Assembly Standing Committee on Public Safety

Yeah. Good morning. We will begin and start the Assembly Committee on public safety. This is our hearing today to dispense of the two year bills. We don't have a quorum yet, so we will start as a Subcommitee of this Committee. We have a few bills to dispense of this morning. Like to welcome everybody here. Returning Committee Members, some new Committee Members. We have a couple vacancies today, people filling in, so we'll just get right to work.

We'd like to begin with some housekeeping items we have announcing that bills that were pulled by the author and off the calendar, Assembly Bill 15 by Dixon, Assembly Bill 1582 by Dixon, and Assembly Bill 1746 by Mr. Hoover. At the end of the sign in order and the bills being heard, we will have several bills on the vote only. And so we will begin in Member sign in. We have Mr. Rodriguez first, Mr. Maienschein second.

Just a reminder that each proponent has an opportunity to have witnesses speak for 5 minutes in total per support and per opposition. Then, of course, we will go to the me-toos. Okay. We will now call rolls. We have a quorum.

Mccarty.

Here.

Alanis.

Here.

Zbur.

Here.

Lackey.

Nguyen.

Here.

Here.

Reyes. Gibson.

Wilson.

Here.

Sorry. Do you want to do the Consent Calendar before we start?

Sure. Okay. Let's please start by dispensing with the Consent Calendar. One item only. On the consent calendar, AB 1725 happens to be by. Mccarty. Have a motion. Motion a second. Please call the roll.

Excuse me. On the Consent Calendar. Mccarty?

Aye.

Mccarty? Aye.

Alanis?

Aye.

Alanis aye. Zabur?

Aye.

Aye.

Lackey aye. Nguyen?

Zabur aye. Lackey?

Aye.

Nguyen aye. Rayes? Gibson? Wilson?

Aye.

Wilson, aye.

Okay. Thank you. Consent Calendars adopted. Mr. Rodriguez, we have two bills here this morning. Which one would you like to present first?

AB 977.

Okay. Please begin.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members, thank you for allowing me to present AB 977. First, I would like to thank you, Mr. Chair, for your Committee staff, for your work and attention to this Bill. Today I accept the Committee amendments. This Bill would increase the penalty for committing assault and battery against an emergency Department worker inside the hospital. This Bill would make it equal to the penalties for assault and battery committed outside of the emergency department.

Despite years of hospitals adopting plans to prevent workplace violence, reported incidents have not decreased. In fact, workplace violence in the emergency Department is rising and increasing healthcare burnout rates. According to the American College of Emergency Physicians, 85% of emergency physicians believe that workplace violence in the emergency departments has increased over the five of the past five years, and over two thirds of emergency physicians were reportedly assaulted in this past year alone.

Studies show that ED staff who are exposed to workplace violence can suffer from burnout, traumatic stress, and compassion fatigue. Unfortunately, many ED workers are told workplace violence is just part of the job. Their supervisors may not be supportive and may even retaliate against victims for reporting the incident. As a result, only 3% of assaults reported result in pressed charges, according to the American College of Emergency Physicians.

This Bill would change that notion that suggests workplace violence is an inherent part of working on the job in a hospital setting. I have personally witnessed assaults on ED staff and even physically restraining individuals as well. I'm not alone on this.

With me to provide testimony and answer technical questions is Jan Deno, who is an emergency room nurse at Sutter Medical center on behalf of the California Emergency Nurse Association, and Dr. Sigrid Burris, who is a trauma surgeon on behalf of the California chapter of American College of Surgeons. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you again. Mr. Rodriguez, you have 5 minutes for your witnesses to speak in combination. Thank you.

Good morning, chair Mccarty and Members, my name is Jenn Denno, and I'm an emergency room nurse. I'm here on behalf of California Emergency Nurses Association and also Sutter Health. I've been a nurse at Sutter Medical Center for 25 years, 15 of those, most recently in the emergency department. So despite workplace violence training, ED staff faced acts of violence on a regular basis. During the first two quarters of 2023, there were 936 workplace violent incidents reported through the Sutter health system.

This has a real impact on staff, as Assembly Member Rodriguez mentioned, and I want to highlight a few of these things. About 10 years ago, a tech in our Department was watching a patient who declared themselves suicidal but was not assessed to be a violence risk to anyone else. But all of a sudden, the patient started attacking the tech. The tech was beaten so badly that he had to have five surgeries to reconstruct his face.

He never returned to the ED to work there again because of his experience. A few years ago, one of our Ed nurses was punched in the face so badly that it broke her glasses. The person hit her, went to jail for four months. When he got out, he came back to the ED as a patient, and she was assigned to take care of him again, the charge nurse, not knowing that that was the incident that had happened, and we quickly changed that.

But everyone in the Department then knew that he was someone that had assaulted her and was scared of taking care of him. A week ago, our charge nurse was punched in the face by a patient the police dropped off in our ED because he was too violent for jail. This happens frequently. This is an issue I've been working on with Assemblymember Rodriguez for the past 10 years.

In that time, we've done many things to address the problem, including workplace violence committees to fix things that we can in our own areas. Violence assessments that are done at triage so that all staff working with a violent patient will have the knowledge from the chart and assigned by the door. Staff education to help workers understand their rights to a safe workplace. We've added many security and even had law enforcement in our ED employed and added metal detectors.

We've displayed signage in ED's asking people to help us take care of them by acting in a calm manner with zero tolerance for violence and verbal abuse. We feel that AB 977 will help hold people accountable for their actions, and we want to change the culture of violence that we've been experiencing for far too long. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Next witness, please.

Thank you to the chair and the Committee for the Privilege of Speaking. I am Sigrid Burruss. I'm a trauma surgeon and here on behalf of the California chapters of the American College of Surgeons. Tensions run high in the emergency department and these crisis situations are a daily reality for us as we provide care to patients presenting after car accidents, gunshot wounds, or for those with other acute illnesses. I myself was recently in the ER after an accident requiring surgery, and it was rough.

The acuity, the uncertainty, the pain that goes along with an injury requiring surgery is very real and understandable. Patients and families also bring the external stressors, biases and expectations into the hospital environment. However, healthcare professionals not only have a right to do their job without being harmed, but it is a necessity. Dr. Darcy Mainville, a friend and colleague, is an ED physician and intensivist who was physically assaulted by the patient in the ER, resulting in injuries. A police report was filed, but nothing came of it.

The patient never learned that assaulting another person was wrong and has repercussions. That individual is at risk for assaulting another person and the cycle continues. A stronger legal pathway is one avenue for improving reporting, with subsequent identification and support of underlying issues contributing to assault and decreasing recidivism. Healthcare professionals receive training in workplace violence prevention by learning deescalation techniques, yet these are not always successful. It is especially the intentional and targeted assaults that need to be identified within the legal system.

We are not wanting nor expecting costly mass incarcerations, but the protections in place are not working and professionals are leaving the ED and leaving the healthcare profession. As violence against healthcare providers continues to increase, the number of assaults is underreported and a 2021 study showed that 44% of nurses reported being subject to physical violence and 68% reported verbal abuse. This has allowed for normalization of assault in the emergency Department. We must provide equal protections to those given in the hospital setting as in the prehospital environment.

This is required for healthcare professional retention and to continue caring for patients. I urge you to vote yes on AB 977.

Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we'll allow supporters to come up and line up here and please to say your name and organization and your position. Thank you.

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

Good morning. Vanessa Gonzalez with the California Hospital Association representing over 400 hospitals and health systems in California here in strong support and would like to thank the author for bringing this important issue forward.

Good morning. Alexis Rodriguez with California Medical Association in support.

Thanks.

McKay Carney, on behalf of Cedars-Sinai in support.

Nissette Short, on behalf of Adventist health, Loma Linda University Health, Rady Children's Hospital and the Alliance of Catholic Healthcare in support.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members. Karen Lang, on behalf of San Francisco District Attorney Brooke Jenkins, in support this morning. Thank you.

Grace Koplin from Brownstein on behalf of Providence Health and the Bay Area Council in strong support.

Good morning.

Tyler Aguilar, on behalf of the USC Keck School of Medicine, in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Jonathan Clay, on behalf of Scripps Health, in support.

My name is Fred notewear, representing Stanford healthcare in support. Thank you.

Tim Madden representing the California chapter at the American College of Emergency Physicians in support.

Thank you. Do we have any? One more.

Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chair. Ryan Sherman with the Riverside Sheriff's Association in support. Also in support. On behalf of the police officer associations of Arcadia, Burbank, Claremont, Corona, Fullerton, Pomona, Palace Verdes, Riverside, Marietta, Newport Beach, Nevada, Santa Ana, Upland and Culver City, and the deputy sheriff associations of Monterey County and Placer county all in support. Thank you.

Thank you. We'll now move to the opposition. Opposition? Please come forward. You have 5 minutes. Mr. Rodriguez, can we have some of the seats available?

For your witnesses?

Good morning, Chair and Members. Eric Henderson, legislative advocate with ACLU California Action in respectful opposition to AB 977. We agree that with the author that emergency room physicians, nurses, and healthcare workers should not experience workplace violence. Still, an increased maximum punishment and fine will not address the problems this Bill seeks to remedy.

In fact, Governor Brown made the same statement in his veto message of this Bill in 2015, saying, quote, if there was evidence that an additional six months in county jail would enhance the safety of these workers or serve as a deterrent, I would sign this Bill. I doubt that it would do either. End quote. Effective evidence-based solutions to address this conduct include increased staffing levels, increased training for healthcare workers to respond to patients and families in distress, and the creation of de-escalation teams.

AB 977 is also unnecessary. Existing criminal penalties for assaultive conduct range from misdemeanor to felony convictions. There is no evidence that the current laws and sentencing structure fail to offer as much deterrence as criminal penalty can provide. Lastly, and importantly, recent research published in the Journal of the American Medical Association JAMA Network Open, highlights a critical issue that is more deserving of our attention.

Nationwide, police and security personnel in hospitals were reported to have perpetuated significant harms to patients and families, and sometimes staff, which is most frequently directed towards Black men and people experiencing a mental health crisis. Patients also deserve to be free from violence in hospitals and emergency rooms, and more attention should be directed at non-law enforcement solutions to make hospitals safer places for all. For these reasons, we respectfully ask for your No vote.

Good morning. Marco George, on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association. First, excuse me, I'm sorry. I want to say that emergency room workers are akin to public defenders, and we certainly empathize and feel a lot of kinship with what they undergo because they're dealing with people who are many times under stress, detoxing from drugs. Their families are worried and scared, and these are situations that make for problems in the workplace. We are opposed to AB 977.

And I won't reiterate Mr. Henderson's comments, but I would just echo them. I do want to say, as someone who has spent a lot of time the last year in the emergency room with friends and family, and I'm sure many other people have had this experience that wait times are getting longer and there's fewer staff. On Labor Day weekend, I spent 16 hours in the emergency room in Santa Clara County. There are many causes for the problems in their emergency departments.

They've been studied both by researchers in this country and abroad, and one of the things is in this country is the safety net has been depleted and more and more people who are sicker and sicker are going to the emergency room and relying on that as their primary care. At the same time, physicians and nurses hours have been cut. Most emergency departments, the doctors and nurses who work there, are not hospital employees.

They belong to private practice groups, which have been brought up in recent years by private equity groups including Blackstone and Onyx Corporation. And in order to increase profits, they have cut staffing. This has resulted in more harm and danger, not just to patients, but to staff. And I think the things that need to be done to make emergency rooms safer are some of the things that Mr. Henderson pointed out.

The federal OSHA has a comprehensive violence prevention guideline and book that goes through every single step of what needs to be done in American hospitals, and one of the most salient features is adequate staffing. Similarly, the VA hospitals have a program and have implemented a behavioral management program that starts with communication with verbal conflicts with patients, and talks to the staff about how to work in teams to contain a patient safely.

Unfortunately, in most emergency rooms these days, because of staffing cuts, there are no teams that can deal with these situations. This recourse to the criminal law to contain an issue that has been created by the cuts is wrong, that it's just shifting.

Thank you. You'll have to wrap it up, please.

Yes, thank you. So we're saying that it needs to be dealt with in a health manner with preventive measures, and we respectfully ask for your No vote. Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony. Do we have any others who would like to speak in opposition? Please state your name and organization only.

Good morning. Gregory Fidel with Initiate Justice, in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Courtney Hansen with Decarcerate Sacramento, in strong opposition.

David Bolog, on behalf of legislators who can't be here but feel that incarceration does not work and with utter disrespect to victims. Thank you. In opposition.

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

Alicia Benavidez, on behalf of Drug Policy Alliance, in opposition.

Daniel Troutfield on behalf of Felony Murder Project, in respectful opposition.

Susan Bustamante, California Coalition Women Prisoners, in opposition.

Kelly Savage-Rodriguez, Survived and Punished, in opposition.

Eugene Day with Outside Solutions Consulting, and strongly opposed.

Carrie Arzape, Prison From the Inside Out, also representing our youth impacted by incarceration.

Betty Mckay, Essie Justice Group, strongly opposed.

Alicia Montero representing Californians United for Responsible Budget, strongly opposed.

Sabrina Boudiette with Insight Prison Project, strongly opposed.

Seeing no more witnesses in opposition, no tweeners. Questions or comments from Committee Members. Mr. Lackey?

Yeah. Thank you. It's more comments, not really questions. I believe that I supported this measure previously, and there's a reason why. We're all the product of our life experience. And I could tell you one thing I've learned in watching the behavior of people is that it's often very unpredictable people's behavior. But one thing that is supposed to be part of our system is justice. And justice needs to be a balance. And I emphasize the word balance, a balance between victim consideration and the accused situation.

When the courts evaluate an incident, they first have the responsibility to determine whether there's guilt or there's no guilt. There's evidence to at least to convict. And after that is the penalty phase, if they so choose to convict. And I think our society is getting confused because there has been some heavy handedness and penalties. No question about that. Our history has taught us that.

But our reaction to that has been somewhat of an overreaction, from my experience in watching penalties, because what's happened, there's been an imbalance on two aspects. Number one would be the victim seems to disappear in our current system, from my view. And the second thing is that we focus so much that penalty, because it's not always proven to be a preventive measure, that it must be weak, that it must be given unfavorable consideration, and penalties need to be a very small part of our process.

I would argue that that is untrue. That penalty is part of justice, whether it prevents somebody or not. We hope it does. But just because it isn't proven to prevent doesn't mean it isn't deserved. And I will tell you that right now, the balance on this particular proposal does not weigh in the favor of the medical worker. It does not. The penalties are very, very light. And I believe that that deserves remedy. And I believe that this is a reasonable proposal to help remedy that problem.

So I will be supporting it. And I thank you for this particular proposal and not giving up. Thank you.

Thank you. Assembly Member Wilson.

Thank you, Assembly Member Rodriguez, for bringing this forward. I appreciate it and your thoughtfulness and your experience in this backdrop, in this field. And I also appreciate the comments from my colleague across the way. Generally, looking at the messages from both governors, our current one and prior ones, was pretty compelling to me. But another piece that was compelling was the fact that it wasn't parity.

I genuinely don't like to increase penalties beyond, and I get the understanding of we have to keep the victim focused here and ensure that there's punishment as a part of our judicial system, but we should be fair, it should be equitable, and there should be parity.

If we're saying that you commit this crime outside of an emergency department and you would get this level of punishment, and it should be the same no matter where in emergency department, and there shouldn't be this automatic factor of assuming that the person is in a mental health crisis or doing something. A crime is a crime, and wherever you commit it, the punishment should be the same.

So I am supporting it in that regard, taking into consideration that there is a lack of parity there, and there should be parity. And so thank you for bringing this forward, and I'll be supporting it and happy to make the motion when the time is appropriate.

Okay, that is appropriate. We do have a motion. Do you have a second? Motion and second. Mr. Alanis.

Good morning. Something that was brought up, I believe opposition may have brought it up. And just so everyone's aware, I've been in emergency rooms plenty of times with prisoners and watching the assaults that have happened on staff doctors and what have you. So this may go to the author or maybe to anybody else that's up here.

Something that was brought up about doctors who come in privately that aren't in the hospital. I think maybe you had brought that up. Is that something that has been addressed? I see in here, it talks about workers in the hospitals engaged in providing services. I'm assuming that would be under the same umbrella.

Yes. I mean, any hospital worker that's involved at providing care, treatment to sick and injured, we just need protection for them no matter where they're coming from. They're hospital workers in the ER setting to provide care and treatment for the individuals needing the care. So this is just to protect them in case they were assaulted.

And like you said, as well, I, too, working many years in the EMS setting, I can't tell you how many times I've personally seen a hospital staff get assaulted, whether they're contracted or not. They're healthcare workers in emergency setting, trying to provide treatment and service to those in need. And I think it shouldn't matter. What should matter is that they're protected under a Bill like this to protect safety and hopefully stop those types of violence happening in the ER settings.

All right, thank you for that. I'll be supporting this.

No further questions. I also support this Bill. Thank you. Mr. Rodriguez, we have a motion and a second. Please call the roll. I'm sorry, Mr. Rodriguez, would you like to close?

With that, respectfully ask for your Aye vote. Thank you.

Sorry.

On AB 977 by Assembly Member Rodriguez, the motion is do pass, as amended, to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll call].

Okay. Thank you. That measure passes. Your next measure, Mr. Rodriguez.

Thank you.

AB 1039, item number four.

You ready?

Yes. Please proceed.

Once again, thank you, Mr. Chair. Members, thank you for allowing me to present AB 1039. AB 1039 would allow sexual assault by a custodial officer in a detention facility to be prosecuted as a misdemeanor or felony. AB 1039 would also require a person convicted of sexual assault to be terminated and prohibits them from being hired at any other public detention facility. The bill also expands the definition of sexual activity that constitutes assault to further protect inmates.

Sexual activity between an officer and an inmate is always non consensual due to the power imbalance. Instances of sexual assault are particularly prevalent in women's prisons. This bill allows for increased penalties for officers who abuse their power and ensures that they are removed from positions that allow them to do so. With me to provide testimony and answer any additional questions in support is David McMurrin, the deputy district attorney at the Orange County District Attorney's Office. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Good morning, Chairman and committee members. My name is David McMurrin. I'm a deputy district attorney with the Orange County District Attorney's Office. I've done so for almost the last 10 years. This seeks to protect, in the cases I've saw in the last 12 years, female inmates where male deputies are taking advantage of their position of power over these very vulnerable victims who are restrained, liberties are restricted, and sexually assaulting them, committing sexual activity acts with them, where this is not consensual acts with these individuals.

These individuals, the victims that we're dealing with, have allowed sexual activity to occur because they fear what would happen if they didn't. They fear what would happen to their favorable work position that they have in custody of losing that. They fear getting dayroom privileges and being locked in the cell. These are the victims that I've dealt with who allow sexual activity to occur because of what would happen if they didn't. And what they've seen inmates who rebuffed advances what happened to their privileges, to their favorable work positions. This seeks to give the prosecuting agencies and also the judges the discretion to charge it as a felony. And so in situations where this is a consensual, that we would expect to be a consensual act. There's still discretion to keep it as a misdemeanor, as it currently is.

But the cases and the victims that I've dealt with, it is anything but consensual activity where victims are grabbed, groped, asked to expose themselves, asked to perform sexual acts for these deputies pleasures. And they're doing so because of the vulnerability that they have in the jails. And so we seek for equity. We seek to protect these inmates who have liberties that are restrained and have restrictions on what they can and cannot do to give them a voice. Thank you.

Thank you. No other witnesses testifying with you today. Witnesses in support, please line up. Seeing none. Witnesses in opposition. Support, yes. Support?

Ivy Fitzpatrick, Riverside County District Attorney's Office, California District Attorney Association, in support.

Thank you.

Lawrence Cox here, legal services for prisoners with children. Also, All of Us or None, strong support.

Alyssa Moore, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, in strong support.

Thank you. Do we have opposition? We have witnesses in opposition. Please come forward. Thank. Please begin. Five minutes combined.

Thank you. Good morning again. Margo George, on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association. We are not opposed to the amendments to AB 1039 which make it the conviction grounds for termination. I think that's more than warranted. And ineligibility for rehiring. We are opposed to expanding consensual sexual touching to make it a felony. AB 1039 punishes consensual sex on the same as if it were non-consensual.

And the evidence shows that, as noted in the analysis, that longer jail or prison sentences will not deter this behavior. And in fact, they're counterproductive. This conduct is already illegal regardless of whether it's consensual or not. But state district attorneys are choosing not to enforce existing law because they don't think juries will believe the incarcerated victims. And we have right now going on in Dublin, California, in federal court, the US Attorney's Office for the Northern District of California has shown that the victims at the federal women's prison in Dublin are believed. So far, eight correctional officers, including the former warden and chaplain, have been charged for repeated sexual abuse of women inmates, and seven have pled guilty. Given how widespread the problem is, the US federal judge is considering appointing a special master to oversee the reforms at the Dublin facility.

The Federal Prison Rape Elimination Act was passed in 2003, and CDCR and local detention facilities still have not completely implemented it. CDCR already has detailed and explicit regulations on the books and procedures to deal with sexual abuse, and it is rarely, rarely used. California jails are not complying. In April of this past year, the San Joaquin County Civil Grand Jury said that some jails in the county were still not complying, even though the Federal Prison Rape Elimination Act is 20 years old.

In 2017, no Los Angeles County jail facility had undergone a required audit under the act, and until the Los Angeles County Sheriff Jim McDonnell announced the arrest of a deputy on charges of sexual misconduct. In 2023, the required audits were only conducted in seven of the state's 114 county jails. Local jurisdictions and local DAs need to enforce the existing laws and regulations on books before they come back and ask that sentences be increased. We respectfully ask for your no vote.

Good morning, Chair and members. Eric Henderson, legislative advocate with ACLU California Action in respectful opposition. Sexual assault of incarcerated people is a serious matter that must be addressed to prevent the lasting harms experienced by survivors. Unfortunately, the policy promoted by AB 1039 will not improve the prevention of detection of official responses to sexual abuse, nor will AB 1039 deter officials from taking advantage of those in their custody.

If the goal of AB 1039 is to prevent sexual assault of incarcerated people, a more effective approach is focusing on the implementation of the Prison Rape Elimination Act, PREA, and ensuring CDCR holds staff accountable when these incidents occur. As of 2022, the most recent data available, California has yet to fully comply with the established PREA standards. Notably, California has not fully complied with PREA standards since 2014.

Elimination of a retaliation by staff for reporting misconduct, creating ways to safely and confidentially report staff misconduct, and creating access to outside advocates and legal counsel will have a more significant impact on ending the sexual assault of incarcerated people. Most notably, AB 1039 will not increase access to services for survivors during or after incarceration. Policy efforts should center survivors and determine whether they received the care and services they needed to address the harms they experienced from physical harm to behavioral health needs. Additionally, a significant need and a legal requirement is to provide psychological, unbiased support for survivors, which has fallen short across the state. For these reasons, we respectfully ask for your no vote.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Questions or comments from committee members? Mr. Lackey.

Yeah, once again, I don't need to belabor my position on the court matter, but what I do believe very, very strongly is to satisfy justice. This unique betrayal reaches a very offensive betrayal of trust, of public trust, and the degree to which we address it now in our system with the statute that exists is very, very weak, and victims deserve better. Our public deserves better. So I'm very, very happy to support this measure. Once again, thank you.

Thank you. Ms. Wilson.

Thank you again for bringing this forward. I typically don't, and I noted this in my last remarks, increasing penalties, and particularly because most individuals don't know what the penalties are before they do the crime. And the crime is usually, most are not premeditated. And the ones that are, they don't care. When it comes to this, in particular to those that are in positions of power, they have time to understand exactly what the crime is they're doing and what the penalties, just by virtue of being their position, they are professionals, and there's this expectation that they're keeping safe and with consent. There's not consent. That's already been established in law prior to this bill. I appreciate the termination part of it.

I think that is really good to the point that ACLU brought up in their opposition all the things that we should be doing. We should be doing all those things, and there should be bills related to all those things. That doesn't negate the effectiveness of this bill to deter professionals from doing what they're doing in prisons.

But we should be doing everything that you said and be happy to support anyone bringing a bill to do all those things, as well as our governor, when it comes to policy and the system, to be able to strengthening those policies to ensure that we're taking care of incarcerated individuals and especially those that have been victimized by those that have power over them. But with that, I'll support the bill.

Thank you. Motion? Okay, we have a motion and a second. Any further questions or comments from committee members? Seeing none. Mr. Rodriguez, you may close.

I respectfully ask for aye vote. Thank you.

Okay. I, too, support this measure. Please call the roll.

On AB 1039 by Assemblymember Rodriguez. The motion is do pass to the Appropriations Committee. McCarty. Aye. McCarty, aye. Alanis. Aye. Alanis, aye. Zbur. Lackey. Lackey, aye. Nuyen1. Reyes. Reyes, aye. Gipson. Gipson, aye. Wilson. Wilson, aye.

Okay, that measure passes. Thank you, Mr. Rodriguez.

Thank you.

Next author. Mr. Maienschein, you have two measures. Let's take first item number one. AB 667.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. And with that subtle hint, I will keep that in mind as I go through my comments. California's successful red flag laws allow the court to issue a gun violence restraining order to temporarily restrict access to firearms and ammunition for individuals who are deemed a significant risk of self harm or harming others.

If, after a hearing, the judge concludes there is clear and convincing evidence, the court will issue a restraining order prohibiting the respondent from accessing or acquiring firearms or ammunition for anywhere from one to five years. AB 667 requires the court to issue a gun violence restraining order for mandatory five years if the court finds evidence that someone is at extreme risk of violence, including repeated offenses of specified facts, within the last 12 months. GBROs are very powerful tools to prevent gun violence.

They use awareness of those who are the first to notice when someone is in crisis or behaving dangerously, and provide a tool for proactive intervention. AB 667 will further protections against gun violence by ensuring those with egregious patterns of violent behavior are prevented from possessing a firearm for a mandatory five years. Thank you. And I respectfully request an aye vote.

Thank you. Do you have witnesses in support? Just you. Good enough today?

Thank you, Chairman and Members Tim Madden, representing the California chapter of the American College of Emergency Physicians in support.

Thank you.

Yes. Witnesses in opposition. Support coming in.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support? Seeing none. Witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. We have a motion to second already. Questions or comments from Committee Members? Seeing none. You may close.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and Members. And a respectfully request an aye vote.

Thank you. Support this measure. Please call the roll.

On AB 667 by Assembly Member Maienschein. The motion is do passed to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

Okay, that measure is on call. Next measure, item number five, AB 1047.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and members. In 2020, the New England Journal of Medicine published a study that found handgun ownership dramatically increases the risk of suicide by firearm. Additionally, many individuals who experience recurring episodes of suicidal thoughts and behavior also experience periods when they become aware of their own risk of suicide during a future relapse of illness, according to a study done by Psychiatric Services in 2020.

AB 1047 seeks to address the risk of suicide by firearm by creating a voluntary list that people may sign up for to alert a licensed behavioral health clinician if they attempt to purchase a firearm. Under this alert system, a behavioral health clinician can check in with the purchaser during the 10-day waiting period to assess whether the individual is experiencing a mental health crisis. If an individual does not have a clinician, they may elect to have the county health department within the county they reside notified. Every Town for Gun Safety 2020 found that 52% of gun deaths in California are suicides. Across all states, California is the 44th highest rate of gun suicides in the country. AB 1047 creates a mechanism that can help a person protect themselves in the instance of a future crisis. And I do want to note, I spoke with Randy Perry, who's in this room representing PORAC, who said with the amendments that were taken, he anticipates, although they will review, that PORAC will likely remove their opposition. And with that, I respectfully request an aye vote.

Thank you.

Good morning. Lisa Gardiner with the County Behavioral Health Directors Association. We represent the leaders of the public behavioral health safety net in 58 counties and two cities. We respectfully oppose AB 1047 and should be on your late opposed list. We recognize the intentions behind this bill and share the author's urgent concerns for preventing suicide.

However, we believe this bill lacks clarity about the responsibilities for the county behavioral health counselors who would be the default point of contact for those individuals who list no other mental health counselor as a contact. If this would expose counties and county behavioral health agencies and staff to significant liability, we hope to continue to stay in discussion with the author's office as this bill moves forward. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Any other witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Ms. Wilson.

Question. Assemblymember Maienschein, thank you for bringing this forward. I appreciate the intent. I share the concern of the opposition. Not enough to not vote for this today, so I will support it. But I ask that you would consider, if it is voluntary, then why not have the person put who they would like to be notified if they are attempting to purchase the firearm, whether it be their own doctor, medical doctor, their own mental health clinician, even a family member, someone who holds them accountable. If they're in their right mind enough in that particular moment to add their name to their list, it seemed like it would be voluntary of who is notified if I'm wishing to purchase a firearm. And so why just a licensed mental health clinician and not anyone?

First off, thank you for your comments. I want to cover a couple of things there. One, to reiterate, this is voluntary. Secondly, they are able to select someone. To the extent that there's a lack of clarity in some of the language, we will continue to work with them on that. Yes, I agree with your overall point. If you have the clarity of mind to realize you are at this risk, you also likely have the clarity of mind to select someone.

So that is the intent behind this, to do that, what we were trying to do, and I think we may still have to work out some of the languages in the event you don't have somebody and a lot of these people won't have, necessarily, mental health care professionals that they know by name or that they're currently seeing. We wanted to have a backstop for that. And so that was the idea behind it. But, yes, we will continue to work on this and clarify that language to make sure that that's an accessible reason.

Right. Thank you. I appreciate that because I could see the liability. When we think about what happens in the news post, something happening, we're like, wait, a letter was sent to my local county health professional, and they did nothing? And so, or they were notified. And so I want to be sure that that's something that you consider. Thank you for that. With that, I'll offer the second.

Thank you. Ms. Reyes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I share this concern. The legal liability of whoever is listed, I think, is something that needs to be addressed. The cause is good, but the legal liability must be addressed. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Maienschein, would you like to close and maybe address some of the issues from the testimony?

I would. I mean, we will continue to work on this. It is trying to find that balance. I mean, we know that suicide is a growing problem. We know that having handguns in the home, particularly from somebody who's suffered going through a crisis, increases their likelihood of suicide. common sense tells us that. And in addition, all study after study shows that we know there was a study done in 2017 of eight emergency departments across seven states.

There were 30% fewer suicide attempts among patients who were screened compared to patients who were not screened. This is a way for us to cut into these numbers dramatically. So, yes, we will continue to work on these livable issues. It is obviously not my intent to increase liability. The intent of this bill is to do what we can to really make a significant decrease in the suicide numbers and the ability of somebody who's going through crisis to commit suicide. So with that, Mr. Chair and members, I'd respectfully request an aye vote.

Okay, thank you. We have a motion and a second. I choose support this measure. Please call the roll.

On AB 1047 by Assemblymember Maienschein. The motion is do pass to the Appropriations Committee. McCarty. Aye. McCarty, aye. Alanis. Alanis, no. Zbur. Lackey. Lackey, not voting. Nguyen. Reyes. Reyes, aye. Gipson. Wilson. Wilson, aye.

That measure is on call. We will now be to no authors.

Okay, while we're waiting for other authors, we have two measures for vote only. Oh, three. Excuse me, we have three. These items are not debatable. No presentation, no witnesses. One, the committee member is accepting. Not the committee member. The member, Mr. Patterson, is accepting committee amendments. We can begin with those three measures. Please call the first measure.

On item number eight, AB 329 by Assemblymember Ta. Is there a motion?

Motion. Second.

The motion and second. Please call the roll.

The motion on this bill is do pass. McCarty. Not voting. McCarty, not voting. Alanis. Yes. Alanis, aye. Zbur. Lackey. Yes. Lackey, aye. Nguyen. Reyes. Reyes, not voting. Gipson. Wilson. Wilson, not voting.

Okay, that measure is on call. Please call the next measure.

On AB 758 by Assemblymember Dixon. Is there a motion?

Moved. Second.

The motion and second. Please call the roll.

That motion is do pass to appropriations. McCarty. Not voting. McCarty, not voting. Alanis. Aye. Alanis, aye. Zbur. Lackey. Aye. Lackey, aye. Nguyen. Reyes. Reyes, not voting. Gipson. Wilson. Wilson, not voting.

That measure is on call. Next measure, please.

Item number 10, AB 1260 by Assemblymember Patterson. Is there a motion?

Second.

The motion is do pass as amended to the Appropriations Committee. McCarty. Aye. McCarty, aye. Alanis. Aye. Alanis, aye. Zbur. Lackey. Aye. Lackey, aye. Nguyen. Reyes. Reyes, not voting. Gipson. Wilson. Wilson, not voting.

Wilson, vote change.

Vote change. Wilson. Wilson, not voting to aye.

Okay, is that measure on call or?

That measure is still on call. We need one more.

Mr. Patterson's measure is on call. Okay, let's proceed now with Assemblymember Weber. Item number two, AB 797. Please proceed.

I am here to present AB 797, which would require cities and counties to establish an independent law enforcement review commission to investigate and provide recommendations on complaints of physical injury against law enforcement. Many California cities and counties do not have a community-based review commission to investigate complaints alleging physical injury against law enforcement. The missions of these commissions should be to hold law enforcement accountable to the community and to increase community trust in law enforcement, resulting in increased safety for both the community and law enforcement.

Additionally, when there is no trust, when there is no lack of community oversight, and an issue does occur, cities and counties often have to expend large amounts of money in lawsuits. So it is extremely expensive to not have community trust and a local way to review the conduct of police officers. Between 2010 and 2020, Los Angeles paid 215 million in claims and Orange County paid 14 million in claims.

The bill is needed because while we have the advisory board under SB 2, there are few local community-based commissions which conduct independent investigations. The lack of connection to the community from the post-advisory board is why there needs to be local community input. And AB 797 would achieve these goals by establishing boards across the state and ensuring public's faith into investigation of physical injury.

With me today to speak in support of AB 797 are Dennis Dawson from the California Association of Black Lawyers and Greg Fidell from Initiate Justice. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Please begin.

Good morning, Chair and members. My name is Gregory Fidell and I appreciate the opportunity today to speak on this important bill. Oversight is a necessary and basic function of government and is exercised in many ways in this building every single day. Community-based oversight commissions should be seen in the same light. Increasing accountability and building trust with community stakeholders should be welcomed by every law enforcement department across the state. True public safety requires smart and holistic solutions, and these civilian oversight commissions offer just that.

There are countless examples of the police policing themselves in the community feeling let down by the opaqueness of the process and outcome. Delivering professional and effective police services requires a high degree of public confidence, and this is difficult to achieve without independent oversight commissions in place. Additionally, research has shown that civilian oversight commissions have the potential to rebuild relationships when given teeth to actually investigate claims.

Law enforcement departments would also benefit from these commissions by perhaps feeling vindicated when officer complaints are vetted with clear due process guidelines in a public manner as established by this bill, and then exonerated in this way. It's a win-win policy. AB 797 is good public policy, and I urge your support today. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. I'm Dennis Dawson, representing the California Association of Black Lawyers. First, I'd like to thank Chairman McCarty for personally meeting with us about this bill and for recommending that the committee issue an aye vote. I believe that what we have here is a necessary ingredients to complete what the community needs in order to have truly independent investigations. That is independent investigators, not people who work for the police departments. You have to have subpoena issuance authority and you have to have the authority to seek compliance with those subpoenas. You have to have independent legal counsel who are not conflicted because they also represent the same local government agencies that are employing the law enforcement officers.

When you have that, you have a recipe, a perfect recipe for transparency and accountability, which is going to be created by community input, because it is people on the community, in our local communities are going to serve on these commissions. They are going to be guided in the process by independent legal counsel.

They're going to make sure that the officers procedural rights are respected, but they also are going to make sure that the investigations that these community-based commissions are going to conduct do what is very important. This I learned for working for the Attorney General's Office for 35 years. Your investigation findings must resound in the facts and in the law. And when those investigative findings resound in the facts and in the law, they are truly effective recommendations which can be made to the local governing bodies.

I noticed in the bill analysis that there is a very broad based coalition of community groups supporting this bill on the one hand. And on the other hand, you have one interest opposing it, and that is the police officers associations. CABL itself is an effective organization of highly trained and highly respected individual lawyers and judges in the community who are consulted by the community as to what bills should be supported.

And they want to know how their legislators, representing them in their districts, voted on these bills. And we will report what those votes are. And we expect, and we respectfully request, that the legislatures on this committee do what is required to support community-based review of complaints from people who are alleging that they suffered injuries, physical injuries, or that a family member suffered death as a result of unjustified violence by police officers. And we would urge that this committee would support this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Any other individuals wishing to testify in support, please line up on the side and state your name and organization and position only.

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

Sorry, I was in the other committee. Good morning. Ignacio Hernandez, on behalf of the Center for Policing Equity in support, and also on behalf of the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice in support.

Thank you.

Kari Arzate, with Prison From the Inside Out and Youth Impacted by Incarceration, strongly supporting this bill.

Hello, my name is Ariel Pierre. I'm a part of the Alameda County Youth Advisory Council, and we are in strong support of this bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Eugene Dey with Outside Solutions Consulting, and we support this bill.

Thank you. Seeing no more witnesses in support. Witnesses in opposition, please come forward. You have five minutes combined.

Mr. Chairman, Members, Randy Perry with Aaron Read and Associates, on behalf of PORAC and San Francisco POA, in opposition to the bill, AB 797. First of all, I just say we agree with almost everything that was said by the sponsors of the bill in terms of oversight and review by civilian commissions. The problem is this bill mandates it on every city and county, regardless of whether or not they already have civilian commissions set up.

In addition to that, you already, currently, under current law, you have the agency who especially if there's injury to a citizen or others. You have the agency who does investigation on it because there's injury. You have the District Attorney's Office who does an investigation on it. And thanks to the Chairman, if there is a firearm involved, you have the Department of Justice involved to do an investigation, which is a good bill.

And finally, this committee passed Senate Bill 2 by Senator Bradford that creates within the post-commission a body, a board that does full investigations and part of their investigation of an officer to determine whether or not that officer can't even be an officer any further. Part of their investigation looks into physical abuse, including any type of excessive or use of force.

So all of that currently exists in addition to the fact that any local government now can set up this and does not need legislation to set up. And almost all of the major cities in California do have civilian oversight. This would simply stack another civilian oversight in addition, because there's no exemption if you already have one on that city or county with all the costs that are going to be borne by the city and county, and they have to hire attorneys, full staffing and the like. We're talking tens of millions of dollars on a mandate on local government. The bill is not needed at this point. There's a lot of oversight. If the oversight isn't working, let's check it out and see why or when it isn't working or breaking down. But right now, there's plenty of oversight in California. Thank you.

Thank you. Next witness, please.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. Cory Salzillo, on behalf of the California State Sheriffs' Association, respectfully in opposition to the bill. I will try not to repeat Mr. Perry's comments but would note with specificity of the sheriffs. In terms of existing oversight, we've got state and federal departments of justice, the Board of State and Community Corrections, state and federal courts, county grand juries, district attorneys, and the civilian review entities that are all currently in place, currently exercising oversight authority of the Office of the Sheriff, and not just in the limited scope of this bill, which is only revolving around incidents alleging or resulting in physical injury.

As Mr. Perry said, every law enforcement agency is already required by current law to establish a procedure to investigate complaints by members of the public against law enforcement. If the complainant is unsatisfied by the outcome of that process and the complaint involves an alleged criminal act, the complainant can seek redress from the district attorney. Neither of those paths are satisfactory. The complainant can file with the state Attorney General's Office. There is subpoena authority pursuant to AB 1185.

County councils and grand juries already have subpoena powers, and I would note that the previous version of the analysis acknowledged another problem with this bill. This commission or the commissions contemplated by this bill, they would consider complaints alleging physical injury, even in cases involving a lawful arrest and a lawful use of force. There's no requirement that there be officer misconduct or even an allegation of officer misconduct. So somebody gets hurt during the process of an arrest that's deemed lawful, lawful use of force, that complaint could go to this commission. So for the reasons stated, especially by Mr. Perry, we ask for your no vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in opposition, please line up on the side and state your name, organization, and position only.

Chair and members. Jonathan Feldman on behalf of the California Police Chiefs Association, in opposition.

Karen Lange on behalf of the Fresno County Board of Supervisors, in opposition.

Good morning. Lieutenant Julio De Leon with the Riverside County Sheriff's office on behalf of Sheriff Chad Bianco, in opposition.

Morning, Mr. Chair. Ryan Sherman with the Riverside Sheriff's Association, in opposition. Also the Police Officer Associations of Arcadia, Burbank, Claremont, Corona, Culver City, Fullerton, Murietta, Newport Beach, Novato, Palos Verdes, Pomona, Riverside, Santa Ana, Upland, California Reserve Peace Officers, Placer County Deputy Sheriff's Association, and Monterey County Deputy Sheriff Association. All in opposition. Thank you.

Any others in opposition? Questions or comments from committee members? Ms. Reyes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Earlier was mentioned about that there are procedures already in place. Unfortunately, some of those have not taken care of the issues that were addressed by the Assemblymember. But for those municipalities that already have oversight, civilian oversight, I would ask that as the bill moves forward, that there may be not a blanket exemption, but there be consideration for those that have already expended the time and the money to put together civilian oversights, to have those put in somehow into the language. But with that, I would move the bill.

Thank you. Mr. Alanis.

Mr. Chair, yes. I just have some clarifying issues or question with the sponsor. Sir, you mentioned something about legislators in your speech. Was there something in the bill regarding legislators in that bill?

I'm not sure I understand your question.

You're talking about legislators in voting and reporting.

What I was saying is that.

Can you speak in the mic, please?

What I was saying is that the votes on this committee will be reported by cable to their membership who reside in the districts which are represented by the Assembly people on this committee.

Okay. I wasn't sure if that was part of the bill or not. Okay. Author? Good. Thank you.

No, that's not a part of the bill.

Okay. Yes. Thank you.

Yeah, I, too support this bill. You mentioned the bill on oversight for the Attorney General to do officer-involved shootings of unarmed civilians. We also work to have oversight for sheriff's departments where some of the local jurisdictions stonewalling and allowing that to happen. I think more transparency is a good thing. I still think you have a lot of work to do in sorting out some of the preexisting agencies that have these, some of the smaller jurisdictions and costs and so forth.

But that's your work ahead in the following committees, and I trust that you'll work hard doing just that. With that, I support this measure. We have a motion from Ms. Reyes. I second that. Please call the role. Oh, you'd like to close.

Well, first, I want to thank the Committee chair and the Committee staff for working with my staff and sponsors on this bill. I want to thank all of the Members for their questions and suggestions, those who came in support, and of course, those who came in opposition. We have been in communication and discussion, and I'm listening and I hear all of them.

And what we ultimately want to do is to create something that works for everyone and acknowledging the fact that, yes, local governments do have the opportunity at this point to set up their own police oversight Commission, if they so choose to. Prior to coming here, I was on a local government, and from a resident standpoint, it is extremely hard at times to get the local government to move, to create such a board for a variety of different reasons. And one has to do with cost.

And this particular bill would remove that, because if the local government couldn't pay it, since it'd be a state mandate, the state would step in and help out. But I can remember from my city how hard it was for us to get our council to move, to actually establish a police oversight Commission. And unfortunately, they only moved after our city had a riot due to a situation that happened with our police.

Our businesses were burned, people got significantly injured, and our city had to pay out millions of dollars, which would not necessarily have had to been the case if the council had moved a lot earlier. We did a lot of work. Senator Bradford did a lot of work on SB 2, and I was a co author of that. And I'm very grateful that people were able to come together to create that bill and get it signed by the Governor.

But there is a difference, because those are statewide appointed Members, not local Members. And so there may be somebody in your community, a situation that is in your community that is not represented on the post Commission. And so it is important that we make sure that local people are able to have input on the safety in their communities, to continue to create trust so that communities and police work together. And so, thank you, everyone. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

On AB 797 by Assembly Member Weber. The motion is do passed to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call].

Thank you. We have a motion. A second. Please call the roll.

Thank you. That measure is on call. That dispenses with all of the authors here. We now can flip the calls and wait for add ons. Do we have anybody who's here?

On the consent calendar. [Roll Call]

On item number 10, AB 1260, by Senate Member Joe Patterson. Ms. Reyes, vote change from not voting to aye. Ms. Reyes, vote change from not voting to aye. That Bill now passes.

Okay. Mr. Patterson's measure passes. We will still hold that open for add ons.

On the consent calendar. Gibson. Gibson aye. Item one you've done Mr. Item number two, AB 797, by Assembly Member Weber. Gibson. Gibson aye. This measure remains on call. Item number three, you have voted on. Item number four you have voted on. Item number five. This measure is on call. AB 1047, by Assembly Member Maienschein. Gibson. Gibson aye. That measure remains on call. Item number six was on consent. Item number seven was pulled by the author. Item number eight. Assembly Bill 329, by Assembly Member Ta.

This measure is on call. Gibson, by Assembly Member Ta. Gibson aye. This measure remains on call. Item number nine, AB 758 by Assembly Member Dixon. This measure is also on call, Assembly Member Gibson. Yes. Gibson aye. Item number 10, AB 1260, by Assembly Member Joe Patterson. Gibson. Gibson aye.

On item number one, AB 667. By Assembly Member Maienschein. This measure is on call. Alanis. Alanis Aye. Nguyen. Nguyen aye. That measure passes. On item number two, AB 797, by Assembly Member Weber. This measure is on call. Nguyen. Nguyen not voting, that measure remains on call. Item number three, Ms. Nguyen has already voted. Item number four. AB 1039, by Assembly Member Rodriguez. Nguyen. Nguyen aye. Item number five. AB 1047, by Assembly Member Maienschein. Nguyen. Nguyen aye. That measure now passes. Item number six was on consent.

Item number seven was pulled by the author. Item number eight. AB 329, by Assembly Member Ta, this measure was on call. Nguyen. Nguyen not voting.

AB 329 by Assembly Member Ta. That measure fails.

Item number nine, AB 758, by Assembly Member Dixon. This measure is on call. Nguyen. Nguyen aye. That measure remains on call. Item number 10. AB 1260, by Assembly Member Joe Patterson. Nguyen. Nguyen aye. Item number one. AB 667 by Assembly Member Maienschein. Zbur. Zbur aye. Item number two, AB 797, by Assembly Member Weber. This measure is on call. Zbur. Zbur aye. That measure remains on call.

Item number three, AB 977, by Assembly Member Rodriguez. Zbur. Zbur aye. Item number four. AB 1039, by Assembly Member Rodriguez. Zbur. Zbur aye. Item number five, AB 1047, by Assembly Member Maienschein. Zbur. Zbur aye. Item number six was on consent. Item number seven was pulled by the author. Item number eight. AB 329 by Assembly Member Ta. Zbur. Zbur not voting.

Item number nine, AB 758, by Assembly Member Dixon. Zbur. Zbur not voting.

That measure. Assembly Member Dixon's measure. AB 758. That measure fails.

Item number 10. AB 1260, by Assembly Member Joe Patterson. Zbur. Zbur aye.

On item number one, AB 667 by Assembly Member Maienschein. Lackey. Lackey not voting. On item number two, AB 797, by Assembly Member Weber. This measure is on call. Lackey. Lackey no, this measure remains on call.

Thank you. We're going to recess for about 15 minutes, waiting for several Members to come back to head on.

Okay. We will reconvene and lift the call on a few more measures.

On item number two. AB 797. By Assembly Member Weber. This measure was on call.

Okay. That measure passes. This concludes today's hearing with. We are adjourned. Thank you.