordelman on behalf of the Orange County Board of Supervisors, in support.

Good morning. Elizabeth Espinosa on behalf of the County Health Executives Association of California, in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Julio De Leon from the Riverside Sheriff's Office, in support.

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

Good morning, Committee Members. Ron Linthicum, representing Sacramento County District Attorney's Office and California District Attorneys Association. We are in support. Thank you.

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

Thank you. Are there any other witnesses? Any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Bring it back to Committee Members. Yes, Ms. Ortega.

Just want to thank the Senator for bringing this bill forward. I do hope that we've voted on another bill in the Assembly, very similar. Dr. Bains, I'm hoping that you are working together because this is a critical issue and appreciate your work on it. So thank you. I'll be supporting it.

Thank you.

Yes.

Want to thank the author welcome back. Proud to support Kelly Seyarto's bill today.

Thank you. Appreciate it.

Any other comments? You may close.

All right, let's see here. Thank you. I respectfully ask for your aye vote when the time comes.

Okay. Thank you. As soon as we get a quorum, we'll vote on that item.

Thank you.

We are now looking for authors. We're looking for Bradford, Grove, Becker, Skinner, Smallwood-Cuevas.

I hear Mr. Bradford's in the rotunda. He's on his way.

Does he have two? Oh, do I have to go? I gotta go over there too. Hello, Mr. Bradford. Your timing your timing is impeccable. Great timing. It's impeccable.

That's not what I usually hear. Any particular order? Do you care?

Whichever one you want to take, note of order.

We'll start with SB 50. Thank you, Mr. Chair. SB 50 will allow law enforcement's ability to stop people for minor non... I should say will limit, for minor non-safety related traffic infractions unless there is an independent safety related basis to initiate the stop. It will also provide technical clarification to ensure that cities and counties can explore non-law enforcement approaches to traffic safety.

SB 50 is a priority of the Legislative Black Caucus and builds on the recommendations of the California Racial Identity Profiling Advisory Board, better known as RIPA, and the Committee of Revision of the Penal Code and the Center for Policing Equity, as well as current policies in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Oregon, Virginia, Memphis, and others.

Pretext stops are when an officer stops someone for a minor traffic violation, such as tinted windows or expired registration, with the intentions of using that stop to investigate a hunch that the individual has committed a more serious crime. We know the results of that. We just have to look at the Daunte Wright's, the Philando Castile's, the Tyre Nichols to know that they don't usually end well for people of color. These stops, which require no evidence or suspicion of more serious crime, disproportionately impacts communities of color.

In Sacramento, for example, black people are nearly five times more likely to be stopped for non-moving violations than their white counterparts. Many individuals are then harassed or even assaulted for the simple violation that can easily be fixed and enforced by mail. Daunte Wright, as stated, Philando Castile, and Walter Scott are just a few notable examples of those individuals pulled over by law enforcement for low-level violations and ultimately lost their lives as a result of these stops.

In Antioch, California, 17 officers engaged in racist and sexist texts where officers admitted and said, "I only stopped them because they were black." These stops inflict long lasting harm on communities of color and their trust in law enforcement. And yet, very rarely are these stops lead to more serious crimes being discovered, as law enforcement claims. Nearly 90% of these stops result in cops taking no action besides warning the driver.

And drugs and guns are found in less than 2%. Data shows that drugs and guns are found twice as, two times as much, on people of the white community than the people of color. People of color are stopped and searched more than whites, and yet they are less likely to yield contraband and evidence than searches of their white counterparts. These stops are ineffective, time and resources consuming, and racially prejudiced.

On top of that, law enforcement agencies have moved away from these stops have been found to be more effective in policing. In LA, where officers have reduced the amount of stops they initiated for low-level violations, officers had a higher rate of finding contraband now than in previous stops. In Connecticut, which is similar law to what this bill proposes, there has been an increase in DUI arrests after they focus their traffic enforcements on hazardous driving, rather than on low-level violations.

Californians across the state have voiced their concerns about rising crime rates, especially theft and violent crimes, not on people having a broken tail light or something hanging on their rear view mirror. Yet law enforcement spends a significant amount of their time and resources policing these violations that put no one in immediate danger. SB 50 will create a safer and more fair California for everyone, and will build community trust by ensuring that law enforcement agencies focus their time and their resources on effective public safety strategies.

With me today to testify on this bill is Charmin Leon with the Center for Policing Equity and a 13 year veteran of the Cleveland Police Department, and Rick Owen, senior staff counsel with the Committee on Revision, on the Panel, on Penal Code. I'm sorry. And I thank you and ask for your aye vote.

Give me 1 second. We want to establish a quorum, but we can vote.

Jones-Sawyer? Here. Alanis? Bonta? Bryan? Lackey? Ortega? Santiago? Zbur?

And on the proposed consent calendar, we have item number 12, SB 514, Archuleta. Wiretapping Authorization. Item number 15, SB 601, McGuire. Professions and Vocations Contractors, Home Improvement Contracts, Prohibited Businesses, Practices, Limited of Action. And finally, item number 19, SB 883, Public Safety. The Public Safety Omnibus Bill. Need a motion to approve.

So moved.

I need a second. Call roll.

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

And you have five minutes between the two of you, and you may begin.

Good morning, Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Rick Owen, and I'm a Senior Staff Counsel for the Committee on Revision of the Penal Code. The Committee is a state entity charged with studying and making recommendations to the Legislature and Governor about criminal law. Its goals are to improve public safety and equity while reducing unnecessary incarceration. SB 50 would improve public safety by strengthening community trust and focusing scarce law enforcement resources on serious crime.

Law enforcement officers in California make more than 3 million traffic stops every year, and the data collected from these stops reveal disturbing racial disparities in who was stopped. Once stopped, people of color are more likely to be handcuffed, searched, and have force used against them than white people. But traffic stops aren't just inconvenient. They can also be frightening, humiliating, and even dangerous. High profile incidents, including killings of black men during traffic stops, illustrate these concerns.

The resulting perceptions of unfair treatment lead to community distrust of law enforcement and a diminished likelihood of cooperating with laws or with police. Law enforcement concedes that many traffic stops, especially those for offenses listed in SB 50, are pretextual, meaning that the stop is used to investigate a hunch that the person is involved in some other crime. But pretextual stops are not only ripe for racial profiling, but they are also a costly and ineffective policing strategy.

An analysis of RIPA data found that officers did not recover any contraband in 97% of stops for infractions specified in SB 50. Guns were found in less than one half of 1% of stops. Research from the National Institute of Health that analyzed traffic stop data and vehicle collision death rates in 33 states concluded that the increased use of traffic stops did not decrease fatal car crashes. Other research has shown that focusing on violations that actually endanger public safety results in better traffic safety outcomes.

The Committee's recommendation to limit the use of traffic stops for the offenses specified in SB 50 is in line with similar reforms being undertaken throughout the country and can help to alleviate racial disparities, improve perceptions of fairness in our criminal legal system, and encourage the development of more effective policing strategies. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

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

We still have Officer Leon.

I'm sorry. I apologize.

Good morning. Thank you for having me. My name is Charmin Leon, and I've served with the Cleveland Division of Police in Ohio for nearly 13 years. Currently, I am with the Center for Policing Equity. We are a research and action organization made up of former law enforcement, academics, and community engagement and government specialists that use scientific research to identify and reduce racial disparities in policing. Senate Bill 50 represents an important step towards addressing equity and preserving officer resources and morale.

A recent report found that the Los Angeles and Riverside County Sheriff's Offices are spending a majority of officer time, nine of 10 hours, on traffic stops. In the time that I spent on patrol and leading the recruitment team for police, fire, and EMS for the City of Cleveland, focusing on low-level stops demoralizes our officers who want to be effective at addressing the most violent crimes.

Good officers hate being ineffective, and generating citations in the name of being productive undermines morale, as it reduces manpower available to answer calls for service and those that could be spent in investigations. New officers who are signing up to do this job do not want to waste their time on ineffective efforts. There is a retention problem in law enforcement, and we need to do more for officers in finding meaning of our work. Moreover, these stops are a waste of law enforcement resources.

Once again, low-level stops are an ineffective, inefficient, needle in a haystack approach to addressing crime and road safety. An analysis of the eight largest police departments in California found that officers confiscate firearms in less than a half percent of vehicle searches. In terms of all vehicle stops, that would be 0.4% of stops in Los Angeles found firearms and 0.3 of those in Oakland did.

Peace officers are highly trained professionals who play a crucial role in ensuring community safety. Enforcing minor infractions diverts our attention and resources away from more urgent matters, and is not in line with intelligence-led policing, which is the trajectory of our profession. Another important measure in this bill allows communities across California to enforce traffic laws with non-police employees if they choose to do so. Senate Bill 50 is a win for law enforcement, racial justice, and public safety in California, and we urge you to vote favorably today. Thank you.

Thank you. Now, are any witnesses in support? Name and organization.

Mohammed Jamal, Prosecutors Alliance of California. Strong support.

Natasha Minsker, Smart Justice California. Strong support.

Lizzie Buchen, Initiate justice and Lawyers Committee of Civil Rights, in support.

Sara Betts on behalf of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, in support.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Andres Ramirez on behalf of the Cities of Oakland and Berkeley, in strong support. Thank you.

John Skoglund with the County of Los Angeles, in support.

Good morning, Mr. Chair, Committee Members. Deb Roth with Disability Rights California, in strong support. Thank you.

Good morning. Anthony Di Martino on behalf of Californians for Safety and Justice, in strong support.

Tiffany Mok on behalf of CFT, in support.

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

Rebecca Gonzales, National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter, in support.

Izzy Swindler, City of Santa Monica, in support. Thank you.

Craig Pulsipher on behalf of Equality California, in support.

Erika Romero on behalf of the California Association of Local Conservation Corps, in strong support.

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

Yusef Miller on behalf of the North County Equity and Justice Coalition Saving Lives in Custody Campaign of 2020, in support.

Thank you. Are there any witnesses in opposition?

Sorry. Marvin Pineda on behalf of the Coalition of Human Rights, in support. Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Cory Salzillo on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association in opposition to SB 50. Simply put, we object to the policy of keeping law enforcement from enforcing the law. The low-level infractions described by this bill are related to vehicle safety or identification. And if they're important enough to be kept on the books, peace officers should not be told they must not enforce them unless they can find a separate violation or multiple violations.

Traffic stops for violations described by this bill routinely result in enforcement actions for much more serious offenses. Guns are taken off the street, drugs are seized, and other crimes are uncovered in the process of a traffic stop. This bill will not only impact traffic enforcement, but it will make our communities less safe.

One of the witness mentioned that there were 3 million traffic stops in a year and then mentioned that half of a percent resulted in the finding of guns and then one 10th of half a percent or 0.05% where there was a search and then there was also a gun found. So even if you take that lowest number, what the proponents are saying is that in these traffic stops, at least 1500 guns were found in that period.

Do we not want to take those guns off the street? This Committee and this Legislature bends over backwards to enact gun control measures. But now we're going to pass a bill that makes it much more likely that 1500 or more guns go undetected. That's our concern with this bill. We respectfully request your no vote. Thank you.

Thank you.

Yes. Good morning, Mr. Chair and Committee Members. Thank you for having me. Ron Linthicum. I represent the Sacramento County District Attorney's Office and the California District Attorneys Association. We are also very much and strongly opposed to this bill for the same reasons that my counterpart stated. We believe that hundreds of guns are confiscated from very dangerous individuals on and during traffic stops.

I work closely with the Sacramento County Sheriff's Officers, and I can tell you it's a very important tool that officers have in stopping crime before it happens, which is ultimately a law enforcement officer's primary goal, is to try to prevent the crime before somebody gets hurt. Also want to mention that two individuals that are very famous and infamous were caught on routine traffic stops. Ted Bundy, when he escaped from jail, was apprehended on a traffic stop.

If you remember the Oklahoma City Bomber, he also was apprehended because of a faulty license plate. These were routine traffic stops that led to the apprehension of very dangerous criminals. This is an important tool for law enforcement. Also, we want to encourage people to follow the law. These small minor traffic violations can impact traffic safety also. So for all of these reasons, we're very strongly opposed to this bill, with all due respect. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr, you have two minutes.

Mr. Chairman, Members. Randy Perry, on behalf of PORAC, Highway Patrol Association, San Francisco POA. Just very quickly, this is happening in various cities. This is not a statewide issue. It's a local control issue. The cities you've seen it in around the country, again are cities, not states.

And we have LA, who's already negotiated and working on implementing program. San Francisco POA, right now, is at the table with the city representatives to collectively bargain and work out a program that works for the City of San Francisco. That won't work for Siskiyou County, for example. This is not a statewide issue. It's a local control issue. This is a collectively bargainable issue. And that's the way it's worked in the past up to this point. Thank you.

Thank you. Now, are there any other witnesses in opposition? Name and organization.

Good morning. Zach Wallace on behalf of the San Diego County Deputy District Attorneys Association and San Diegans Against Crime. Thank you.

Thank you.

Respectful opposition.

Morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Ryan Sherman with the Riverside Sheriff's Association in opposition. Also in opposition, 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 Association, and the Deputy Sheriff's Associations in Monterey County, Placer County, all in opposition. Thank you.

Hello. My name is Yun Embly, and I oppose this.

Thank you.

Morning. Lieutenant Julio De Leon from Riverside Sheriff's Office on behalf of Sheriff Chad Bianco, in strong opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Priscilla Quiroz, on behalf of the City of Beverly Hills, in respectful opposition.

Thank you. Seeing no more witnesses. Bring it back to Committee Members for comments or... Mr. Lackey.

Well, I have probably a pretty predictable position on this particular bill. I'm deeply concerned about the consistent effort of this legislative body to handicap our law enforcement personnel through concerted attempts to take away the tools they rely upon to keep us all safe. I'm going to share with you a personal story that will at least, I think, validates this very, very point.

Early in my career as a California Highway Patrol Member and working the late hours when there's a lot of impaired drivers, I happened to be on patrol with my partner. And we observed a vehicle that had a very minor infraction, just a license plate light out. And my partner was about ready to initiate the stop because it was my arrest out. And I said, no, let's not pull this person over just because there's a license plate out.

Let's wait and see if we can get further evidence that this particular driver may be under the influence and may be a threat to the public. And it was about only about one more mile before we pulled away that we entered a curvature in the roadway. And this particular vehicle swerved out of its lane and went almost directly head on into the vehicle in the opposing lane, where they spun out.

They were able to avoid the collision, but they crashed into the area adjacent to the roadway, and we then initiated a stop. And certainly, sure enough, the driver was under the influence and subsequently arrested. And my partner just looked at me and he said, I hope you learned a lesson. And I did learn a lesson, that we have a duty to act. And even though these infractions may seem minor, I'm not encouraging pretext stops.

But I'm telling you that there's an important lesson to be learned here, that enforcing public safety often means taking action on the minor offenses. And it allows you just to investigate, because that's your responsibility. Public safety is your responsibility. And the pathway to public safety often may take a path that is objectionable to some. But I can tell you that, in the world of SB 50, as the opposition stated, Ted Bundy would still be free.

And who knows what kind of tragedy he would have inflicted because he was the serial killers, if you're unaware of who he was. And crime is rising in this state. And bills like this make a bad situation even worse for those who have been, taken on the responsibility to make our communities safe as they deserve to be. So I will be clearly in opposition of this measure.

Any more comments?

Sure. I just want to thank the author for bringing this. As was mentioned, this is a Black Caucus priority. I think about that last comment. With this law in place, Ted Bundy would be free. With this law in place, Sandra Bland would be alive.

Thank you.

And I can go through a very, very, very, very, very long list of especially black folks who have lost their lives following a pretextual stop that was escalated beyond... Escalated to an unnecessary point. I have full confidence that the author is working through all the different points of this that are necessary and important. I'm also the Member of the Legislature and the Assembly who sits on the Committee on the Revision of the Penal code. I saw the evidence. I saw the testimony over a year of evidence gathering from that Committee to come to a recommendation like this. It's not haphazard or light hearted or without thought. It's carefully crafted. I want to thank the author for bringing this today. I move the bill.

Any other comments? You may close.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members. And I appreciate the witnesses who testified in support as well as in opposition. Because, as Assemblyman Bryan stated, Ted Bundy, a dangerous individual. But the difference between Ted Bundy and Sandra Bland and Philando Castile and on and on and on, Daunte Wright. They lost their lives. But a dangerous killer like Ted Bundy made it to jail safely, whereas innocent black folks who were stopped because of a traffic, a non-working light, lost their lives.

That's the point we're trying to make. The racial disparity that exists, not only in law enforcement, but in America. And that's what we're driving to drive home. You say you confiscate weapons. Most of the weapons that are confiscated are from white individuals. Drugs and weapons are two times more likely to be found in white individuals' cars than African Americans and Latinos. But they're stopped three and a half to four times more likely than their white counterparts. We should all be concerned about this.

This isn't about limiting law enforcement's ability to do their job. We're asking law enforcement to do it in a more, less discriminating manner, in a more colorblind manner. And we know there's biases. So I will quote the great American philosopher Jay Z in stating men lie, women lie, but numbers don't. The numbers don't lie. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Mr. Bradford. And thank you for bringing this bill forward. I think it shines a light on something that a lot of us already know and that we're now going to actually tackle it for the first time. I know PORAC is claiming that through collective bargaining, so I hope that they are looking at this from a racial lens. Not just another way to capture more people, but a way to make sure more people don't get harmed and injured, so that we're able to capture the right people and not injure the wrong people.

Thank you.

Chair's recommending an aye vote.

On SB 50 by Senator Bradford, the motion is due passed to the Appropriations Committee. Jones-Sawyer? Aye. Jones-Sawyer, aye. Alanis? Bonta? Bonta, aye. Bryan? Aye. Bryan, aye. Lackey? No. Lackey, no. Ortega? Aye. Ortega, aye. Santiago? Santiago, aye. Zbur? Zbur, aye.

The measure passes.

Mr. Chair, I have two more bills, but I'm being called across the street, so I'm going to yield my time right now, and I'll come back. Thank you. Okay, Members.

Thank you.

Senator Grove.

Item number 1, SB 14. Grove. Serious felonies, human trafficking.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. If you would just give me one second to get my witnesses up here.

Sure.

Whenever you're ready.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning, Members. Senate Bill 14 is a bipartisan measure that is joint-authored by Senator Caballero and Senator Rubio, and co-authored by 12 Senators and 20 Assembly Members. Although not yet in print, Senator Wahab, the Chair of Senate Public Safety, and Senator Bradford have also signed on as co-authors. Our Bill will include sex trafficking of a minor child in the list of crimes that are defined as serious under the law, making it a strikable offense.

As we all know, human trafficking is exploding in cities across our country. The horrendous practice could very well easily be defined as the crime of our time. And sadly, California is a hub for human trafficking. In 2021, 25,000 children reported missing under the National Center for Missing and Exploited children who had run away from foster care services was one in six likely human trafficking victims.

Data from the service providers of the US National Human Trafficking Hotline was consistently shown that groups who experience marginalization by race, income, gender identity, sexual orientation, and immigration status are more likely to be exploited through sex and labor trafficking. I want to thank Senator Bradford for highlighting this fact in his Ebony Alert Bill, which outlines how Black women and girls are increased risk of being harmed and trafficked and are disproportionately missing in the State of California.

Human trafficking disproportionately affects racial minorities and members of society who come from poor socioeconomic backgrounds. The US State Department notes that human trafficking trends today reflect a living legacy of systematic racism and colonialization globalized during the transatlantic slave trade through chattel slavery and regional practices of indigenous disposition. The US State Department also notes that traffickers factor in racial biases and stereotypes into schemes and strategies aimed at reducing their own risk of getting caught.

The Coalition to Abolish Slavery and Human Trafficking in Los Angeles, California, noted that 50% of their domestic trafficking clients are Black, and over 90% of the women in their emergency shelters program are Black. This law will help disseminate or dismantle racial targeting of traffickers who target children of color because they believe that they will face no jail time or limited jail time.

A holistic approach is definitely needed to address every facet of this complex issue, including education, identification, funding, and direct support for services for survivors and trauma-informed care. However, we also need stiff penalties and consequences for traffickers themselves who are perpetrating the most brutal and heinous acts upon our vulnerable population, especially those individuals that traffick minor children. Trafficking victims are forced to work 365 days a year without pay.

The trafficker tells them when to work, when to eat, when to sleep, when to rest, and takes every dollar they earn. Traffickers even brand their victims in order to show ownership over them as property. Some teenage girls as young as 12 years old are forced to wear a tattoo on their face, branded forever because their life is no longer their own. The violence and torture endured by these victims is so gruesome, it's difficult to understand.

Violent acts such as rape, sodomy, beatings, starvation, and strangulation are endured sometimes on a daily basis. The Committee's analysis states that the offense addressed by this Bill already carries steep sentences. However, with criminal justice reform, the reality is that these perpetrators of this heinous crime rarely serve a full sentence, and oftentimes they return back to the streets to reoffend. One example of trafficking in my district is that of Mr. Richardson.

Mr. Richardson trafficked a 15 year-old Orange County girl and was sentenced to eight years in prison, and he was released after serving less than four. After he got caught, he moved to my district and again trafficked three minor children in Bakersfield and simultaneously commercially sexually exploiting adults. His victims ranged from age to 14 to 20. When my District Attorney took him to trial, he was convicted of three counts of child sex trafficking, felon possession of a firearm, drug sales, and child pornography.

His eligibility to parole is just 11 years from now and growing smaller by the day. Although I know this Committee is about addressing prison overcrowding and not enforcing enhancement or adding enhancements to the role, I hope that we can all agree today that repeatedly selling minor children for sex, forcing them to be raped over and over and over again every single day, should be considered a serious felony in the State of California.

Instead of using prison overcrowding and the means to protect men who are perpetrating this crime, shouldn't we protect the daughters that are victims of this crime? Passing SB 14 will serve to protect future generations by stopping people from engaging in this crime today. I'm honored to have 3Strands Global Foundation as the sponsor of SB 14. 3Strands fights every day to end the horrendous practice of human trafficking and protect survivors from this horrible crime.

SB 14 is overwhelmingly supported by 70 statewide and national organizations like Women To Women, Formerly Incarcerated Women in the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. Californians come across the state, have shared their personal stories and voiced their support of SB 14. But here with me to testify and share their testimony directly are two experts in the human trafficking field. My first witness is Sharmin Bock, a 33 year veteran prosecutor and former District Attorney in the Alameda County area.

Sharmin helped create the Human Trafficking Exploitation HEAT Unit, the first of its kind in response in the country. A Victim Centered, a Victim centered, trauma-informed, vertical prosecution unit composed of specifically trained prosecutors, investigators, and victim witness advocates who work closely with state and federal law enforcement partners, as well as nongovernmental organization to rescue victims and prosecute their exploiters. She is also the co-author of Proposition 35, which includes laws regarding human trafficking that we're discussing here today.

Additionally, in order to shine a light on this issue, firsthand of trafficked children as my second witness, an incredible advocate for human trafficking, a survivor and author, my friend, Miss Odessa Perkins.

Miss Perkins was not only trafficked as a child, but she has dedicated her life to help human trafficking survivors and is the CEO of Empowerment Foundation that takes at-risk children and survivors to better their life and teach them that there is something better out there for them and they don't have to go down a path of destruction. I respectfully ask for your aye vote and introduce my first witness. Thank you.

Thank you so much for having me. Thank you so much for having me. After being a DA for so long, you'd think, "oh, she gets more conservative the longer you get there." It's actually, the opposite is true. I'm a staunch supporter of criminal justice reform. I firmly believe that the answer is not incarceration, but prevention and rehabilitation. But in that context, I also believe that an exception needs to be made in certain instances.

And I believe that the human trafficking of a child is one of those exceptions. Why? Because when I co-authored Prop. 35 way back when, it was after coming before the Public Safety Committee after five tries, and we decided then somebody approached me from Facebook, actually, and put it on the statewide ballot, and it passed higher than any initiative in the State of California. And we were focusing on one narrow issue there.

But what we didn't anticipate was that the change in the landscape would actually change the numbers that we had. We thought that the triad of five, eight, and 12 would be just five, eight and 12. And that would be a good number, that that number would work. But now five, eight and 12 is not five, eight and 12 anymore. And 12 is really like lightning striking or an earthquake, like nobody gets 12. 12 is a rare bird, right?

12 is like having an eagle land in your backyard. So five and eight, you do half on five, you do half on eight. So that's four, let's say, or two and a half. But now with the new CDC regs, where we're trying to empty out our prisons, you're not even doing two and a half. So you sell a child for sex and you're getting, like, two. So what does that mean?

Do you remember back in the day when environmental polluters CEOs were saying, "oh, we're going to dump our toxic waste because it's just a cost of doing business and no one's going to go to jail. It'll just be a fine. We'll pay the fine." Well, that's what traffickers are thinking. And I'm telling you this because I've been in the trenches for 33 years. So it's a cost-benefit analysis. The traffickers with five girls in their stable, they're making close to $1.0 million.

Sadly, there's no better bang for your buck, right? So they're saying, and these girls aren't going to show up. It's one of the hardest cases in the world to prove. It's a combination of domestic violence, sexual assault, drugs, you name it. It's all bundled into one case. So it's super hard to prove to get the two years that you get after all of that. So they're like, "yeah, baby, let's roll the dice." So they roll the dice, they think the girl's not showing up.

What then happens is they do the cost-benefit analysis, they decide to go to trial. Then all they're getting at the end of the day is two years. The other thing you need to realize, they're sociopaths. They're actually disconnected from the harm that they're inflicting. In all my years in prosecuting, everything from murder to rape, you name it, I've actually done it all. Okay?

I've done it all. I've never seen anybody like that. And they're emboldened by the fact that the law has no teeth. And who is suffering? The vast majority of the girls that are being prosecuted are Black and Brown girls are most vulnerable. We need to protect them.

Dear Assembly, I am before you today as a survivor of human trafficking. My story is unique because I have endured many different facets of trafficking. From birth, I faced many challenges. Family members propositioned my mother to abort me. Then I started being touched and groomed. Then I started being made to have sex with grown men. And then I had sex with a lot of quote-unquote uncles. And then I was trafficked to the highest bidder, drug dealers.

But now what you see before you is a survivor. Let's be clear. Everyone does not make it out. They say, going through everything that I went through, I should be dead, in jail, a drug addict or a prostitute. However, I am neither. But so many still are. It's time-out for feeling sorry for the monsters that prey on our most vulnerable individuals. I've heard the opposition state Black Californians being disproportionately, harmed by three strikes, mass incarceration of Blacks, harm to communities.

And I've heard many speak in jail about jail overcrowding. But I am here to say I was molested and raped repeatedly. By Black and white men and even some women. So it does not matter the race. What matters is saving our children. Traffickers are getting out of jail early and reoffending, continuing the horrific cycle of abuse and depravity. This law will not affect those that do not reoffend, but it will affect those that hurt our children.

I ask you, why sacrifice me, a Black daughter, and those like me: Black, Brown, Trans, LGBTQ boys and girls that are currently being sold like slaves for money? Because you're afraid to put offenders, regardless of race, in jail where they belong. Trafficking have surpassed the illegal arms trade, and it's on its way to passing the drug trade because you can resell a child over and over again for profit. The Pledge of Allegiance states, "one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

But how are trafficked victims receiving any of this statement if you decide to do nothing? I am here and I look at your faces and wonder, do you care? Because if you do not pass SB 14 and start protecting our most vulnerable, it could land on your doorstep and it could hit your niece, your nephew, your daughter, your granddaughters, your grandsons. Eventually, that's where it will be.

Can you imagine a child you love having a giant man or woman on top of them, no matter the color, hurting them, going in and out of them, stealing their innocence and causing all types of trauma they will have to deal with forever if they live? Well, I can, because that was me. I was that child. All of that happened to me. There's a quote that states, by Mamie Till-Mobley, "what happens to one of us should be the business of all of us."

I ask for your vote for SB 14.

Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in support? Name and organization, please.

Youwin Embly. I support it.

Nick McGill, father of two, mentor and coach to youth. And I just pray that we will protect children over predators and pedophiles.

Wendy Nielsen, Sacramento, mother of two, grandmother of one, protect the children.

Ashlie Bryant, CEO 3Strands Global Foundation, sponsor of this Bill in strong support.

Noel Seo, policy intern at 3Strands, co-sponsor of this Bill. Strongly support.

Zach Wallace, on behalf of the San Diego Deputy District Attorneys Association, San Diegans Against Crime and individually as a sex crimes and trafficking prosecutor for five years in support of this Bill.

Rita Ammerman, mother of two, grandmother of eight, great grandmother of one, I'm in strong support of this Bill.

Delcey Steffi, Quaker, mother, Californian, businesswoman. I'm in very strong support of this Bill. Thank you.

Ron Linthicum, District Attorney, Sacramento County, and also representing California District Attorneys Association. Strong support. Thank you.

Chair and Members, Izzy Swindler. On behalf of the list, I do apologize. California Faculty Association, Fresno County, Kern Tulare, Tulare Supervisor Dennis Townsend and Larry Micari, a Board of Supervisors for Fresno and Kern, Tulare. Thank you. In support.

Beth Ferks, California Family Council, strong support.

Nicole Young, mother of six, strong support.

Ali Snyder on behalf of Our Duty. In strong support.

Bessie Roche, founder and facilitator of Capital Intercessors and grandmother of 21 grandchildren. I strongly support this Bill.

My name is Arlene Espinosa, I'm a licensed marriage and family therapist with ZOE International. We're an anti-trafficking organization, and I am in strong support of SB 14.

Brianna Mosley, advocate and survivor of child sex trafficking, Also the sister of Blair Mosley, who lost her life after being trafficked last year, and I'm definitely in support.

My name is Sophia Warren, I'm a student and I strongly support this Bill.

My name is Bianca Haynes and I'm a believer of God, Jesus and this Bill.

My name is Stephanie Webb and I strongly support this Bill.

My name is Aretha Perkins. I am a mother of three, a grandmother of four, a great grandmother of three boys, an aunt of a survivor. I am a very strong advocate for your support in Senate Bill 14 passing. Thank you.

Good morning. Katrina Garcia with Kern County Probation Department. And we support this Bill.

I'm Tamara Look and I support.

I am Dr. Angela Look for Kern County Child Protective Services. Strong support of this Bill. Please protect our children.

Eleanor Steffi, I am a Quaker, a business owner, a student, and I support this Bill strongly. Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Barbara Keono. I'm a retired educator of 34 years who, during my course of my teaching found out that I had had a student that was trafficked. And due to the wonderful work of this survivor, I've been able to learn a lot and help along the way. I strongly support this Bill. Thank you.

I'm Jenna Mckay and I'm a survivor of human trafficking and I support this Bill.

Hi, good morning and God bless you all. Senators, my name is Sylvia Miller. I'm a parent advocate for ZOE International. I'm a parent who had a child who was trafficked at the age of 14. Today I work with parents in LA County who have

That's it, name and organization

Strongly support the SB 14. Thank you.

Hello, I'm a mom, and my name is Mrs. G. I'm here for my three children, and here too, I had a girlfriend back in middle school that was trafficked and we were able to help her get out. And I strongly support this Bill. Thank you.

Nicole Pearson, attorney, mother of three, resident, strongly support this Bill. Thank you.

Molly Sheehan with the California Catholic Conference. In support. Thank you.

I'm Matthew Munoz, Executive Director of America's Schools for Choice, and I strongly support this Bill.

Hi, good morning. I'm Nellie Tucanco, registered nurse. I strongly support this Bill on behalf of my traffic patients, please support this Bill. Thank you.

My name is Veronica, public health specialist. I strongly support this Bill.

Talia D'Amato, on behalf of the Tule River Tribe, in support.

Ethan Nagler, on behalf of Bakersfield Mayor Karen Goh and the full City Council in support.

Patricia Pistoni, retired teacher. I'm here for Concerned Women for America. Strongly support this Bill. Thank you.

Cassandra Kelly from Bakersfield. I strongly support this Bill.

David Bolog on behalf of the San Fernando Valley Parents and Take a Stand in support.

Yusef Miller, North County Equity and Justice Coalition, Mosques Against Trafficking, Thrive Lemon Grove, Alabaster Jar Project, Survivor Leader Network of San Diego in strong support.

Randy Perry on behalf of the California Massage Therapy Council, PORAC, and the California Station Highway Patrol in support.

Corey Sozio on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association, in support.

Thank you. Are there any witnesses in opposition?

Good morning, Committee and Chair. My name is April Grayson. I am the senior Policy manager. I am the senior policy manager for the Sister Freedom Coalition. I sit on numerous anti-trafficking advisory boards for commercially sexually exploited children and adults throughout California. I am also a survivor of human trafficking, and I am here to speak in opposition of SB 14. If SB 14 passes, human trafficking will become a strikeable offense with harsher sentences and lifelong consequences.

As a survivor, I can see the positive intent of this Bill. However, as a survivor who has been criminalized and demonized by the legal system that was meant to protect me, I have to remind the authors on this Committee that this Bill--I'm so sorry--will actively harm any survivors of human trafficking, especially the black, brown, native, poor, LGBTQ women, and Trans survivors who are already least likely to see justice.

I sit before you as a criminalized survivor of human trafficking. I was born into the CPS system and has touched every system California has to offer. After I was kicked out of the system at 18, I was trafficked. At 19, I was criminalized by the court system, made out to be the perpetrator and the mastermind of a crime that I was also the victim of. I was sentenced to 20 years and eight months.

At that time, the charges were pimping and pandering, but had I been sentenced today, I would have been charged with human trafficking of a minor. I served 17 years in state prison, where I received no referral to healing or rehabilitated services. I was considered a violent felon and had to register as a sex offender. I have never been seen as a victim of human trafficking.

I was only seen as a bottom, a perpetrator, even though I was 19 and my 27 year old trafficker was sitting next to me in court. He was never identified as a trafficker, let alone my trafficker, and was never convicted of any trafficking or pipping charges in Sacramento County. I am not a unique case. Not addressed in this committee's bill analysis is the horrifying reality that over 90% of human trafficking victims are criminalized while being trafficked, including many who have human trafficking charges instead of their trafficker.

We need to acknowledge that our criminal legal system is not equipped to recognize human trafficking victims, especially young women and Trans folk of color who are victims of sexual exploitation. Our current laws fail to provide judges and juries with the information necessary to help identify victims, something that we are trying to fix.

Well, we tried to fix with AB 1497, which died in Assembly a few months ago. If SB 14 passes, criminalized survivors will be subjected to punishments that will be doubled or escalated to a life sentence under three strikes, in many cases doubled for low level offenses that are not serious or violent. And prosecuting these survivors will not stop trafficking from happening. Since these survivors are so easily replaced by the traffickers.

Even with the recent amendments of this Bill, there are many survivors who would fall through the cracks and face further punishment and trauma survivors like me. This Bill will have severe collateral negative consequences for victims and survivors. This is not the solution. The solution is to properly investigate cases, provide healing resources, and prevent further harm against survivors by the criminal legal system. Until we can protect victims from arrests, we must not pass laws that will further harm them, their families, or our communities.

Under current law, I am still not acknowledged as a victim of human trafficking, even though I was recognized on the State on the Senate Floor as a survivor and an expert on human trafficking just a couple of months ago. We must stop creating bills that don't address the nuances of the situation, or we will continue to hurt vulnerable traumatized victims. I understand that human trafficking is a serious problem, and I recognize what Senator Grove and the Coauthors are trying to do with this Bill. But until we can successfully identify victims and provide them support and relief, I cannot be in support of SB 14.

Are you are you testifying?

My name is Marco George, and I'm here today on behalf of both the California Public Defenders Association and the San Francisco Public Defender's Office in opposition to SB 14. Of course, we are opposed to human trafficking of either minors or adults, but we believe that increasing penalties is a failed policy that has neither deterred crime nor prevented future victims. As Senator Grove indicated, and maybe some of the proponents, the human trafficking law provides already for five, eight, or 12 years in state prison.

But it also provides under another subsection for 18, 14, or 20 years, or even under a further subsection, 15 years to life in state prison. SB 14 does nothing to solve the underlying problems in our society which lead to sex trafficking. In fact, in their zealous efforts to prosecute human trafficking, many district attorneys offices have further victimized the victims, prosecuting them, trying to force them to testify by bringing charges against them. April's story is not unusual.

CPDA asks that instead of passing SB 14, you follow the recommendations of the researchers from the University of Southern California Goldstein School of Law, who were part of the informational hearing that you had here only two years ago. Whose study found that the United States over relied on law enforcement and a retributive criminal justice approach to complex societal issues that instead require nuance and understanding of trauma, race and poverty.

They stated effective antitrafficketing efforts are moving away from support for use of operations, focusing instead on community involvement, public health and harm reduction strategies, and investing the money instead of in prisons, in poverty relief, antidiscrimination initiatives and opportunities for education, employment. We respectfully ask for your no vote.

Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in opposition?

Clara McNeil on behalf of the Ella Baker Center in opposition.

Good morning Carmen-Nicole Cox on behalf of ACLU Cal Action, wanting to align our opposition with the experts.

Thank you. Lizzie Buchan, Initiate Justice, in opposition.

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

Yeah, if I could ask Ms. Sharman, how would Ms. Grayson's concerns play out today?

Shared Hope International is a nationally recognized organization, and I participated with Shared Hope in a three year study looking at victim offender intersectionality. And that report is published. You can all read that report, and they came up with recommendations as a result of their report. Right now, the trend, as is the trend in many areas in terms of the Criminal Justice Reform Movement, is not to prosecute victim offenders, recognizing the trauma bond and recognizing that victims what happened.

I'm very sorry for what happened to you, but I can tell you that it would be a rare day indeed for that to happen today, absent extreme violence being inflicted by the victim offender. There is a tool that Shared Hope came up with, and it's a tool that you can see on their site.

This tool provides for field guidance designed for shareholders in the Criminal Justice Movement, working with sex trafficking victim offenders to identify them early on in the process and provide them with the support they need and to actually exclude them from the charging process so they're not part of the charging process, recognizing their trauma bonds. And we've seen a lot of efforts being made to free to free women who've, let's say, killed their traffickers. We've seen them released from prison.

So I think the response is very different. I can tell you in our Heat unit, the response was different. And there was an evolution. In the beginning, there was charging, but by the end of it, it was very, very rare indeed. And that this tool is being implemented with training nationally. It's a very thick report.

And three years was used to come up with this report by bringing together the best of the minds in the United States from all the NGOs, all of the offices, survivors, you name it, to look at how we could be more effective and victim centered and trauma informed in our response. So what happened 20 years ago is not happening today. And we have learned from our mistakes. And as you all know, we are doing our very best to right many wrongs that occurred.

And I just think that we need to be careful when we start throwing out numbers. One of the numbers that was thrown out was over 90% that are prosecuted are victims. That's actually not the case. In my unit has prosecuted over 850 cases of human trafficking. And I can tell you that 90% of those that we prosecuted were not victims. Many of those that we prosecuted were repeat offenders.

And that is why a law such as SB 14 is so important because it only will come into play with repeat offenders. And I have personally seen the same faces come in over and over again. And that is what this law is looking at, the repeat offenders and only the repeat offenders.

Thank you. Senator Grove, we thank you for this particular measure and for your leadership on this incredibly important and very, very troubling issue. This Bill puts into statute something that should already be self evident, that human trafficking is a minor of a minor. I'm sorry. Human trafficking of a minor is a very serious felony.

There's a movie that's out right now that is enjoying some success, and it tells of the horrific stories of child trafficking and highlights the tremendous courage of victim survivors of this very, very nasty criminal behavior. I would ask Members to please listen to your conscience. Human trafficking, especially using children, is an affront against any measure of decency and of values at all. I hope that we'll do our part by protecting the innocent and support this critical measure. Thank you.

Any other comment? Sure. Mr. Vice Chair, you first.

It's more of a comment than anything. I just want to thank all of those who came up and support the survivors out there. I know it takes a lot of courage to do what you have done as a prior crimes against children's, Detective. I got to see my share of it as well. And it takes a lot to be here and tell your stories and be part of this. And to the Senator, thank you for your leadership in that and bringing this up. And I'll be proud to be voting for this today. Thank you.

That's a motion. Any other comment? Mr. Bryan?

There is a lot of courage at this table right now and a lot of power and a lot of strength. And I want to thank you all for coming and for everybody coming. Having been somebody touched by the child welfare system myself, and having had hundreds of foster siblings, I know the intersections of many of these systems and how they build on each other. I'm struggling with some different things.

One of them is recognizing the complexity that Miss Grayson has brought up, that complexity and nuance that breaks us out of these binary right and wrongs because it's complicated. And I see that we can't even fully break out of that because we're using language like victim offenders. I have no idea what a victim offender is. I know people. I know young girls. I know young people who have experienced trauma and pain and had that exploited against them for profit in some instances.

I know that what was said is, we have learned from the past, and I would say we haven't fully. We are learning. We've been in the process of learning. We used to charge kids under 18 with prostitution, knowing that they can't consent. In fact, there are people in this room who fought against safe harbor bills that protected young people under 18 from being charged with solicitation or prostitution knowing that they couldn't give consent.

There are people in this Legislature who fought those kinds of efforts while still trying to shame some of us for being cautious about using the criminal legal system as a means of deterrence when all evidence has shown that longer sentences don't actually stop things from happening. All they do is increase our investment in systems of harm and subjugation at the expense of the investments that the communities needed to not have this be a problem to begin with.

The same communities that have the highest rates of human trafficking are the same communities that have the highest unemployment rates, the highest rent burdens, the lowest amount of small businesses owned, the highest economic burdens in our state. But instead of investing the resources to take away the economic incentives in these kinds of illicit markets, we invest all of those resources in our $15 billion plus prison infrastructure. And I struggle with that because the problem is still here.

And we've been doing that strategy for two and a half decades now. I want to thank the author. You've been working on this for a long time. And we talked and I've been trying, and I've called everybody I know to call, including people in this room. And I've gone back and forth with the righteous intentions that you've brought here and the struggles I have with some of the foundational principles that this kind of legislation is building on. And so I can't get there today.

But I want to thank you for your leadership and your courage. I want to thank you for the witnesses who have spoke on both sides. I know that that is incredibly difficult and this is not necessarily a safe place, but know that your impact is going to have a lasting memory for me and everybody on this dyess, regardless of how this vote shapes today. And I just want to thank you again.

Ms. Ortega.

Again, I want to thank today's witnesses and the Senator as the only woman left. We have my colleague Mia, who's I'm sure feels, and I don't want to speak for her, but as a woman of color, as a mother, your testimony today was just incredible. And I want to thank you for sharing your stories and also apologize for a system that has clearly failed many of you. However, similar to my colleague, the system isn't alone.

Andt hree strikes has also shown that it has failed many in our community. And so I'm struggling with how do we support you? With mental health access, with housing, with education, with good jobs? Because it's part of a holistic approach. Sending someone to prison for the rest of their lives is not going to fix the harm moving forward. And that's the part that I'm struggling with. It's a complex issue my commitment to the witnesses, everyone that's here today is to continue to address this issue.

It is horrendous. It should not be happening. And I am committed to working with the Senator and others to figure out a way to move this forward in a way that we can all support. Thank you.

I usually don't ask questions, but I do have one because this is so serious, this is so important. So in the report, it says, the offenses addressed by this Bill already carries very steep sentences. These punishments can often be further enhanced by any number of existing sentence enhancements. Human trafficking of a minor for purposes of commercial sex is punishable by up to 12 years in prison.

If the offense involves force, fear, fraud, deceit, coercion, violence, duress, menace, or threat of unlawful injury to the victim or another person, the penalty is 15 years to life. The court may also impose up to $1.5 million in fine on a person convicted of human trafficking. If great bodily harm is inflicted on the victim to commit the human trafficking crime, an enhancement of up to 10 more years in state prison can be added.

A person convicted of human trafficking for sexual conduct is also required to register as a sex offender. Any property or money used to facilitate human trafficking is subject to seizure. I think you may have maybe this is what I'm hearing from my question is, is our criminal justice system not using these laws now to enforce a great harm on a whole lot of women? This may be our lane that we can all agree on. What is that gap?

Because I get the feeling that you're saying, or what I heard from one of the witnesses, that judges or DAs or maybe even law enforcement is not actively using these laws to do what you want is to get these people off the street and get them the appropriate punishment, which I see is already here. And what bothers me is what makes you think if they're not doing it now, adding enhancements will make them do it again? We won't make them happen.

They still may not do it. So at the end of the day, what we want is to protect these women. And we want law enforcement to protect these women, want the courts to protect them children and our children. Most important, we want them to be protected. So what is going on out there in the world that these minors, women, because I've heard this also with others, are not being protected with existing laws?

Because if they're not moving even on these, what makes you think they'll move on the others? That's kind of perplexing. I don't know if it's you or if it's people who are working in the field, because we also are doing this also in terms of minor crimes like shoplifting, that isn't being prosecuted, that isn't being enforced. So something's going on out there where we're not. And I say we because I'm part of the state, I'm part of the government. So what are we not doing to make sure that we adequately can protect people with public safety?

So, thank you, Mr. Chair, for the question. I'll respond, and then I'll turn it over to someone who has 33 years in the former District Attorney's office in the Alameda County for the Heat Unit, who has prosecuted many of these cases since that law and those laws and code sections were established. We've done a complete turnaround, which is just, of the criminal justice reform, allowing good credits and time off for good behavior and work credits, and all the credits.

So when you apply credits to someone who has sold a child and been convicted of human trafficking, just like the example I gave you with the Orange County individual who trafficked a minor child, got sentenced to 12 years and did less than four because of all the application of the criminal justice reform, and then he reoffended. Now, the three strikes law, and I understand that that's a huge issue in this Committee, and that you don't want to apply three strikes.

It only takes effect for a second or third time offender. So if you are arrested and convicted of selling a child, this Bill will not apply a strike. And I can be corrected by the District Attorney if need be, but it will not apply a strike to their life until they reoffend for another violation of selling a minor child. And then the extension, the enhancements apply.

So with the good time credits and all the criminal justice reform that has taken place over the years since that's been established, they have a discounted time in prison, which reduces their time. So imagine my witness, or the opposition witness, Ms.. Grayson. I mean, can you imagine their trafficker being sentenced to prison and getting out in four years and walking up on the street and seeing them again?

For both of these women, both of these women who were trafficked, brutalized, made to do things that they never, ever in their natural life would ever do without coercion or abuse or threat of their life. These are survival mechanisms that both of these women took on both sides of this Bill. Survival mechanisms. None of us can even imagine what that's like to go through. I've learned so much from Ms. Grayson sitting down with her.

Ms. Grayson was the reason that we amended the Bill to take violent out of it. Because under violent with a violent felony, an individual like Miss Grayson couldn't apply for vacatur or have an affirmative defense. And so we took that out.

And I can tell you that if either one of these women were walking down the street and in four years saw their trafficker, the person who perpetrated the most heinous crimes against them, the trauma that they would go through would just be all over, reliving the horrific events that took place in their younger years 20 plus years ago.

Okay, so that didn't really answer my question because we offered no plea bargain to you. So that we capture more and bring and I get to my understanding that was not accepted. So as far as law enforcement and when they coming through the system, what's going on?

I got it. Let me try to answer the question. So here's the deal. Unlike some crimes where you're bloodied and battered, right? And you're like, okay, she got raped, she's got blood all over her, she's ripped open, whatever. With human trafficking of a minor, you don't need to be bloodied and battered.

That's true.

The coercion is psychological true. So the 15 to life section that you referred to, that's when the gun is in your mouth or we had a case where the aerosol can was in your vagina and the curling iron was on your arm and the tattoo was on your forehead where it's screaming violence and torture, and you were literally ripped out of your parents' home and kept for two years. And this was done to you, okay?

So that's the 15 to life scenario by and large. And we're seeing an uptick of it right now because the traffickers are getting so brazen, because the law has no teeth. The kidnapping of young black and brown women has been on the rise. There was an article, I don't know what paper it was because I get my news on my telephone these days, but it's on the rise.

So what law we're dealing with, isn't that 236.1 C2, it's 236.1 C1, which is 5, 8, or 12. That's the trafficking of a minor. And what we're trying to tell this esteemed Committee is that under the current landscape, those are at not just half time anymore, but less than half time because of the CDC, the California Department of Correction regs, which reduces it by roughly a third. So it's less than that. Now, to your point, I don't know if I answered your question.

You're answering the problem of CDCR letting people out too early, which is a concern, which is a very valid concern. But if someone serves 12 years.

Sorry.

If they serve 12 years like they're supposed to, and if they're not rehabilitated, but we're letting them out, that is a real problem, especially if it's way less than 12 years. So I'm saying that I hear you.

The laws also changed in order to do the 12 years. That's an aggravated term on the triad of five, eight, or 12. And you have to justify the aggravated term. And so I said, it's like having an eagle land in your backyard. Like, I'm psyched if I see a redtail hawk, right, that's a good day. But I haven't had an American eagle land in my backyard. So getting 12 years on a human trafficking case where the young girl is 14 and trauma bonded.

It just doesn't usually happen. So you're looking at five or eight. So let's just divide that by two. And I'm mathematically impaired, but I can do that. So that's two and a half or four. And then you've got the CDC reg, so it's less. Now. Recognize that organized crime is in it. Gangs are in it, because as you heard from our witness, they can do it over and over again. So recognize also that this is a huge money maker. These girls are ATM machines.

So we're charging the C1s and they're rolling the dice. We're charging them. We're doing our job. We're charging those cases. Not just Alameda County, but all the DAs across are charging them. But it's very hard to have it stick. And the traffickers know that because they're trauma bonded. It's a Stockholm syndrome.

Thank you, Senator Grove. You've alerted me to something that we really need to look at how quickly offenders are getting out. So maybe you and I can work on that together.

And this would change it because it would be at a different percentage rate.

This is three strikes. Three strikes is a whole nother discussion. So we're talking about people getting out that should never get out early because of what they did. And I think that's a very valid point. If they're not rehabilitated, they should not get out. I believe that's one of your tenants in what you're moving forward.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would love to have your aye vote to continue the conversation because I know you have the power to pull the Bill back to this Committee if I don't do what I commit to do.

I don't know if I have that kind of power, but okay. You may close.

Thank you, colleagues. The dictionary defines slavery as a condition in which a human being is owned by another. A slave was considered by law, property, chattel, and derived of most rights ordinarily held by a free person. Human trafficking is modern slavery. My witness, Odessa Perkins, is sitting here today representing the millions of victims of modern day slavery. Trafficked victims are owned by other people. They're derived of most rights that all of us hold dear. They are considered property.

You can see even by some of the tattoos and abusers demonstrate ownership. They have sex trafficking tattoos. We have a board which I apologize, I did not bring up here. I don't know if it's even readily available, but we have several pictures of young women with tattoos, branding barcodes on their face that are as young as 12 years old. And that's so the trafficker, the owner of that property can keep track of them.

I urge you to listen to the experts in the field and listen to the men and women and children that have been trafficked to law enforcement officers. The 70 Coalition team, nonprofits and organizations that came here today to support this Bill. I don't think any one of you on this dais thinks that human trafficking of a minor should not be a serious crime and have a serious offense applied to it. Again, the only time it's applied is in the second or third offense.

So it's not like we're taking somebody who made a mistake, who didn't understand the law and locking them up for a longer period of time. They have to reoffend in the same sector of human trafficking of a minor. When this Bill started out, it covered labor trafficking because in San Bernardino, County, they arrested the sheriff out there in the Marijuana grows. Illegal Marijuana grows. They rescued over 100 mom individuals that had been forced into labor camps right here in the State of California.

And it also included everybody, zero to whatever age. If you were an individual being forced into labor in a Beverly Hills mansion and you were deprived of your rights as a human being, or it included individuals like Jenna Mckay, who has not been able to have her testimony be heard today, but has spoken in other Committee hearings where she wasn't beaten or threatened or kidnapped. She thought what she thought was fell in love. She fell in love.

She was in a four star college down in Southern California, wooed away from that environment, and took to Vegas and gang raped and then sold by what she thought was her boyfriend. So I can tell you that I urge you to listen to the experts. God's children are not for sale. We amended the Bill in public safety on the Senate side to only include minors zero to 17, thinking that once we got to the Assembly, zero to 17.

To not have a serious felony would be so easy to get out of this Committee. And I'm sad to hear that I was wrong. I can tell you that when this Bill passed the Senate, it had co authors, both Democrat and Republican. It has 20 Assembly Member co authors, Democrat and Republican. It has two Democrat joint authors. And it received no no votes. And I did not get one abstention.

Every California State Senator, both in public safety and on the Senate Floor, voted aye for this Bill because it addresses an issue that is very serious in the State of California. So I just ask for you to consider that. And I want to make a comment on Miss Grayson. It's been my privilege and my honor to get to know her. She is right listening to her story, she has never been recognized as a victim. And what a horrible injustice to lock her up in prison.

For 17 years, she endured some of the same horrific events that my witnesses and those survivors that are here in this room came to testify. When I approached Miss Grayson this morning, she told me that this is one of the hardest things she's ever had to do was to stand up and say and oppose a human trafficking bill. What's sad about this whole situation is that no one has ever offered her healing or recognized her as a victim.

I recognize her as a victim of human trafficking, a victim of the criminal justice system. But her story is very far and few between. Because of the criminal justice system reforms that we have today in our system. Ms. Grayson, someone like Ms. Grayson under the Heat Unit, they have not prosecuted anyone like Ms. Grayson in almost 15 years.

That injustice that happened to Ms. Grayson and that is still happening to her, I feel like today is 20 years ago, 17 years in prison, and then also as a human trafficking survivor. She did those things. There's no doubt in my mind. She did those things because she was forced to, or it was a survival mechanism. And then to sit next to your human trafficker in a courtroom while they punished you is a complete injustice.

The laws have changed, and we're making sure that that never happens to another individual. And so I just respectfully ask for the continuation of this Bill to go forward. Let's work on this to make it better. It still has to go through appropriations and on the Assembly floor. We have time to amend this Bill. We have time to make sure that there are precautionary things in place. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote, and I just want to make sure we acknowledge both of your witnesses.

Thank you.

It is extremely difficult to come and lay bare everything that has happened to you. The Committee as a whole very sorry for what what you went through was not right, never will be right. And you are commended for being here. And then we have witnesses on the other side that also have gone through kind of the same, and that's what makes things hard. And both of you have very powerful, tearful testimony that makes it really difficult for the Committee as a whole to make decisions.

One of the things I can offer, whether it moves forward or even if it doesn't make it out of here, if it doesn't make it out of here, you ask for reconsideration. If it goes to the other side, I don't want to pull it back. I want to be able to make sure it's right before it leaves here. I think there's a lane that we can get to. You and I have not discussed this one on one. That's one thing.

The author and I have not discussed it and come up with opportunities to move this forward in a way that works for not only the majority of Members of the Committee, but we'll be able to make sure that the three strikes law doesn't become a problem in the community that I represent and a lot of Members on this Committee represents.

I appreciate your comments, sir.

I did reach out to you. But I also want to make sure you understand. I get where you're coming from and I don't think you realize you may have also opened up a can of worms when it comes to people getting out sooner than they should that maybe you and I can also work on. Or maybe this Bill is the one that we can work on.

And if it doesn't reconsideration, it could start I know people don't understand it could still start at the beginning of the year if it doesn't make it out of here. But we're going to have to work really, really--I'm going to add two more reallys on this--hard to get it to where we can move forward.

I appreciate the chair's comment. Thank you, sir, may I say something?

I'm sorry, we're done. Thank you. But again, thank you for commenting.

Yes, call the roll

On SB 14 by Senator Grove, the motion is do pass to the Appropriations Committee. Joans-Sawyer.

So I was and no, I'm now not voting. So we're moving in the right direction.

Joan Sawyer. Not voting. Alanis? Bonta? Bryan? Not voting. Bryan, not voting. Lackey? Proudly aye. Lackey, aye. Ortega? Not voting. Ortega, not voting. Santiago? Zbur? Not voting. Zbur, not voting.

So you're asking for reconsideration?

Yes, sir.

You have to say it.

For reconsideration, sir.

That Bill fails. Reconsideration is granted unanimously.

Thank you, sir.

Move the Bill. Move.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair

Chair Members here today to present SB 485. I first like to thank the chair and Committee staff for their work on this Bill. We will be accepting the Committee's amendments today. This Bill clarifies the definition of an election worker and a voter in existing code to better protect those facilitating and participating in an election from intimidation. There's been an unprecedented increase in attention to elections over the last several years and election officials must now contend with overwhelming amount of misinformation, in part due to social media.

And the result the democratic divide has widened and mistrust has been sowed in our election system both nationwide and here in California. In several counties, we have examples of harassment. The Registrars of Voters, voters and poll workers have been accosted, threatened, and subjected to racial slurs and for election workers, concerns for their personal safety and the well being of their families have prompted some individuals to leave the election profession entirely, which is a tremendous loss to our state.

Existing law makes it a felony to interfere with the officers conducting an election or canvas or voters exercising their right to vote. This Bill would clarify that the protections under this law apply to other groups that are at risk for harassment, namely temporary election workers and remote voters. Democracy depends on our fair election system. It's our job to protect those administering elections and those exercising their right to vote. And with me I have Eric Garris. The Deputy Secretary of Legislative and Constituent Affairs with the Secretary of State.

Yes. Morning, Mr. Chair. Members, Eric Garris, Deputy of Legislative and Constituent Affairs, on behalf of Secretary of State Dr. Shirley M. Weber. First want to extend the gratitude of the Secretary to the Chair, Senator Becker, and staff for working with us on coming up with amendments that more appropriately address the subject that we're trying to address today.

SB 485 is necessary to provide for the safety of election officials and other key election workers by expanding the definition of an election officer to all individuals involved in election proceedings. Intimidation towards workers and voters include physical assaults, blocking, dropboxes, verbal and online threats, and planned disruptive actions via social media, which have been partially coordinated through online forums. Frequent violence and threats have resulted in nationwide shortages of election workers as they fear for their safety.

It is crucial to address the challenges posed by misinformation, electoral manipulation, and threats to the integrity of elections. Again, on behalf of the Secretary, I'd like to thank you for your support.

Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in support? Seeing none. Are there witnesses in opposition? This could go fast. Seeing none. Bring it back to Committee for comments. Mr. Bryan. It's been moved and second. You may close.

Chair is recommending aye call the roll.

On SB 485 by Senator Becker. The motion is due pass as amended to the Appropriations Committee. Jones-Sawyer aye. Alanis. Bonta. Bryan aye. Lackey not voting. Ortega aye. Santiago. Zbur aye.

Measures on call, needs one more. Thank you very much. We're looking for Skinner, Smallwood-Cuevas and Bradford finishing up. Ochoa Bogh and Rubio.

Senators. Bradford, Skinner, Ochoa Bogh, Rubio, Smallwood-Cuevas. If you are watching this well, you are more than welcome to come to the hearing.

Thank you. On behalf of Senator Bradford. Mr. Chair and Members, SB 449 is a straightforward measure which provides technical cleanup to our state's police decertification system. Necessary changes have been identified to better clarify legislative intent and protect sensitive information regarding ongoing investigations. These changes were made in collaboration with the Post Commission and allow the Commission to better implement and administer the decertification process. Milk and.

What part are we on?

We are on the part where you ask if there are any primary witnesses, which there are none.

Are there any witnesses in support of SB 449 seeing? I'm going to say again, are any witnesses in the room for SB 449 seeing? None. Are there anybody in opposition to 449? Any opposition to 449? Wow, this is going to go pretty good. Seeing none. We'll bring it back to Committee for any comments. Questions? I have a comment. Yes.

There's finally a Bradley Bill I can support.

Looks like you got bipartisan this time.

Bond to Bill by proxy. I don't know. Mr. Lackey. Thank you.

You may close.

I respectfully request your aye vote.

Chair's recommend the aye. Let's call the roll

On SB 449 by Senator Bradford. The motion is do pass to the Appropriations Committee. Jones-Sawyer aye. Alanis aye. Bonta aye. Bryan aye. Lackey aye. Ortega aye. Santiago. Zbur.

That measure passes. Were there any more Bradford bills?

Okay. And he'll present that one. Anybody seen Ms. Skinner? Senator Skinner? Hi. You may approach. And you have two items. Item number four, SB 88 Skinner and item number seven, SB 345 Skinner and you have the thank you. You start whichever one you want to start with.

I ran I'll start with SB 345. Okay.

Okay.

Sorry. I'm getting my glasses. SB 345. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Members, I'm pleased to present this Bill which will help California continue its very strong leadership in making this state a state where we respect people's medical right to pursue an abortion or to pursue gender affirming care.

What the Bill does is recognize that those two portions of care can be done through a prescription regime, a drug regime, and that thus, you, the patient, may be in another part of the country and your Doctor may be based here, your healthcare provider.

And this provides the protections that our healthcare providers need to be able to provide that care, which is legal in California and medically approved, without there having a circumstance where some other state tries to remove their license or take other punitive action against them. Now, of course, California law cannot protect any healthcare provider should they go personally and travel to another state.

We can only do our best for our patients and providers while they are within our geographic location, but otherwise, it provides every protection that our healthcare providers need. Which is why so many associations and the medical board itself, meaning healthcare provider associations and the medical board itself, is in support of the Bill. And as I referenced when I opened, this deals with both gender affirming care, which we know many states are now criminalizing and abortion care.

And with that, I'd like to turn to my witnesses and they are Craig Pulsipher from Equality California and Elena Chavez from Training Teach the organization Teach.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Craig Pulsipher on behalf of Equality, California proud co sponsor of SB 345. As you all know well, we're currently witnessing unprecedented attacks on abortion and gender affirming care across the country. Most abortions are now banned in at least 14 states, and laws banning gender affirming care for Trans youth have been enacted in 20 states.

Even more alarming, multiple states are now considering and passing laws classifying the provision of abortion and gender affirming care as a crime, warranting prison time, and even threatening residents with criminal penalties if they attempt to travel to another state to secure an abortion or provide gender affirming care for their child. Many families in these states are now facing agonizing decisions about whether to relocate or travel out of state for health care that is backed by every major medical Association in the country.

SB 345 will strengthen California's safe haven laws by adding additional protections for people who come to California seeking refuge from states with these draconian laws. Specifically, the Bill will bar bail agents and bounty hunters from apprehending people in California who face criminal prosecution by another state related to abortion or gender affirming care. The Bill will also provide greater legal protections for healthcare providers that provide or dispense medication or other services for abortion or gender affirming care, regardless of their patient's geographic location.

For example, under the Bill, a California based pharmacy will be able to ship medication to another state and both the provider and the pharmacy would receive protections as long as they are in California from criminal and civil actions initiated in another state. While attacks on reproductive health care and the LGBTQ community are certainly not new, we are now witnessing growing efforts to use legislation, policy and rhetoric to restrict or eliminate the bodily autonomy of millions of people across the country.

California has a duty and an obligation to stand up to these attacks and protect access to essential and medically necessary health care. We are grateful to the Senator for bringing this Bill forward and respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you. Yes.

Good afternoon, Chair Jones-Sawyer and the Members of the Committee. My name is Elena Chavez and I am the program manager of Teach, which stands for Training and Early Abortion for Comprehensive Healthcare. Proud to co sponsor of Senate Bill 345. It has been an honor to work closely with Senator Skinner and her staff to create a much leaded legal protections for our healthcare providers.

For 20 years, our organization has made sure that Clinicians obtain the necessary abortion training and mentorship they need to provide comprehensive sexual and reproductive health care. Yet training to provide safe and evidencebased care is no longer enough in this post row landscape where there are novel threats to our graduates and existing providers who provide these basic services. Laws in hostile anti abortion states threaten, intimidate and even criminalize medical professionals who offer these services. Even in states where abortion and gender affirming care is legal.

Like California, anti choice legislators want to make it impossible to access abortion and gender affirming care across the country beyond their own state borders. That is precisely their goal. Thus, providers need and deserve to be protected. This is why state provider boards in California, including the Medical Board, the Board of Registered Nursing, the Physician Assistance Board, the Board of Osteopathic Medicine, the Board of Pharmacy, and many other groups of providers and pharmacies, are urging your I vote on this legislation.

I humbly urge you to vote aye on SB 345 so that California has the strongest and most protected reproductive healthcare workforce in the country, capable of caring for any person seeking abortion and gender affirming care. Thank you for your time.

You're welcome. Any other witnesses in support?

Natasha Minsker. Smart Justice California. In support.

Hello, Karen Stout on behalf of Naral Pro Choice California, the California Nurse Midwives Association, and the Black Women for Wellness Action Project. We are all co sponsors on this Bill. And in strong support,

Izzy Swindler with the City and County of San Francisco, in support. Thank you.

Rebecca Gonzales, National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter, in support.

Faith Conley with Weitaman Group on behalf of Valor as well as NextGen California, in strong support.

Kathy Van Osten on behalf of the American Association of University Women, California, in support.

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

Tiffany Mok on behalf of CFT, in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any witnesses in opposition?

There's only one of me. We were hoping to combine the time.

You have the five minutes any way you want, whenever you're ready.

Thank you very much. Good morning. Nicole Pearson, mother, resident attorney and founder of Facts Law Truth Justice, a human and civil rights organization and constitutional law firm. I've been practicing law for almost 20 years now, and I have never seen something so brazenly, illegal and constitutional as SB 345. My heart breaks for California and the future of our country.

The authors of SB 345 claim that this Bill builds upon the very excellent and other protections that we enacted last year by protecting providers who prescribe and dispense medication and care that is legal in California but illegal in other states. However, last year's bills pale in comparison. AB 2223 and SB 1007, for example, invited people into our state to receive otherwise illegal abortions and gender affirming care under the laws and supervision of the boards of the State of California. However, SB 345,

on the other hand, authorizes and incentivizes California providers to prescribe, dispense and provide medication and care in other states and to knowingly practice medicine illegally without any oversight or repercussions, then seek refuge here in the state at taxpayers expense. To be clear, SB. 345 insulates providers from knowingly committing crimes in other states and even malpractice here in California as long as the Doctor was performing an abortion or affirming a child's gender confusion because only the state bans only apply to minors.

I can't believe I even have to say this, to be honest. By the author's own admissions, SB 345 sets out to bar professional discipline and criminal investigations of providers practicing illegal reproductive or gender affirming health care in another state, create a right to sue for any attempted investigations, discipline, or prosecution, permit California courts to ignore the legal orders and laws of other states in violations of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US.

Constitution, declare that interference with the right to gender affirming care is against public policy, bringing us one step to making it another fundamental constitutionally protected right in California, repeal existing laws that prohibit an abortion on an unemancipated minor unless she receives written consent from one of her parents and to expand the exception to murder to include a pregnant person who commits the act herself and more. On its face, the Bill violates the full Faith and Credit clause.

Rico laws, mail Fraud laws, insurance code, business and Professions code, penal code, health and Safety Code. More importantly, while the authors are so preoccupied with providing as many illegal abortions and transitions as possible to people in other states, they are endangering Californians who now be at risk of receiving negligent care from a provider who cannot be subject to scrutiny if he or she provides abortions or gender affirming services. Let me repeat myself.

SB 345 incentivizes providers to provide, or simply to claim that they provide abortion and gender affirming care services in order to avail themselves of the 345s, protections from investigation, discipline, or suit. Proponents scoff at this suggestion, as Ms. Skinner just did, and as they did with AB 2223 and SB 1007. But who will investigate an abortion or gender affirming care provider when facing the threat of litigation that they will pay for?

When you were sworn into office, all of you, including the authors you promised to support and defend the Constitution of California and the United States of America to bear true faith and allegiance to these Constitutions and to well and faithfully and lawfully discharge your duties to protect California residents.

Yet I am reading a Bill that eviscerates these founding principles in both of our Constitutions while simultaneously sanctioning and protecting known criminal activity in other states, creating the separate superior State of California rather than the United States of America. This is the problem with incremental bills such as 345, and the ones that came before it. Once you legalize one violation of the Constitution after another after another, pretty soon you are left with no Constitution at all. Is that the plan? Please, I respectfully ask for your no vote on SB 345. It's what you swore and promised us you would do. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in opposition?

David Bolog, on behalf of the San Fernando Valley Alliance. And Take a Stand Stanislaus in opposition.

Mrs. G, mother of three, and I oppose this Bill.

Thank you, ma'am.

Nicole Young in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am.

I was late for support, but Molly Robson with Planned Parenthood affiliates of California in support. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Are there any other witnesses in opposition? We'll bring it back to Committee Members for comments or questions. Ms. Bonta?

I want to thank the author for bringing forward this Bill. I do solemnly swear and I did take an oath to protect and preserve the Constitution of the State of California. In California, abortion is legal. Thank you. Thank you for bringing this forward.

Any other questions, comments? You may close, Ms. Skinner.

Thank you very much. Mr. Chair, I'm sure this is a debate that could go on for a long time, but I don't see the need, because I do respect that positions on such an issue are strongly held by those who hold them. But I wanted to affirm the comment by your Member, by our Assembly Member Bonta, that this Bill does not violate our Constitution. And with that, I ask for your aye vote, thank you. Our constitution or the US. Constitution.

Thank you. And thank Ms. Bonta for her comment, because that also clarified it for me, as Chair is recommending an aye vote second, that this does not violate the US Constitution or the California Constitution.

On SB 345 by Senator Skinner. The motion is do pass to the Appropriations Committee. Jones-Sawyer aye. Alanis. Bonta aye. Bryan aye. Lackey no. Ortega aye. Santiago aye. Zbur.

The measure passes. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chair.

From now, SB 88. Skinner: pupil transportation driver qualification.

Yes. Thank you. I'm Chair, pleased to present SB 88 and want to open. With that, I will be taking the Committee's amendments, which are allowing off duty cannabis use, as cannabis is legal in our state, unless state or federal law otherwise prohibits it, or if it affects federal funding. And also in the section on mandated reporting, it's no longer going to be relevant because in the Education Committee, I am removing the mandated reporting requirement.

And while these are not amendments that public safety is requesting, there are a number, a very significant number of amendments that I am taking in the Ed Committee tomorrow that deal with much of the opposition's issues with the Bill. And I'm happy to go through those if any Members of the Committee would like me to. I can list those.

But let me say that with those amendments that will be taken tomorrow in education, there are exemptions for parents, guardians, resource families and relatives, even if they are compensated to drive a child so they would not be subject to this. There are also exemptions for foster family agencies, the social services entities, and the others related to the transport of foster our foster youth.

There's also different changes to, for example, the drug testing requirements and a variety of other things that will all be taken in the Ed Committee. And the purpose of the Bill is that California, up until just the previous budget year, we due to school funding and I say this without blame to our school districts we were dead last in the country in terms of providing home to school transportation.

But we are now providing additional funding to our schools both totally in Prop 98 and also specifically for home to school transportation in the hopes to increase the number of kids who are driven. And there is some mandates on the districts not to provide 100%, by no means, but to increase the amount of transportation they are providing to students.

Now, what the Bill does is tries to ensure its objective and its goal is to ensure that when kids are being driven and they are compensated, the driver is being compensated by a lea by a local education authority that the safety standards are in place. And that's the purpose of the Bill, it does not require every ride to be in a bus or to be done by a bus driver. It allows for contracting out. It allows for a whole variety of circumstances.

It just puts some safety requirements. So with that, I would like to have my witnesses in support. I have Anna Borges from the Department of Education, and I also have Emily Keeran, who is the lead school bus instructor for Santa Rosa, California.

Five minutes total.

Good morning, Mr. Chair or good afternoon at this point. Excuse me. And Members of the Committee. My name is Anna Borges. I am the supervising transportation programs consultant for the California Department of Education's Office of School Transportation. On behalf of the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, we are here in support of Senate Bill 88. School bus drivers provide an important service to our pupils and their families.

They ensure the safe transportation of pupils between home and school, which is the first step in educating our students. Because of this safety responsibility, school bus drivers and school buses have strict oversight by the California Department of Education, Department of Motor Vehicles, and the California Highway Patrol as it ensures the proper training and checks are in place to transport students safely.

In recent years, some local education agencies have entered into multi year contracts with app-based companies known as Transportation Network companies to perform home to school transportation and other pupil transportation services. The Public Utilities Commission does not regulate transportation network companies when the transportation of pupils is due to our base or a contract entered with the governing board of a school district pursuant to the Education Code.

Due to this unregulated space, transportation network companies and their drivers neither fall under the rules and regulations of the Public Utilities Commission, the State Department of Education, the Department of Motor Vehicles, or the California Highway Patrol when performing the job and duties that until recently have only been performed by school bus drivers.

This Bill would place various important safety requirements upon a driver who provides transportation services for pupils, including, among others, by requiring the drivers to receive some training to actually drug and alcohol testing for certain areas, be trained on the proper procedures of loading and unloading and vital information for the safe transportation of our students. This Bill would also require any vehicle used in the pupil transportation for compensation by an LAA to be inspected, as well as be equipped with first aid kit and a fire extinguisher.

This Bill would authorize the agency to inquire whether or not the Transportation network company has had any type of violations. Is defined at the time of applying for the contract, that it will remain in compliance and applicable laws is defined for the duration of the contract and that it will retain direct control over the manner and means for performance of any individual driver during duration of the contract. We ask for your aye vote today in support of Senate Bill 88. Thank you. Okay.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. My name is Emily Keeran and I'm the lead school bus instructor with West County Transportation Agency in Santa Rosa. I started my career as a school bus driver in 2006. I became a school bus instructor in January 2019, and now I lead our training Department. Since becoming an instructor, I've trained a total of 40 school bus drivers.

Like many school districts, my agency is also combined with the workforce crisis which has necessitated the use of TNC drivers to transport our students. They are doing the same work alongside my school bus drivers who I have trained through a rigorous program. Yet they don't have to meet any of the requirements or qualifications that my school bus drivers do.

How does that make sense when we are essentially doing the same job in the interest of time, only touch upon a few of the things that school bus drivers must go through. We must pass a preemployment drug screening, take a minimum of 20 hours.

Classroom instruction consisting of nearly 600 pages of rules, regulations, defensive driving and pupil management must complete a minimum of 20 hours behind the wheel with an instructor, be fingerprinted and take a written test with the California Highway Patrol, and then take our final drive test with the California Highway Patrol. We have to take that same pretrip and drive test every five years to retain our school bus certificate. School bus drivers are placed into a pull notice program where any and all infractions are reported.

Various infractions or offenses are a cause for the DMV to cancel, suspend or revoke a school bus certificate. All school bus drivers are also placed in a Dot random Drug and alcohol testing program. School bus drivers are restricted to a zero tolerance alcohol level where any detectable amount of alcohol in their system will place them out of service for 24 hours and officially at DOI 4% for commercial drivers.

TNC drivers are not regulated at a zero tolerance level and could potentially be driving students with a significant amount of alcohol in their system. Being placed into a random drug and alcohol testing system would help prevent such things from happening. I have been in this field for 17 years. The pay is little, the hours are horrible, but I really care about ensuring our students are transported safely.

I firmly believe that the best and safest option is to always have a student riding in a yellow school bus. But if we are to allow our students to be transported in passenger vehicles, we should make sure that the drivers and the vehicles are safe. For these reasons, I urge you to support SB 88. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in support?

Xong Lor with the California School Employees Association. We're the proud sponsors of this Bill. And just for the record, I want to correct, unfortunately there was a little miscommunication. We have agreed to take out the direct control language in the Bill, so that will be taken out in Assembly education.

Scott Brent with the California State Legislative Board for smart transportation division. We are proud co sponsors of the Bill and we support it. Thank you.

Alia Griffing with the American Federation of State County Municipal Employees, also a co sponsor and urge your support.

Megan Adams, Smart Transportation Local 1741, representing both school bus drivers and non commercial drivers in San Francisco.

Thank you.

Tiffany Mok on behalf of CFT. Proud to co sponsor and urge your support. Thank you. Thank you.

Are there any witnesses in opposition? Both have five minutes total. Whenever you're ready.

Good afternoon, Chair and Committee Members. My name is Ana Sosa. I'm an 18 year old non minor dependent in extended foster care and a proud Member of California Youth Connection. I am here on behalf of youth impacted by California's foster care system and a broad coalition opposing Senate Bill 88 unless amended, which can have a harmful impact on school stability for foster youth.

I grew up in and out of the foster care system since the age of eight months, and abrupt changes were a constant theme in my life. I was placed in multiple homes and institutions that separated me from my family, loved ones and my community. Placement. Instability is an unfortunate reality for many youth in foster care and has an impact on every aspect of a youth's life, including their education.

The state Legislature recognized the benefit of school stability when it passed Assembly Bill 490 in 2003, a law that gave youth in foster care the right to remain in their school of origin even when placed out of the school district. The importance of school stability was also recognized by Congress with the passage of the Fostering Connections to Success Act in 2008 and the Every Student Succeeds Act in 2015, which created a federal right for all children in foster care to remain in their school of origin.

For the first half of my high school year, I attended DA Vinci Rise High in South Central Los Angeles, a charter school built specifically towards educating youth in both the foster care system and juvenile justice system. Although I was moving through multiple foster care placements, I was able to attend school through the transportation services like Hopskip Drive, which allowed me to keep the same school educational relationships and friends while I was in care.

More than half of my peers used this transportation to get to and from school, and as a result of being provided this great resource, my one to two hour bus drive chinned into a 20 minutes car drive, which was also safe as well. However, the pandemic hit and everyone was forced to attend school virtually. I had the opportunity to be placed with my older brother in Sacramento County and finish my high school experience here.

Senate Bill 88 will not only impact organizations that provide transportation services for specialized populations in school districts, but this Bill will negatively impact caregivers and adults in a young person's life that provides transportation services for youth in foster care. We all know the negative outcomes in education for youth in foster care system. I was told many times that I wouldn't graduate or be a productive Member of society and that I would just be another statistic, but I am here in front of you.

I graduated from C.K. McClatchy High School, which is down the street from here. The system wasn't designed for me to be here, but with the support of accessing my school of origin and being able to stay with my lifelong connections, I was able to make my own destiny and break the status quo that is put on youth in foster care. With that, we urge your no vote on Senate Bill 88 unless amended. Thank you.

Thank you.

My name is Joanna McFarland and I am the co founder and CEO of HopSkipDrive. HopSkipDrive is a transportation network company that works with over 300 LEAs in about 10 counties here in California providing transportation solutions for students in foster care, students who are experiencing homelessness, and students with special needs. Last year, this Bill came before the Assembly Appropriations Committee, and it was concluded that there should be a study done rather than move the Bill forward.

And that study should be on whether or not there is an issue in student transportation, if so, how to improve safety in student transportation, and what the impact of those measures on safety would be. That study never happened, and this Bill is before us again this year. The legislative analysis that was put in front of the Committee corrected an incorrect assertion of this Bill, which is that HopSkipDrive and transportation network companies like HopSkipDrive are not regulated by the Public Utilities Commission.

Transportation network companies are in fact regulated by the Public Utilities Commission, which puts in place all kinds of safety rules and regulations, including when a transportation network company is acting in the services of a contract with a school district. There is no clear need for this Bill. There has been no safety incident or school district asking for this Bill. And that is why the study should be done. We talk about measures like drug testing.

A study could have indicated much safer ways to detect impairment in drivers such as telematics. Telematics like HopSkipDrive uses detects safety in real time and has a 98% accuracy at detecting impairment as opposed to a random drug test, which you have a 0.3% chance of being subject to a random drug test on any given day as a bus driver. And that only tells if you are impaired at that one time that you are subject to that test.

It is argued that there is a funding issue, and the reason that schools use transportation network companies is because there is no funding. This is also incorrect. Other states that have far more--Senator Skinner is correct--that other states have more funding per student for people transportation. But other states, 12 other states that have more funding than the State of California need services like HopSkipDrive because they need multiple tools in their toolkit to get vulnerable students to school. This Bill is not about safety.

As we've seen in many of the exemptions, we've exempted agencies and companies that have direct control over their employees, and we are not exempting private entities that do not have direct control. And so this is not a safety Bill. This is a Bill that isn't a solution in search of a problem, and it will hurt our most vulnerable students. This Bill would prevent thousands of Californian students who need it the most the flexibility and the opportunity to get to school. And for that, we strongly oppose this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in the opposition?

Mr. Chair, Members. Adam Keigwin on behalf of the California Charter Schools Association. We're in opposition but we're looking forward to review the amendments. Thanks.

Megan Baier with the Association of California School Administrators. Just want to thank the author and the sponsors her staff with the amendments being taken today and tomorrow, we will be moving to neutral. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair, Members. Derick Lennox on behalf of the 58 county superintendents of schools. Again like my colleague, appreciate the staff, the author and sponsors working to resolve our issues. Once the amendments are in place, we look forward to removing our opposition and moving to neutral.

Sierra Cook with the San Diego Unified School District currently opposed unless amended. Look forward to reviewing the amendments and removing our opposition. Thank you.

Good morning, Committee chair and Members, I'm Mishaal Gill on behalf of California Association of School Business Officials. We thank the author for taking the amendments and currently we are on opposition, but we are moving forward to being neutral. Thank you.

Jordan Sosa, on behalf of California Youth Connection, appreciate the author presenting amendments and our organization currently in the process of reviewing the language. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Julie McCormick from the Children's Law Center of California. We represent over 30,000 youth in foster care in Los Angeles, Sacramento and placer counties. Our position is currently opposed unless amended. We are very thankful to the author, staff, Committee staff for these amendments. We're in the process of reviewing them and are hopeful that they address many of our concerns and we'll be able to move to a position of neutral.

Thank you.

Caitlin Jung on behalf of the Alameda County Office of Education. We appreciate the author taking the amendments we currently have a position of opposed. We're looking forward to hoping to be able to move that once we be able to see the amendments in print.

Thank you.

Bella Kern with Small School Sistricts Association currently in opposition unless amended. Thank you.

Monique Ramos on behalf of California School Board Association. We currently have an opposed position but would like to thank the author for her work and we'll be reviewing those amendments. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members. Jeff Vaca, representing the Riverside County Superintendent of Schools, also of an opposition but also like speakers before me. With the amendments today and to be taken tomorrow, we anticipate removing our opposition.

Thank you Mr. Chair and Members. Andrea Ball, here for three organizations, the California Association of Suburban School Districts, the Central Valley Education Coalition, and the Orange County Department of Education. Thank the author and the staff working on the amendments we currently oppose, but we will be reviewing the amendments here and in Assembly ed and moving to neutral. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Kyle Hyland on behalf of the Coalition for Adequate Funding for Special Education. We're currently opposed unless amended, but we anticipate that with these amendments we will move to a neutral position once they're taken tomorrow. Thank you.

Sam Nasher with the Los Angeles County Office of Education, currently opposed, but with the amendments, thank you for the amendments. We look to remove our opposition as well. Thank you.

Any other witnesses in opposition? We'll bring it back to Committee for comments. Assemblymember Bonta.

I want to thank the author for taking the time to speak with me earlier this morning about this Bill. Having been on school board and worked with over a dozen school districts, even in the State of California, transportation is absolutely the most challenging issue that school districts face. I do want to just share that I would very much like the author to continue working on this Bill.

I know that you've taken considerable amendments that will go forward for review in the education Committee. My hope is that there are particular issues related to the anomaly of moving children who need to get moved during the day for special education services or for our foster youth, as Ms. Sosa talked about, that all of those options are available to our youth.

Because I would hate for us to be in a position of not, as was stated by the opposition, really being able to use all of the tools in our toolbox, given the fact that we have not fully funded transportation in our school districts. So with that, I will be supporting the Bill with some reservation. We'll look forward to the amendments that you're taking in education Committee and we'll reserve the opportunity to change my vote if things don't get worked out fully.

Thank you. And Mr. Chair, if I may address, I wanted to clarify that in those amendments, for example, any social service agency that is driving that will be taking a child from school to appointment to some service that is required for that student. They are exempt from the provisions of the Bill that's explicit in the amendments that will be taken tomorrow. And the other thing, I wanted to be clear that this Bill does not exclude our LEAs from contracting with TNCs.

It does not, and it does not require TNCs to employ their drivers, but it does put some safety requirements on those on the TNCs. And as to the point about the CPUC regulations, yes, it is absolutely the case that the CPUC does regulate transportation network companies. However, it is explicit in the PUC's regulations. They state that in the area of leapal transportation, it is the lea's jurisdiction for regulating those aspects. So that's explicitly in the PUC's code. So while, yes, they do regulate TNCs, they defer to ed code and to LEAs for the specific purpose of driving pupils for transportation.

Any other questions? Yes, Mr. Lackey. Then back to Ms. Bonta.

Yeah. Senator, can you identify any incidents involving contracted rides provided by third parties that would prompt the requirements set forth in this particular measure? Any failures?

I obviously don't have a full list of where there may have been an incident, but I just wanted to point out again that this Bill does not prevent any Lea from contracting a service and explicitly does not prevent them from contracting with the TNC or others. And of course, we know that local agencies contract with many different entities.

But I would point out that the Education Committee's own analysis does describe and this is independent of who's driving or for what purpose, that it is far safer to be in a school bus if you are a student than in a passenger vehicle. That there is a much higher incident of safety incidents with passenger vehicles. Again, that is without prejudice as to who is driving the passenger vehicle. It is just a straight out statistic of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Well, as you might know, traffic safety has been a longtime focus for me. And I think what we're trying to do is compare apples and oranges. I think they're completely different. And I know that the PUC has a responsibility of regulating safety on these particular vehicles in question. And I don't know why we're second guessing them, because I haven't heard any examples of problems. So I don't see the need for this particular measure.

Ms. Bonta?

I just want to kind of get at one of the things, the challenges, which is I believe what is happening is that the CPUC is focused on contracting with school districts. The reference that you've made when transporting people in school buses, and in this instance, we're talking about individual kind of passenger vehicles. So if there's an opportunity to make sure that there isn't overlap around that particular area . . .

I'm happy to. But the part of the PUC's regulations I was citing are specifically on TNC.

TNCs have the ability to have school buses, and they also have the ability to have individual passenger vehicles, smaller passenger vehicles. And I just want to make sure that that area is specifically covered, because I think that we're kind of dealing in gray space where we don't have that clarification.

Any other comments? You may close.

Thank you. It's clearly been a hotly debated subject, and as we heard from various of our good education entities that with the amendments and they, of course, still need to review them and they're not in print yet, that most all will be removing their opposition. And while that is not the Germane subject before public safety, I think that given the amendments I've agreed to on this Committee, suffice to say I would ask for your I vote.

Thank you. Is there a motion? There a second? And Secretary call the roll.

On SB 88 by Senator Skinner. The motion is due passed to the Education Committee. Jones-Sawyer? Aye. Jones-Sawyer, aye. Alanis? Bonta? Aye. Bonta, aye. Bryan? Lackey? Ortega? Aye. Ortega, aye. Santiago? Zbur?

That measure's on call. The Committee will now adjourn in recess. The Committee is in recess. The Committee is in recess. And we'll reconvene at 1:30 in room 127 across the hall. Thank you.

Assembly Public Safety Committee is now reconvening. It's now 1:30, and we're waiting for senate authors to come to Assembly Public Safety Committee in room 127. Room 127. This is the wrong chair. I guess staff didn't want to take the big chair. Yeah. Ochoa Bogh. Rubio. Bradford. And Portantino. Smallwood-Cuevas. I'm sorry. Smallwood-Cuevas. Not Portantino. We already heard him. So Ochoa Bogh, Bradford, Rubio, Smallwood-Cuevas.

Senator Smallwood-Cuevas. Since you're here, let's begin. Item number 17. SB 749, Smallwood-Cuevas, criminal proceedings, sentencing with an urgency.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and committee members. I am so pleased to present for you SB 749, which will allow counties to use Proposition 47's original, more streamlined process for qualified individuals to file petitions to seek records, reclassification or resentencing that lapsed in November of last year. From 1980 to 2000, the California State prison population grew by 225%, increasing cost to taxpayers and the destabilization of our communities. To restabilize and rebuild, a big part of this process is making sure those reentering their communities with a conviction can do so, able to work and to care for their families. As we all know, a felony conviction can follow an individual and hinder their ability to find gainful employment, stable housing for the rest of their lives, and not be able to contribute to the overall life of their communities. Under Prop 47, more than one million Californians have had the opportunity to reduce old, low-level, nonviolent felonies on their record to misdemeanors, allowing them to move on from their past and to move on with their lives and brighter future for all. However, while Prop 47 offered the most efficient and streamlined mechanism for providing this relief, that process is no longer available to California's formerly incarcerated populations. As of November 4 of 2022, the deadline to use the streamlined Prop 47 process came to an end, and county courts now will be required to make the findings of Good Cause to approve this kind of record relief. And unfortunately, good Cause has no definition, proving that it can require a lengthy hearing process which can differ tremendously across the state and add more burden to an already overburdened court system. While it is unclear that the full ramifications of this change will be as county courts develop new policies to provide relief, one thing is for certain the extra steps needed to make this additional determination will only add time and court costs, which will serve no benefit to the petitioners or to the communities who need our returning citizens to integrate fully. SB 749 restores consistency and efficiency for all stakeholders in the process, including the courts, district attorneys and individuals petitioning the court for relief. This will lead to better outcomes for formerly incarcerated in the communities they live in and help address our county court system. With me today is Anthony Di Martino from Californians for Safety and Justice and Ingrid Archie, who can speak to the benefits of this policy. And I want to before I turn it over to them, just say that. It took decades for California to become one of the nation's largest carceral systems. And the State of California has decided that it's better for us to invest in ensuring that folks can rehabilitate in our communities by addressing the harms of the War on Drugs. Really the war on the poor in our communities and making sure that they have the opportunity to have access to this vital relief through Prop 47. So I will turn it over to Anthony to share his comments. Oh, Archie. Sorry.

Hello. My name is Ingrid Archie. I serve as the time done organizing director for Alliance for Safety and Justice. I was born and raised in LA, and I benefited from Prop 47. Before incarceration, I was unemployed for eight years due to me having an old conviction. Because of Pop 47, I was able to reunite with my children as well as obtain a job because my record no longer held me back. These were immediate results of a law meant to remove barriers for people with low-level felonies so that they could have a shot at a second chance. There are millions of people, 8 million people in California living with an old record, who will have the opportunity, just like I did, to put their lives back together. And that's what safety is. To obtain gainful employment, to obtain housing, to access education, to better themselves. It is important that we not burden the court system, but offer solutions that increase transparency and streamline processes that help and not hinder people from being able to move forward without barriers. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. My name is Anthony Di Martino and I am with Californians for Safety and Justice, the sponsors of this bill and one of the co-sponsors of Proposition 47 from 2014. As you just heard, millions of Californians who have done their time and paid their debts are still being punished by a system that is preventing, not enhancing public safety. As we all know, this is not the first legislative effort to recognize and address the disastrous lifelong implications a criminal conviction triggers on individual freedoms, community stability and public safety all across our state. Our criminal justice system is built upon a number of core beliefs, one of which is that the commitment that when an individual has been convicted of a crime and they served whatever term of incarceration the court imposes, they have earned the right to once again fully participate in our free and open society. Unfortunately, we all know this is very simply not the truth. By all accounts, there are over 4000 legislatively imposed "you can't do's" levied against anyone with the felony conviction on their record. These restrictions virtually, impact virtually every one of their well-known critically important building blocks for long-term stability when a person is released from custody. These restrictions all adversely impact public safety in every community in our state. Allowing people to reduce old, low-level, nonviolent felony convictions to misdemeanors is in the best interest of both public safety and the California economy. The reality is that doing everything we can as a society to effectively facilitate a sustainable, long-term re-entry for everyone who's committed to pursuing that outcome, serves the best interest of all of us, not just those who became involved in the criminal legal system. SB 749 is entirely consistent with the goal of achieving this outcome. This specific component of Prop 47 has worked and resulted in hundreds of thousands of individuals like Miss Archie having another opportunity to move past their old felony convictions. I know Prop 47 is talked about a lot, and you've heard many bills carried by many members of this committee. This piece, along with the savings of Prop 47, does not get talked about enough. Prop 47 has saved the state over $700 million that has been reinvested in trauma recovery centers, which we lead the country in trauma recovery centers in the state, services in communities around mental health and substance abuse as well. And with this piece of legislation, we will continue to give folks the opportunity to petition the court to have their records reduced from a felony, which is misdemeanors now, if you were charged with it, and give opportunity for folks the chance to get back on their feet. We know that you can still apply through good cause, but what we're saying with this bill is, go back to the streamlined process that we've seen thousands of people already use. Courts have already accepted, documents are already readily available for folks to petition, whereas we believe that if the process does not revert back to what we were seeing before 2020 in November, you're going to see a lot of litigation around what does good cause actually look like? We still know there are thousands of people in the state that can benefit from Prop 47 this piece of legislation. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support?

Thank you. Natasha Minsker on behalf of Smart Justice California, Ella Baker Center for Human Rights and Initiate Justice in strong support.

Good afternoon. Mohammed Jamal. Prosecutors Lines of California. Strong support.

Mark Isidro on behalf of the County of Los Angeles in support.

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

Margot George on behalf of California Public Defenders Association in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you. Now, are there any witnesses in opposition? Any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. We'll bring it back to committee members for any questions, comments. Mr. Bryan?

I just want to thank the Senator for bringing this bill and for your witnesses. Your testimony is powerful, as expected in our motion to move the bill.

Anyone else? You may close.

I just want to say thank you all for your support of this bill and for the support of so many of our constituents who need a second chance. And this is the bill that allows our folks to come home, make the contribution they need to make to sustain themselves and their families. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

And I want to thank you too. You're completing something that a lot of us worked on. Very hard to get done. Chair's recommending an aye.

On SB 749 by Senator Smallwood-Cuevas. The motion is due passed to the Appropriations Committee. Jones-Sawyer. Aye. Jones-Sawyer, aye. Alanis. Alanis, not voting. Bonta. Aye. Bonta, aye. Bryan. Aye. Bryan, aye. Lackey. Lackey, not voting. Ortega. Ortega, aye. Santiago. Zbur. Aye. Zbur, aye.

That measure passes. Thank you.

We're now waiting for Ochoa Bogh, Bradford and Rubio. Senator, you may take a seat. You're up next. Thank you for being here. So we're looking at item number five, SB 89. Crime stalking.

Perfect. Wonderful. Thank you. It's a pleasure to be here. I think this is my first Bill in Public Safety in the Assembly, so I think it is I've lost track, but thank you, Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee. Sorry. Just watch, take your time. Stalking is a crime of power and control that causes victims to fear for their safety or the safety of their loved ones, including their innocent pets.

One national Crime Victimization Survey estimates that four in 10 stalkers threaten the victim or the victim's family, friends, coworkers, or family pet. With 87,020 threats to harm a pet being reported, data shows that animal cruelty is an indicator that an individual will commit future violence against a human. For instance, 70% of all human animal abusers have committed at least one other criminal offense, and almost 40% have committed violent crimes against people.

Unfortunately, victims of stalking are unprotected by state law when it comes to their pets, because a stalker can threaten, injure, or even kill a victim's pet without consequence. Under current state law. As the California State Legislature, we have made it our duty to stick up for marginalized communities and be the voice for the voiceless. We have hundreds of thousands of residents who rely on emotional support and service animals, and millions of pet owners in our state who would be heartbroken if they lost their beloved partner.

Stalkers should not be able to threaten abuse of a beloved pet as a means to terrorize or control their victims. SB 89 will merrily update California's antistalking law to include pets which will better protect victims and their pets.

This Bill passed with unanimous bipartisan support in both the Senate Public Safety Committee, which, by the way, is composed of Senator, just for the Record in the public by Senator Bradford from LA, Senator Skinner from Berkeley, Senator Scott Wiener from San Francisco, and Senator Wahab from zero, my goodness, I missed that one. Sorry. Senator Wahab. If this Bill passes this Committee, it will be co-authored by Senators Wahab, Roth, and, Umberg, the last two attorneys. Joining me in support is Deputy District Attorney Nik Peterson from the Riverside County District's Attorney's Office and Nickolaus Sackett from Social Compassion in Legislation.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair Members. I know I only have a couple of minutes, but I wanted to start by okay. I know I can say more things together. Got you. I just want to say thank you. It's a privilege to be here. I'm a complete outsider. This is my second time in Sacramento, and it's been fascinating. So my name is Nikolaus Peterson. I'm a Managing Deputy District Attorney. I've been to the DA's office for 18 years.

And as a theme this morning, I've heard repeatedly about the obligation that we, primarily you as the government, have to protect those who cannot protect themselves. And obviously, public safety is a primary responsibility of the government. And the heart of public safety is that act of protecting those that cannot protect themselves. And that gives me optimism as I stand before you or sit regarding SB 89, because that's exactly what we're here to do. And it's what stalking legislation has always done.

As you may know, stalking legislation as it exists now started in 1989 when actress Rebecca Schaeffer was killed, murdered by a crazed fan. He sent her hundreds of letters, and then he saw her in a movie where she appeared with another man in bed because it was a movie. And in that stage of the obsession, he devalued her. He was outraged that she would do this, came to her home, and shot her.

In the aftermath, Penal Code 646.9 was born and since has saved countless lives, primarily women, but of both genders, and has allowed the law to intervene in the cycle of obsession and devaluation before it results in homicide. However, in those nearly 35 years we've seen, there is a critical gap in this law. It's an omission that leaves vulnerable a group that is truly unable to speak for themselves, which are pets. Primarily cats and dogs, but pets in general.

Some of us are animal lovers and some are not. But I don't need to tell you that for millions of American of Californians, pets are a part of the family. The unconditional love and happy barks from a dog when you get home can erase the stress of a long day. The aloof cat who chooses to curl up in your lap can be a salve for your soul.

And that's exactly the reason that stalkers frequently harm, threaten, even kill pets that mean so much the target of their obsession. If I had more time, I could tell you about Sonia from my county, whose dog, Junior, was literally taken hostage by her stalker. Or Brianna, whose stalker stole her cat, Wally, to coerce her into meeting at a local park where she found Wally dead.

In both of these cases, and in so many others, the target is the place where the stalker can hit with the most impact. The threats against the animals are not protected. They're not legally stalking because the pets are not immediate human family Members. Now, obviously, the pets can't speak for themselves. And so I stand before you, and I urge you to correct the shortfall in the law to protect those who cannot protect themselves. And make no mistake, you are also saving human lives.

Ample research exists to demonstrate a connection between violence towards animals and future violence to include homicidal violence against humans. This legislation is meant to disrupt the cycle of obsession, devaluation, and violence before it reaches the level of homicide. Thank you.

Hello, Chair, Members. I'm Nickolaus Sackett, Director at Social Compassion in Legislation. We all know how much our animals mean to us. Year in and year out, this body debates on dozens of bills to protect animals because Californians care that affection, that bond we make with our pets, is part of our cultural fabric.

But for our own pet, the one we care for day in and day out, who greets us at the door when we arrive home, our best friend, our care and concern for that animal is particularly intense and is backed up by the data of Americans who own a pet. Nearly all of them, 97%, say their pets are part of their family. This is according to a recent Pew Research Center survey published earlier this year.

57% of women pet owners say their pets are just as much as part of their family. As a human member, this is compared to 43% of men. That number goes up to 64%. When looking at those pet owners with lower family incomes, I know to some this might seem glib, but I assure you it is not. And the number of numbers show us that the bonds between people and their pets are deep and threats against them are real and traumatic. SB 89 reflects that reality. And for that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Any other witnesses in support? Any witnesses in support? Any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none, we'll bring it back to Committee Members for comments or questions.

Thank you to the author for bringing this forward. I do have just a couple of clarifying questions. My understanding is that there are several aspects of existing law that already cover this scenario that we're talking about. The first is that domestic violence orders already do cover pets, so would love for you to be able to speak to that. And secondly, we do have animal cruelty laws in place. So given the fact that this would essentially create a new law, why do we need that?

Yeah, those are great questions. Thank you very much. So protective orders can apply to domiciles, they can apply to the animals. But the violation of a protective order is a whole different crime. That's not the same as stalking. But this needs to be recognized for what it is, because holding stalkers accountable for their conduct is what we need to disrupt that cycle of violence, not mere restraining orders. Restraining orders are issued in numerous stalking cases and are very rarely complied with, and so the restraining order as a recourse against stalking behavior is just not realistic.

But it is the recourse that we have available to us to ensure that we're protecting humans currently.

It is a resource. Yes, ma'am. But we also have convictions for violations of the law. So what this is, is recognizing that threats against animals is in fact, a species of stalking behavior. That's all that it is.

Okay. Any other questions? You may close.

Thank you. We must ensure that victims of stalking and their pets are not left vulnerable to threats and attacks, both physically, psychologically. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. And I think, for me, kind of the same. The existing laws are they not being used effectively and efficiently, and to make sure that we protect not only the human, but the pets. I think that is extremely important, especially if it's a service animal. And there are Members of this Committee that are very sensitive to people in their service animals that are on here.

If we could find some case law or something that shows that law enforcement is not acting on that, or it's not being used, that would be really helpful. Would have been helpful for me if we had that discussion earlier. We need a motion. Okay.

Call on SB 89 by Senator Ochoa Bogue. The motion is due, passed to the Appropriations Committee. Jones-Sawyer. Jones-Sawyer. Not voting. Alanis. Alanis aye. Bonta Bonta. Not voting. Bryan. Bryan aye. Lackey. Lackey aye. Ortega. Ortega. Not voting. Santiago Zbur. Zbur. Not voting.

That measure failed. Would you like to ask for reconsideration? Yes, please, if there's no objection, by unanimous consent. And I would love to work with you on that.

Wonderful.

Thank you. Now we're waiting for Ms. Rubio and Mr. Bradford. Sure. Let's at least go back to the items we took. Testimony.

On Item 13, SB 519 by Senator Atkins. This was for testimony only, so we need a motion, please. Second. On SB 519 by Senator Atkins. The motion is due passed as amended to the Appropriations Committee. Joan Sawyer. Aye. Alanis, No. Bonta, Aye. Bryan, Aye. Lackey, No.

Lackey, No. Ortega, Aye. Santiago. ZBur, Aye That measure passes.

On item 14, SB 596 by Senator Portantino. This was for testimony only, so we need a motion, please, on SB five, 96 by Senator Porntino. The motion is due passed to the Appropriations Committee. Joan Sawyer, Not voting. Alanis, Aye. Bonta, Aye. Bryan, Not Voting. Lackey, Not Voting. Ortega, Aye. Santiago. ZBur, Aye

Measures on call needs one more sure.

On SB 596. Portantino. Bryan, not voting to Aye. To that measure now passes.

The measure now passes.

On SB two, 219 by Mr. Sayarta. This was for testimony only earlier. We need a motion, please. SB 19. Mr. Yes. Second.

Yes. All on SB 19 by Senator Seyarto. The motion is due passed to the Appropriations Committee. Jones Sawyer, Aye. Alanis, Aye. Bonta, Aye. Bryan, Aye. Lackey, Aye. Ortega, Aye. Santiago. ZBur, Aye. That measure passes. Do you want me to start going through other measures?

Sure. Get as many done as possible while we're waiting.

On the consent calendar. Alanis, aye Bonta. Aye Santiago. Item number one SB 14 by Senator Grove. Alanis, Aye. Bonta not voting. And Mr. Santiago's vote is still pending on reconsideration.Alanis aye. Bonta aye. Item number 3, SB 50 by Senator Bradford. Alanis, no. Item number 4 SB 88 by Senator Skinner. This measure was on call. Alanis, No. Bryan, Aye, Lackey, No. Santiago. ZBur, Aye. That measure passes.

That measure passes.

Item number 7SB 345 by Senator Skinner. Alanis. SB 345. Item number seven by Senator Skinner. Alanis, Not Voting. ZBur, Aye. Number 8 is still pending. Item number 10 SB 449 by Senator Bradford. Zbur, Aye/ Item number 11 SB 485 by Senator Becker. Alanis. Excuse me this measure was on call. Alanis, no. Bonta, Aye. And Santiago. That measure now passes.

That measure now passes. Becker. Item number 16, SB 690. Rubio. Domestic violene.

Thank you. Thank you so very much. I know it's probably the last one you're going to hear, so first of all, thank you so much for having me. I'm proud to present SB 690, which built off of some of the work that I've done in the past for victims of domestic violence. This one will give additional time for victims to heal from their trauma before reporting domestic violence. The Bill will extend the statute of limitations to 15 years.

This Bill is critically important, as it takes an average of eight to 10 years for victims to get over their trauma, be able to seek therapy, heal, and have the courage to speak up. And sometimes it's even longer, depending on the length of the relationship. The number one reason that victims fight for not coming forward sooner is the fear for their children. The fear that they're going to be harmed.

So they wait until their children are either older or out of the house before they have the courage to come forward. A clear example of how children are impacted. Yesterday, I spent the day with Ileana. Ileana lost her three little girls last year here in Sacramento. Her abuser shot them to death. And she did what we're asking her to do, to come forward quickly. She did that. She left the relationship.

And yet she no longer has her little girls because she came forward, I would say too soon. And everyone has different circumstances, and it really depends on when everyone's ready, when everyone feels that the kids themselves, their surrounding, they're safe to come forward and tell the truth. Members her three little girls are no longer with us. But she's not the only one. There's over 900 children who have been murdered by an abusive parent across her nation.

Just to get revenge on the victim for leaving them, for telling on them, and just gives you a sense of how dangerous it is for victims to come forward. Some abusers don't stop until they ruin their reputations. They harm their families, they destroy everything they love. In the audience. We also have Ana Esteves, whose little boy was murdered, five years old, strangled by his father. She did what we ask everyone to do come forward.

She came forward, left the relationship, and yet her husband strangled her little boy, her only child. So in addition, some victims just struggle to recover after leaving such a toxic and abusive relationship. They're learning coping skills. They're trying to manage their lives, that of their children. Once again, everyone has different circumstances, and it's really difficult to dictate when they should be ready to come forward, because none of us know what they're dealing with. We don't know if the children will be harmed.

And in these cases, victims choose to stay because they want to protect their children and their family. And it doesn't stop with their children. Sometimes they'll harm their parents, their friends, and people that are around them. And it is just nearly impossible to say that someone should do something at a certain time. Typically, they do it when they feel safe. And I think this is the key. They feel safe. So with me, I have two witnesses.

Rainey Ramirez, who's a longtime term survivor and advocate of domestic violence. Marivic Mabanag, former Executive Director of the California State Domestic Violence Coalition. If I may turn it over to them.

You have 5 minutes altogether. I do apologize in advance for crying. It's okay. As the Senator said, my name is Rainey Ramirez. I am a survivor of officer- I'm so sorry. I am a survivor of officer involved domestic violence. I was married 20 years to the abuser former CHP officer. I could not psychologically endure more than divorce and child custody court dates, as well as intense therapy.

After leaving in 2016, I endured abuse in the form of strangulation and after therapy, understanding that the abuse also included spousal rape, a crime. On July 6, 2021, I was granted a lifetime restraining order when renewing my original unheard of at the time, five year restraining order against the abuser, which covers my now adult children as well as myself. A high consideration for why I stayed so long.

I can speak for many victims like myself that have endured the trauma and ongoing PTSD caused by their abusive partner, especially in law enforcement, and ran out of time to report their abuse. If there's anything I can leave with you today, it's for you to recognize that victims need time to heal, understand their circumstances before coming forward, such as safety. In my case, I didn't understand the crimes that were being committed against me, and therefore I ran out of that time to file charges.

So Don, my abuser is not on record for his crimes and can continue to commit crimes against his other or future victims. He no longer is able to be a CHP officer, so I do have that piece. This Bill is so important because many victims, and now survivors of domestic violence through this Bill, SB 690 would have an opportunity to present evidence to hold their abusers accountable.

I am pleading with you to please allow us more time to situate our lives amongst leaving a traumatic situation, including fighting to keep our children safe from the abuser. Please support Senator Rubio's, SB 690, to extend the statute of limitations to 15 years, which will provide victims critical time to assess and take action to ensure no other victims will have to experience that same perpetrator's abuse. Thank you for your time.

Good afternoon, honorable Chairman and esteemed Committee Members. My name is Marivic Mabanag, and I was the former Executive Director of the California State Domestic Violence Coalition. I am also the President of ACES: Advocates for Child Empowerment and Safety, a political action Committee. I come before you not only as a policy change maker, but as a survivor of domestic violence. Domestic violence thrives in secrecy, and victims have had to hide their abuse for many years.

Hiding the abuse has often been for the victim's safety, but for the protection of their children as well. Leaving an abuser is a long process. Studies have shown that domestic violence can activate the fight, flight or freeze response, which can lead to posttraumatic stress disorder. The systems to which victims turn to are frequently unprepared to address the range of issues they face in trying to access safety and justice and heal from the traumatic effects of domestic abuse. All of this takes time.

Research has shown that the need to address this trauma is increasingly seen as an important part of effective behavioral health care and an integral part of healing and the recovery process. It takes so much time to heal the shame and isolation that prevents victims from coming forward to finding and seeking and finding the help they need. SB 690s proposed extension from 15 years allows victims that additional time to come forward and seek the justice they deserve.

Without this extension, abusers will continue to be free to inflict repeated injury. I repeat, repeated injury resulting in suffering, paralyzation and even death to more and more victims. As for the abusers and perpetrators, with the passage of time, the sooner they face their crimes and are held accountable, they too can recover and heal their lives to stop the cycle of violence. This cycle is insidious, and you each have the power to stop the cycle of victimization and perpetration through legislative change.

That power is in your hands. I urge your I vote on SB 690 on behalf of thousands of domestic violence victims still facing abuse, those languishing in domestic violence shelters in your very own neighborhoods, and your constituents that cannot make it here today, but who you represent and honorably serve, I respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in support?

Yes on behalf of the Sacramento County District Attorney's Office and the District Attorney's Association of California. Ron Lithicom appearing. We are supportive of this Bill and urge of support. Thank you.

Connie Valentine from California Protective Parents Association in strong support.

My name is Renee Blair. I'm from Santa Rosa, California, and I'm a domestic violence survivor, and I'm in strong support of this Bill.

My name is Jasper Lysander. I'm from Humboldt County, California. I'm with the California Protective Parents Association, and I strongly support this Bill.

Hi, my name is Sandra Ross. I'm a survivor of domestic violence, and I'm from Los Angeles County, and I strongly support this Bill. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Rebecca Ferrell, clinical social worker and survivor of domestic violence in strong support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Ana Estevez. The Senator referenced my son Pique, who was brutally murdered by his father. This is a protection that, if he ever gets out of prison, that I would definitely need, because I know for a fact that he would come after me. So I strongly, strongly support this Bill and ask you to do the same. Thank you.

Julie Holburn, Newport Beach, California Protective Parent and victim of 15 years of domestic violence and stalking, which is ongoing. Thank you. I strongly, strongly support this Bill.

Brenda McNabb from Moss Beach, California. I'm a protective parent and strongly support this Bill.

Amy Hunter West Sacramento, California, survivor of domestic violence and stalking, and I strongly support this Bill.

Joan Collins, Memo Park. I am a California credentialed teacher as well as a domestic violence survivor and protective parent, and I am strongly urging you to support this Bill.

My name is Jamie Amarille. I'm from Sacramento County. I have two boys who I'm a protective parent very much, and I support this Bill.

Meredith Seavers, from Sacramento, and I am a domestic violence survivor. I ask you to vote yes on this Bill.