Senate Standing Committee on Public Safety

Since we do not have a quorum, we will begin as a Subcommitee. So today we have 12 bills on the agenda, eight are on consent before we hear presentations on the Bill. No, we're going to move. Yeah. We will hear from our very first author, Assemblymember Gipson with AB 360. Assemblymember floor is yours.

Thank you very much. Good morning to each and every one of you. Thank you for allowing me to present Assembly Bill 360. Assembly Bill 360 aims to ban the term excited delirium from being recognized as a legitimate diagnosis cause of death in the State of California. Assembly Bill 360 also prohibits medical examiners and coroners from using the term on death certificates. This Bill has received bipartisan support through the Assembly process.

Excited delirium is a term that encompass a multitude of characteristics such as excitability, paranoia, extreme aggression, physical violence and apparent immune to pain. Excited delirium has been used to be a catch all to explain the deaths of people who have died while in police custody. Reports that also found that the term is used disproportionately among individuals of color, blacks and Latinos.

For example, in 2010 through 2020, reports done by Berkeley professors on the deaths of police of individuals died in custody have used the termed excited delirium. They have found that 166 reported death, 56% were blacks and Latinos. Additionally, a report found that Florida today have found that 85% has been contribute individuals died in police custody and presented on an individual's death certificate of excited delirium. Senators, this term doesn't exist to be short and be quick. This term has been debunked.

It by the World Health Organization, the Medical Association, as well as the Medical Association of American Psychiatrists. And so, why are we using this term in the United States of America, specifically also in California? I want to recall to some of those attention a gentleman in Antioch, California, by name of Angelo Quinto, a Filipino American who served the United States of America in the United States Navy, had a mental breakdown at home.

The police was called, the police laid on his neck, and the cause of death was excited delirium. This would be fine if in fact our health world organizations and our medical trusted experts supported this term. This term is a made up term and what this Bill seeks to do is ban this term forever being used. When someone dies, we believe the medical examiner or the death certificate of a cause of death?

Well, when you have all the health world organizations and the medical professionals have debunked this term, it's time for us to stop using it. It is time for the real cause of death, when individuals die in hands of police, to be placed on one's death certificate. Members, I have someone from I have an expert witness who's stuck in traffic from the ACLU, but I respectfully ask for the aye vote--oh, she's here. Thank you very much.

There was traffic.

Do you have any other witness? Just one?

Just one.

Okay, Carmen, the floor is yours.

Thank you.

And we'll be timed. We do have 2 minutes for you.

Okay, thank you. Good morning, chair Members. I ran up the stairs. Thank you, Gipson, for bringing forward this important Bill. My name is Carmen Nicole Cox. I'm Director of government affairs at ACLU, California. Action. I'm breathing.

Take your time.

And we are in very strong support of AB 360. Really just going to buttress what the Member just said. I'll note that a coroner is a medical professional, not a law enforcement agent, and therefore should be required to follow the policies of medical professionals. I urge this body to ensure that coroners do exactly that. Follow the lead of the American Medical Association, Psychiatric Association, Psychological Association, neither of which recognize excited delirium.

When the American Medical Association, including residents, students, doctors, adopted a policy opposing the use of this term, it noted the use of the term as justification only for excessive police force and cited disproportionately its use in cases where black men die in law enforcement custody. The policy was not adopted in a vacuum.

It echoed research recognizing police brutality as a product of structural racism, indicating that racially marginalized and minoritized communities are disproportionately, subjected to police force, racial profiling, and underscoring the correlation between violent policing and adverse health outcomes. The term has only been used when developing justifications for death in custody. That means you can walk around with excited delirium, and as long as you don't make contact with law enforcement, you won't die.

Why should we deny people the respect and decency of professionalism merely because they had an encounter with law enforcement? Our Governor said, as a nation, we can only thrive when every one of us has the opportunity to thrive. Our painful history of slavery has evolved into structural racism and bias built coming and coming to a close and permeating through our democratic and economic institutions.

I'll just cite this Legislature, which in March of 2021, marked the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and said, whereas racism causes persistent racial discrimination in housing, education, employment, transportation, and criminal justice, and an emerging body of research demonstrates that racism is a social determinant of health. Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Legislature declares racism a public health crisis and will actively participate in dismantling in the dismantling of racism, AB 360 seeks to further that goal. And I urge your aye support.

Thank you.

Your aye vote. Thank you.

Do we have any witnesses in opposition? Lead witnesses? support witnesses, let's go.

Natasha Minsker Smart Justice California, in support.

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

Thank you.

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

Lesli Caldwell-Houston for the California Public Defenders Association. In strong support.

Izzy Swindler with the California State Association of Psychiatrists, in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Any lead witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Do we have any other opposition witnesses? All right, so we will move on to witnesses waiting to testify via teleconference service. Please just state your name, organization, and position moderator if you'd be able to prompt the individuals waiting to testify.

Absolutely. Are you taking support and opposition at this time?

Yes.

Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, the phone lines. If you wish to testify in support or opposition, please press one followed by zero. That's one followed by zero. At this time, we'll begin with line 16. Please go ahead.

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

Line 14, please go ahead.

Good morning. Rebecca Gonzalez with the National Association of Social Workers, California chapter in support.

Line 13, you are open.

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

Please go ahead. Line 12.

Hello. My name is Sameena Usman. I'm the government relations consultant for Secure Justice in support.

We'll give one more reminder, one followed by zero. If you'd like to testify in opposition or support. And we'll go to line 15. Please go ahead.

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

Madam Chair, we have cleared the queue.

Thank you. And thank you to all our witnesses. Do any of our Members have any questions or comments? Seeing none. Assembly Member, would you like to close?

Yes. I just respectfully ask for an aye vote in this very important matter. I do this on behalf in the memory of Angelo Quinto from Antioch, California, who served this country as a United States Navy man. He shouldn't have died. And also we should really find out what the real true cause of his death. I respectfully ask for the aye vote at the appropriate time.

Thank you. Do we have a motion? I just want to put it on.

The I think you can't do it.

Till we get it to our okay. Thank you. All right. I appreciate your time.

Thank you very much.

All right, our next Bill presentation is AB 806. Assembly Member, you have the floor.

Thank you very much. Madam Chair and Members, I'd like to start by accepting the Committee amendments. AB 806 would extend the list of domestic violence related crimes that can be joined and tried in one jurisdiction when the alleged crimes committed are by the same defendant and against the same victim. Current law allows for certain crimes related to domestic violence to be combined and tried in one jurisdiction.

However, this statute has not been updated since 1998 and overlooks many domestic violence crimes that commonly go along with domestic violence. Some of these crimes include criminal threats, witness dissuasion, and protective order violations. Repeated crimes of domestic violence also oftentimes involve the victim of a crime rotating through the cycle of violence with their perpetrator frequently moving through different jurisdictions. AB 806 would help limit the many levels of exposure and involvement with prosecution and trial, the very issue the 1998 statute was enacted to prevent.

This Bill would help protect repeat victims of domestic violence by including crimes not currently recognized by the statute. I respectfully ask for your I vote. And here with me to testify in support is Chris Campbell, deputy District Attorney at the San Diego County District Attorney's Office.

Thank you. You have 2 minutes.

Thank you. Good morning. I want to thank the Chair and Committee Members for allowing me the opportunity to testify in support of AB 806. My name is Chris Campbell and I am a prosecutor in the San Diego County District Attorney's Office. When a domestic violence abuser exerts power and control over their victim, distance, venue, and jurisdiction are no limitation.

However, for victims of domestic violence, jurisdictional limitations can lead to repeat traumatization, continued victimization and detrimental delays in the healing process, and the ability to hold the abuser accountable. AB 806 amends the list of domestic violence related crimes that can be joined and tried in one jurisdiction when the defendant commits crimes against the same victim and the relationship between the defendant and the victim is one recognized by Penal Code Section One 3700.

Current law under Penal Code Section 784.7(b) allows a jurisdiction to combine cases for specified offenses that occur outside of its jurisdiction if the defendant and the victim are the same. When looking at the legislative intent behind the existing law which this Legislator passed in 1998, it is clear that the original author intended to protect victims of domestic violence crimes in general. As the Legislator has recognized, domestic violence victims have a high propensity of being repeatedly victimized by the same abuser.

However, as written, the statute only lists one crime of domestic violence. That's penal Code section 273.5(a). This offense requires the offender to inflict a traumatic condition or injury on their victim. This overlooks several domestic violence related crimes which do not result in physical injury, for example, assaults without injury, threats of death or bodily harm, witness dissuasion or acts of intimidation, and violations of court orders.

Practically speaking, this means that if an abuser physically abuses his victim in San Diego and she finds the courage and has the ability to flee to Orange County and the abuser later finds her there, threatens to kill her at gunpoint if she leaves him again or threatens her in reporting him to the police and he does not injure her, under current law, the victim would be exposed to two investigations two sets of defense attorneys, two prosecutors, two judges, and two different criminal trials where she would have to testify in front of her abuser on different occasions in multiple jurisdictions.

These types of cases and circumstances happen every day. AB 806 seeks to solve this issue by protecting victims from the repeated trauma associated with multiple prosecutions across jurisdictions.

Further, the amendment will continue efforts to minimize the backlog of criminal cases in California and help conserve judicial resources by lessening the number of criminal cases. This amendment does not increase punishment for defendants, nor does it create a mandate. Rather, it allows the prosecution offices the discretion to unify prosecutions when it is in the interest of justice and the victim to do so. I urge the Members of this Committee to vote aye in support of AB 806. Thank you.

Thank you. Really appreciate it. Do we have any other lead witnesses? No, seeing none. Can we have our Me Too witnesses step up? State your name, your organization, and that you support.

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

Agnes Dziadur, deputy District Attorney from Napa County, on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association, in support.

All right, do we have any opposition witnesses? Seeing none. We will now move on to witnesses waiting to testify via teleconference service. Please just state your name, organization, and position. Moderator, would you prompt the first individual?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Ladies and gentlemen, the phone lines. If you are in support or opposition to AB 806, please press one followed by zero. One followed by zero at this time. No participants are queuing up.

All right, thank you to all of our witnesses. Do any of our Members have any questions? Seeing none. Assembly Member, would you like to close?

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, Members. Two quick comments. One is this also has the added benefit of streamlining some of our court resources. As we all know, with budgetary restrictions being what they are in this year and probably the upcoming years, I think that's important. And secondly, I would like to add on to I thought Mr. Campbell raised a good example know to the victim this is all one act.

Whether the victim moves a few miles away, they don't see it as being any different in their life. This is the continued acts of a perpetrator on them. So to help make their life better in a way that we can, I think this is an important Bill, and I'd ask for your aye vote.

I appreciate it. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

And folks who are watching, we are waiting to get a full quorum as well as our other Bill presenters.

Can we call roll?

[Roll call]

All right, just to wrap it up as well. Can I get a motion on AB 360. All right. Can we call roll?

Motion is due pass to Judiciary. [Roll call]

And the Bill is on call. Can we get a motion on AB 806?

Motion is due pass as amended to the floor. [Roll call]

Bradford? Aye. Bradford, aye. Skinner? Wiener? Aye. Wiener, aye.

And then can we get a motion on the consent items AB: 458, AB 467, AB 479, AB 724, AB 750, AB 751, AB 1080, AB 1125? It's a consent calendar.

Wahab? Aye. Wahab, aye. Ochoa Bogh? Aye. Ochoa Bogh, aye. Bradford? Aye. Bradford, aye. Skinner? Wiener? Aye. Wiener, aye.

All right. And then we just need an author.

And those bills are out on call, right?

Yeah, they're on call. Yes. They'll put them on call.

Okay. And then do we have another bill presenter?

Um, no. Bauer-Kahan's on her way.

You ready?

I just want to say Gipson and Maienschein. You're good? Okay. All right, can we have another roll call for AB 360?

AB 360, Gipson. The motion is 'do pass to Judiciary.' Ochoa Bogh? Aye. Ochoa Bogh, aye. Maienschein: AB 806. Motion is 'do pass as amended to the floor.' Ochoa Bogh? Aye. Ochoa Bogh, aye.

All right. Both those bills are on call. Thank you.

Do you want to do the roll? Yeah.

All right. Can we open the roll for consent one more time?

For consent, it's currently four to zero. Skinner? It's consent. Skinner, aye.

Thank you.

So consent calendar is out five zero.

Consent calendar is out five to zero. We'll move on to AB 360.

AB 360: Gipson. Motion or action is 'do pass to Judiciary.' Current vote is four to zero. Skinner? Aye. Skinner, aye.

That bill is out five to zero as well, and AB 806.

AB 806: Maienschein is 'do pass as amended to the floor.' Current vote is four to zero. Skinner? Aye. Skinner, aye.

All right, that bill is out as well. We are waiting for authors now. All right, we will begin. Assembly Member, if you are ready, we'll have you right here.

You can take any place, but this is usually.

All right, and you could take a minute. Get ready.

Our witness is a bit lost, but let's start.

Alright. Assembly Member Bauer-Kahan is going to be presenting AB 1643.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. Proud to present AB 1643. This expands rehabilitation options for youth. As I said, we have a youth coming, but she's in the Capitol, so she'll be... Youth who commit low level nonviolent offenses have the opportunity...

Woo, I ran to you because I was in Water, Parks, and Wildlife, and I heard you didn't have an author. Have the opportunity to receive diversion through the Juvenile Probation Department. They have six months without incident. The kids can avoid charges and can move on with their lives. Do you want to join me? Perfect. However, if restitution exceeds recedes $1,000, under current law, the youth must be referred for potential filing of charges. The $1,000 standard was not part of the original law.

It was added in 89, specifically the goal of ensuring more youth were prosecuted. At that time, it was thought that punishment for low level offenses would set youth on the right path. We now know that isn't true. So we are trying to raid this threshold to $5,000 to make diversion more accessible. With me today in support are hopefully two witnesses. Nisreen Baroudi, attorney with the Pacific Juvenile Defender Center.

You will have 2 minutes.

Thank you. Good morning. My name is Nisreen Baroudi, and I am on the Advisory Board of the Pacific Juvenile Defender Center. I'm also the Supervising Attorney of the Juvenile Department at the Santa Clara County Public Defender's Office. Your yes vote today will positively impact thousands of California youth by making more youth eligible for diversion opportunities by our juvenile courts as well as our probation departments for low level offenses. Current law presumes the youth to be ineligible for the diversion program if the restitution amount happens to be $1,000 or more.

That number has not been revisited since 1989, some 35 years ago, and certainly does not account for inflation nor the advancements in technology. Today the theft of only one iPhone would automatically make a youth presumptively ineligible for diversion. A yes vote today will ensure our juvenile laws continue to catch up to the science.

When we did research into where the original $1,000 number came from, we were surprised to learn that the goal was actually to bring more kids into the juvenile system based on the belief that court involvement would help kids early on, even for curfew violations. Now we know, of course, that that's not true, and that is considered a form of entrenchment.

Anytime you have youth for low level offenses that are brought into any kind of juvenile justice or court system. Raising the $1,000 threshold to 5,000 is a simple and common sense change that is sorely needed. This will help keep our communities safer, but also keep more black and brown youth eligible for diversion opportunities and comports with modern day science that says that sometimes with youth, less is more. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Do you have your other?

She is not here, so we will just go on before she walks in. I don't know if you have any questions.

We will move on to any other support witnesses. State your name, your org, and that you support.

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

Natasha Minsker, prosecutors alliance of California in support.

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

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

Thank you. We will move on to lead opposition witnesses. Seeing none, we'll move on to opposition witnesses in general. Seeing none, we'll move to those waiting to testify via teleconference. Moderator, will you prompt the first individual?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Ladies and gentlemen on the phone lines, if you wish to testify in opposition or support to AB 1643, please press 1-0 at this time, one followed by zero. Again, for opposition or support, please press one followed by zero. And nobody is queuing up. Madam Chair.

Thank you. Do we have any questions for our Committee Members? Senator Skinner.

Assembly Member, appreciate you bringing this bill. I should know this, but I don't recall. In this circumstance, when the court determines what the restitution amount is, there's in our analysis, the example of, say, an iPhone, which of course would be over the 1000, which is a good example of what the point you're trying to make. But what I'm wondering is, does the court tend to use only the value, say, of a stolen good, or do they add, what other additions do they add? I'm just trying to figure out whether we should be setting it at 5 K or whether it should be slightly higher, depending on what other factors a court factors in setting that restitution amount.

I'll defer to my witness.

Yeah. Generally, it's determined by what the victim is asking for in the police report. So it's just the perceived amount has to be $1,000 or more. And so for probation departments, if it's 1000 or more in the police report, it's actually a mandatory DA referral. They actually have to walk over to the DA's office, and the DA determines if they're going to file or not. And then in terms of the court, it's again, based on the police report.

So conceivably, if a victim feels I mean, a victim has the right to say, well, I think there was this much emotional damage for me, and I'm going to put this kind of price on it, it could make this, and again, that's and I'm not trying to in any way delegitimize the victim, but it's subjective, it seems. It allows the victim just to determine that price.

Yes, because this is all before, obviously, court involvement and a formal restitution hearing where there might be contesting of the amount and so on. So, yes.

Do the judges often or ever, even though the victim has put a price, decide that it's different?

If they do, it's just hard to go backwards because at that point, the case has already made it through. The probation Department was forced to make the mandatory DA referral. It's now gone into the courtroom.

Okay. I'm supportive of the bill. I just wonder if we should have a dollar amount that's higher.

Alright, thank you. Do we have any other questions, comments? Seeing none. Assembly Member, would you like to close?

Thank you. I just want to thank the Senator from Berkeley, who is the first to suggest we should raise it higher since this bill has begun through process. It has been noted that it is higher than inflation, that inflation since 1990 will be slightly lower than we're setting it. We obviously here think it's critically important to give juveniles that opportunity for diversion, especially in these nonviolent situations. And so we're trying to ensure access for more youth. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Do we have a motion? Moved by Senator Bradford.

AB 1643, Bauer-Kahan. The motion is do passed to Appropriations. Wahab. Aye. Wahab, aye. Ochoa Bogh. Bradford. Aye. Bradford, aye. Skinner. Aye. Skinner, aye. Wiener. Aye. Wiener, aye.

Thank you, Members.

Thank you. Four to zero. The bill's on call. So this is our last presentation. We have AB 1118 by Assemblymember Kalra. Assemblymember, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members. AB 1118 makes technical changes to procedures for claims under the Racial Justice Act to ensure that the most efficient processes are used. In 2020, the Legislature passed AB 2542 to address racial discrimination and bias in criminal proceedings across the state. This bill was followed up by AB 256 last year, which made the RJA retroactive. However, some ambiguities around the language have arisen, leading to different interpretations of the processes available.

For example, questions have been raised as to whether habeas petitions are the exclusive avenue to oppose conviction RJA challenge, or whether individuals can file claims on direct appeal if the violation is apparent on the trial record. In this scenario, the case would be more efficiently decided through the appeals process, as opposed to the habeas route, which requires more litigation and judicial resources. To address these questions and ensure the intent of the law is followed, AB 1118 does four things.

It fixes a typo, it clarifies that RJA claims can be raised on appeal. Number three, if additional evidence is needed, permits individuals to request to have an appeal and remand to the trial court to file a motion. And lastly, clarifies that a case need not be set for trial to file an RJA motion. This bill has received bipartisan support, and here to testify in support is Natasha Minsker, policy advisor with Smart Justice California.

Do you have another witness as well, or no? No, just one. Okay, you have 2 minutes. Thank you.

Natasha Minsker on behalf of Smart Justice California. AB 1118 is a simple bill to address procedural issues that have arisen regarding post-conviction processes for Racial Justice Act motions. I urge your aye vote and I'm here to happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any other witnesses in support? State your name, your org that you support.

Rachel Mueller with Weideman Group on behalf of NextGen California, in support.

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

Good morning. Derick Morgan on behalf of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, along with the California Coalition for Women Prisoners and the League of Women Voters California.

Good morning. Morgan Zamora for Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, in support.

Carmen-Nicole Cox for ACLU California Action, in support.

Thank you. Do we have any opposition witnesses? Seeing none, we'll move to any opposition in the room. Seeing none, we'll move two witnesses waiting to testify. Moderator, would you prompt the first individual?

Thank you. Madam Chair, ladies and gentlemen, the phone lines you wish to testify. In support or opposition to AB 1118, please press one followed by zero. One followed by zero. Line 12, please go ahead. Line 12, you are open.

Hello, is this me?

Please go ahead.

Hi. My name is Sameena Usman. I am speaking on behalf of secure justice as the government relations consultant, in support.

Line 13, you are open.

Danica Rodarmel on behalf of Initiate Justice, in support.

And we'll give a reminder, please press one followed by zero. If you're in support or opposition to AB 1118. Line 10, you are open.

Good morning, Chair and senators. This is Anthony DI Martino on behalf of Californians for Safety and Justice, in strong support.

And Madam Chair, there are no other participants queued up.

Thank you. We'll move on to questions or comments from my colleagues. Seeing none. Assemblymember, would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Do I have a motion? Senator Bradford has moved.

AB 1118, Kalra. Motion is do pass to the floor. Wahab. Aye. Wahab, aye. Ochoa Bogh. Bradford. Aye. Bradford, aye. Skinner. Skinner, aye. Wiener. Wiener, aye.

All right. That bill is on call. Thank you, Assemblymember. Appreciate it.

I was the first one here. Be the first one gone.

You're all done. All right. Lift the call on item 10.

We'll lift the call one item 10. AB 1118, Kalra. Current vote is four to zero. Ochoa Bogh.

Item 10.

Ochoa Bogh, aye.

Five to zero. That bill is out.

AB 1643, Bauer-Kahan. Motion is do pass to appropriations. Ochoa Bogh. Aye. Ochoa Bogh, aye.

Five to zero. That bill is out. Thank you everybody for joining us.

Did we get Skinner on the other one?

No. Thank you, guys. We are adjourned.