Senate Standing Committee on Public Safety

[Roll Call]

So we have established a quorum. I would like to call Senator Portantino to present SB 53. I also want to make a couple of announcements. Again, each witness has. Each lead witness from both support and opposition will have 2 minutes. Please come to that lectern over there. We will be timing you guys. And as far as the me toos, we would like for all of you guys to come in quickly and say me too. State your name, state your position, state your organization. All right, Senator.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Committee Members. Appreciate you being here this morning to hear SB 53. In 2019, I authored SB 172, which established a safe firearm storage law for California. SB 53 is an expansion to those requirements from 172. It creates an additional standard for safely securing firearms for all gun owners.

Existing law requires firearms in a home either to be kept in a locked container or secured with a locking device that prevents the gun from functioning if a child under the age of 18 is in the home. But there is no broad requirement for securing storage of firearms by all gun owners. Death by firearm is now the number one cause of death for children in our country. Let me say that again. Death by firearm is the number one cause of death for children in the US.

Nationwide, over 4.6 million miners live in homes with access to unsecured guns, and one in five gun owners store their firearms in the least safe manner, such as loaded and unlocked. Over 70% of children reported knowing the location of a household firearm, and one in five parents who reported that their child had never handled a household firearm were contradicted by their child's report. Say that again. Parents who think their children haven't touched their gun were contradicted significantly.

Additionally, 76% of school shooters obtain their firearm from their parents home or the home of a close relative. SB 53 intends to reduce firearm suicide and unintentional firearm injuries through the safe storage of such weapons. Research shows that states that implement safe storage laws saw a 78% drop in unintentional shootings committed by children compared to states that do not have safe storage laws. So, again, this is common sense and it works and it saves lives. Should be bipartisan.

SB 53 does not infringe upon anyone's individual Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in their home, but rather ensures that safe storage of all firearms to prevent unintentional firearm injuries is implemented. If we say lock your car, that's common sense. It's not partisan. Lock your gun should be common sense and nonpartisan. With me today, I have Rebecca Marcus from the Brady campaign and Cassandra Whetstone with Moms Demand Action and at the appropriate time, would respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. You have 2 minutes.

Good morning, chair and Members Rebecca Marcus, representing the Brady Campaign and strong support of SB 53. California has some of the strongest gun laws in this country, and SB 53 will enhance this framework to ensure that all gun owners safely store their firearms to prevent unintentional shootings, mass shootings, theft of firearms, and firearm suicide. The reality is that secure storage of firearms should be as automatic as putting on a seatbelt.

An important way to effectuate that behavior change is through this type of mandate, we cannot have just a portion of the population storing their firearms safely. Every gun owner needs to engage in safe gun ownership. As the Senator stated, gun violence has become the number one killer of our children, and all too often, the source is an unsecured gun. This Bill is how we can ensure that children cannot get their hands on guns to prevent unintentional shootings and school shootings.

SB 53 will also prevent gun suicides. As the Senator stated, research supports that storing firearms locked is an effective measure to reduce the risk of suicide. Finally, gun theft has become a significant issue in California and a significant source of crime guns. Keeping firearms in a safe or box is a common sense and effective method to prevent these guns from entering the illegal market. The cure? Storage of firearms does not interfere with anyone's rights to bear arms or engage in self defense.

As the Senator mentioned, lockboxes that allow owners immediate access to their firearms. And there are those that are many that are reasonably priced. Similar laws have been upheld in the courts. Everyone agrees that gun ownership comes with certain responsibilities, and safe storage is one of them. We urge you to support this Bill, and we also thank the Senator for his consistent leadership on this issue.

Good morning, chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Cassandra Wetstone, and I'm a volunteer with Moms Demand Action. 25 years ago, when I was a teacher in San Jose, one of my students found an unsecured firearm at his best friend's house and shot himself. He survived, but with brain damage that he would carry with him for the rest of his life. A child should never have that kind of access to a gun. I'm here today asking you to support SB 53 by Senator Portantino.

This Bill is an important step to build on California's strong foundational gun safety laws, as well as the state's recent steps to increase public awareness about the importance of secure firearm storage. The research is clear. The secure storage of firearms saves lives. Secure firearm storage helps prevent unintentional shootings, gun suicide, mass shootings, and gun theft. As an educator, I know all too well that unsecured firearms also fuel gun violence outside the home.

In incidents of school violence, the US Secret Service found that three quarters of school shooters acquired their firearm from the home of a parent or a close relative. We know that California leads the way in many aspects of gun violence prevention and gun safety. I'm grateful that California is already one of the 26 states across the country that has some form of firearm secure storage or child firearm access prevention laws in place. But there is more work that we can do.

While millions of responsible gun owners follow recommended storage practices, an estimated 54% of gun owners nationwide still do not lock all of their guns. SB 53 extends California's requirements to securely store firearms to all households, not just those where a child or person who can't legally have a gun might be present. In doing so, this Bill expands the protective benefits of secure firearm storage to more Californians and helps ensure that secure storage is the new normal for responsible firearm owners. Our California moms Demand Action chapter has advocated for local jurisdictions, and we ask for your. aye vote on SB 53. Thank you.

Do we have any me too support? State your name, your Org. and your position. Yes or no.

Good morning. Jamie Minor, Niemela, Pappas and Associates. On behalf of Giffords, thank the author's continued leadership on this issue and pleased to support. Thank you. Thank you.

Liz Roberts Mom's Demand volunteer from Napa, California gun violence survivor urging your support of SB 53?

Yara Judah volunteer with moms demand action and support SB 53.

Jillian King Volunteer mom's demand action yes on 53.

Amy Seropian volunteer with mom's demand action. Yes. In support of SB 53.

Mary Lou Rosetto, volunteer with moms. Demand action in support of 53. And former police officer.

Suzanne Lander, volunteer with mom's. Demand action in support of SB 53.

Danny Offer with Everytown for Gun Safety in strong support of the Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have lead opposition? You have 2 minutes. Long time no see. Happy New Year's.

Happy New year's to you. It's a pleasure to be here. And it's going to be a very fun year. Madam Chair and Members, if I was as good at selecting the lottery numbers as I am at predicting how often Senator Porntino's legislation will be declared unconstitutional, I'd be a billionaire. I don't have very much luck at the lottery, but with regards to the Senator's legislation, I'm batting a thousand, and that's pretty good.

Understand, Members, that the issue of safe storage or lock storage in the home is already settled law. Heller versus the United States, Washington, DC. The Supreme Court. The number one ruling that came out of that was that the Federal Government could not require people to keep their guns locked up in their homes. That was the primary ruling. They examined biometric locks, trigger locks, keyed locks, safes of all kinds, and they ruled that it was unconstitutional.

Then two years later, in Mcdonald versus Chicago, the Supreme Court and said, you know, this law is so important that we're going to incorporate it to the states so that not only can the Federal Government, but state and local governments could not require people to lock up their guns in their own homes. The Supreme Court said that. And mind you, this is not today's Supreme Court. This is the Supreme Court that supported same sex marriage and abortion laws and things like this.

It was a different court. And yet the court came back and said, you cannot force people to keep their guns locked up in a manner to which they are not immediately accessible to them at home. That is the law. Yes. There are other states that have some manner of storage. You want to talk about education on safe storage? The State of California does nothing of that. The Senator does nothing. Our organizations do all the heavy lifting on talking about safe and responsible storage. That's my 2 minutes.

Thank you.

It's going to be a fun year. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any other lead? Opposition? Seeing none. I'd like to call opposition. Me, too. Seeing none. We will move on. Senator, would you like. I mean. Sorry. Do we have any questions from the Committee? Comments, Senator Bradford?

Thank you, Madam Chair. And I want to thank the Senator for what I consider a common sense measure. Gun death amongst kids have increased by 50% over the last two years. And regardless of what the US Constitution or the Supreme Court might have wrote, why wouldn't we want to take extraordinary steps to make sure that guns are stored in a safe and responsible manner? This is all this is about.

I don't understand America's obsession with guns and the ability to allow kids to have access to it. We've seen just in the last month, two kids being shot under the age of 10 with guns. And that in and of itself should be enough to say why this is important. So I want to make a motion to move this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Seyarto.

Thank you. So the law already covers the issue with children and access to guns. What happens and how is that enforced right now? Do we have a grasp on mean? Nobody goes into the houses to inspect, but how does that get enforced? It's like any other law that you do to deter activity. You don't know when you do a suicide prevention which suicide you prevented, but you know you've prevented the same thing here. We know by forcing people to lock up their guns.

Those guns that are locked up are not getting into the wrong hands. Right. And so in those rare instances where the gun gets used by a prohibited person, then law enforcement then will enforce the liability provision against that person who let it fall into the wrong hands. Right. But no, we're not going into people's houses and looking in their drawers. But this is a deterrent of stopping the tragedy from happening.

And the question that you have to answer, the question that all of us have to answer is, do you want to prevent that shooting? Do you want to prevent death? And the best way to do that is to lock up these guns. And so I think that's the decision we have to decide here today. Well, I struggle with the policy decision because there are legal mandates that wind up being expensive and challengeable in courts, and we've done several of those.

But there's also ways of getting voluntary compliance or having people encouraged by way of education, like the gentleman was talking about in how to safely store your guns and how to have the trigger lock mechanisms. We had a Bill last year introduced by Ome that did exactly that. It said we would waive the sales tax if people wanted to purchase one of these locks. I think they're like, if that was a barrier for somebody to do that, this encourages.

In other words, it's a carrot versus the stick. Well, we turned down the carrot approach. We turned down encouraging people to do that. And this law does nothing more than we already have in protecting kids because the kids right now, we're still having problems with that. And those guns are locked up supposedly because we have a law that says they should be. But this is still happening. And what's happening to be able to prevent that?

It's more of a public education and the ability for us to decide what works in our own homes and in our own communities. Because in answer to my colleagues, thing is, the reason people have these is for their friggin protection. There's some communities that are really dangerous, and people have guns because they're afraid of being harmed.

And so I don't know how this law, in addition, other than making a bunch of people that aren't criminals into potential criminals, what are we going to do if we catch them? We're not going to put them in jail because we don't put anybody in jail.

So, Senator, let me say this clearly and crisply as possible. We've seen a 78% reduction. 78% reduction. So your thesis that this isn't going to benefit is a flawed thesis because the data shows the exact opposite.

So if you want to cut down on violent uses of weapons, this causes a 78% reduction in states that have safe storage. So as a first responder, if those are values that you want to cut down on violence, you should be a co author of this Bill. As a first responder, you tell people to lock their car, right. You would counsel people, right? Lock your car. I'm just saying. You're still in that. I'm broadening the term. But you would also encourage your neighbors to lock their door, lock their car. You should be saying lock your gun. . Well, if you care about.

Did that last year and we turned it down. Well, it didn't get out of Committee.

If you care about reducing violence. Right. You should be a co author.

And that 78% applies to the law that we already have. So why are we piling on more laws to something we already have and have already addressed? The 78% issue applies to the property. That's my issue.

Thank you, Senator Skinner.

Very good job of pointing out that, yes, while we do have some good laws around safe storage, this law puts more responsibility, it establishes an affirmative duty on the gun owner to do what is required, and it puts more responsibility on the gun owner, which is where it should be. And I want to thank the author, and I appreciate the analysis, and I will support the Bill. So I do appreciate you bringing this forward.

We have a motion by Senator Bradford, but I would ask the author if they would like to close.

Yeah, I would like to close. Thank you, Madam Chair. And again, this is common sense. Lock your gun so it doesn't fall into the hands of somebody who's going to go to a school and kill kids. Lock your gun so it doesn't fall into the hands of somebody who's going to use it to commit suicide. Doesn't take your second amendment away, by the way, 172 is still on the books, and it's constitutional, as this will be.

So if you really value our neighbors, we should make sure that our homes are safe. So with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

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

SB 53 motion is do passed to appropriations. [Roll Call]

We will leave the roll call open, and we'll move on to Senator Dahle, who will be presenting Senate Bill 804.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. I am back here with my hearsay testimony Bill real quick. I just wanted to say that we did take some amendments to the Bill. We amended the Bill. So this came to me from the district. This was a Bill that was brought forward by the chief of police of Shasta County, who wanted to expand hearsay to non sworn officers last year.

I didn't get the Bill out of Committee, but I did take some amendments that I would like to state to you now. We amended the Bill to say that sworn peace officers or non sworn law enforcement civilians who commit perjury will be added to the Brady list, and the testimony given is subject to be disclosed as impeachment evidence. This change helps hold the witnesses accountable and ensures that only the best, most reliable testimony is admissible in court.

With that being said, a lot of the victims who have to be witnessed to come back to be witnesses with hearsay testimony would allow them not to be able to have to do that, which is a help for them to not have to relive the crime again. And it also is a help for the peace officers who are strapped doing all this hearsay testimony, and they would be able to go out and do their job. So with that, those amendments, I'm hopeful to get this Bill out of Committee. It's a common sense Bill, came from the district, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Do we have any support witnesses?

I don't. They made it down last time, but they weren't able to make it down today.

Okay. Do we have any opposition witnesses? If you're in opposition, you have 2 minutes.

Excuse me. Good morning, Madam Chair. Members of the Committee, Ignacio Hernandez, on behalf of the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, we are in opposition. We're a statewide Association of criminal defense lawyers in private practice and also working in public defender offices. The preliminary hearings in felony cases really should be a critical part of the process. It's the first time that evidence is presented in front of a judge to determine whether or not law enforcement and Das have identified and arrested the right person.

And the right charges have been filed over the years. And especially because of the Proposition that was passed in 1990, these hearings have become pro forma, very little hearing, very little time, and as a result, we've gotten it wrong way too many times. This Bill moves us in the wrong direction and it expands hearsay exception, which is problematic. Our attorneys see it firsthand. I've been in a criminal defense attorney.

I've been in preliminary hearings where we try to push to really have evidence reviewed by the judge to be able to cross examine witnesses, and that is when we actually get to the truth of what actually happened and whether it's the right person or whether it's the right charge.

This Committee passed a Bill last year on the two thirds tags as two thirds Bill to increase the type of evidence that has to be presented before preliminary hearing to the defense to make sure that preliminary hearings actually are meaningful. This Bill goes in the other direction. And so while it's well intentioned, we understand that law enforcement is trying to move towards civilian employees, and that's a fiscal issue. This runs against and over the right to cross examine witnesses. And for those reasons, we're opposed. We think we need to actually make preliminary hearings stronger and not weaker. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Leslie Caldwell Houston. Excuse me. For the California Public Defenders Association, in respectful opposition, allowing civilian witnesses, even limited to those employed by law enforcement, to testify to hearsay seriously undermines the purpose of a preliminary hearing, which is to weed out unsupported charges. It undermines California's case law that has consistently upheld hearsay evidence offered by trained, experienced sworn officers while not minimizing the value of civilian police employees.

They are not sworn, they do not go to a police academy, and they do not have the breadth of experience that a sworn officer has. There is a reason preliminary hearings testimony is limited to those sworn officers, and there is not a reason to broaden it as this Bill proposes to do. Preliminary hearings remain a critical stage of a criminal proceeding.

The issue with the idea that efficiency should be involved in a preliminary hearing is a concern and should not be a priority in a criminal case that would lead to incarcerating a human being. Police unions might want to consider whether this is a step to replace sworn officers with cheaper, less skilled labor. Given the erosion of public trust in law enforcement, such a course seemed destined to widen rather than bridge the gap between police and the communities that they serve. For myriad of reasons, we respectfully request your no vote.

Thank you for me too. Again, state your name, your and the position.

Danica Rodarmel on behalf of Initiate Justice in opposition thank you.

Xavier Espana on behalf of Silicon Valley Debug and opposition thank you.

Melissa Valdez on behalf of Silicon Valley Debug and I oppose.

Eladio Cortez Morales, Silicon Valley Debug and I oppose this bill.

Tremaine Hunter of Silicon Valley Debug and I oppose this.

Raymond Gomez of Silicon Valley Debug and I oppose.

Cynthia Dalcourt Longs Silicon Valley Debug and I oppose also.

Good morning, Members. Mica Doctoroff, on behalf of the ACLU of California Action, we're regretfully in opposition.

Tyena Vargas, Initiate Justice Action, in opposition.

Shervin Aazami, Initiate Justice Action in opposition.

Jeronimo Aguilar, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, in respectful opposition.

Thank you. Joanne Scheer, Felony Murder Elimination Project, in respectful opposition.

Thank you.

Good morning. Don Davidson, all of us are none prison from the inside out, in opposition.

Good morning. Henry Ortiz, with Legal Services for Prisons with Children in the sacrament all of us are none chapter respectfully opposed as well.

Jesse Clyde Burleson, Legal Services for Prisons with Children and all of us are in opposition.

Robert Bowden, Legal Services for Prisons with Children all of us are none in opposition.

Good morning. Tana Oppliger with Californians United for Responsible Budget or curb in opposition to this Bill. Thank you.

Good morning. Dax Proctor, Californians United for a Responsible Budget, in opposition.

Good morning. Haley Little, Surge Bay Area Policy Committee, in opposition.

Leslie Caldwell Houston, for the San Francisco Public Defender's Office in opposition thank you.

Seeing no further speakers, we will move on to Members of the Committee. Would anybody like to make a comment or ask a question? Senator Seyarto.

A question as to the complexity of this. All this really does because currently you have to have a police officer takes a sworn statement and then later on says, yes, that's the sworn statement. And because of staffing issues that I think police are having nowadays, which is significant, it's getting more and more difficult to send them out. And so they are employing more civilian employees that are still bound by the department's regulations, and they're taking those statements and saying, yes, that's what that person said. They're just affirming what the person said is what they wrote down, correct?

Yes, that's correct.

So that avoids them having to have a police officer come over and ask the person that took down the statement, is that what that person said to you, or is that what the person said?

That's correct. It seemed hard. Maybe I can clear up some and maybe even the opposition. So the opposition stated that it was brought to me by people who are wanting to be able to use.

So first of all, the person that is getting the testimony has to have this Bill would authorize law enforcement, civilians with at least five years of experience or who have undergone the same hearsay post training as a sworn peace officer to perform hearsay testimony at a preliminary hearing. So same training, same as a sworn officer. These are the same training experiences required by sworn officers. So that's number one.

So it's not like just somebody that they just went out and got, people have to have five years of experience. And then the other thing we did was our amendments state that any perjured testimony given by a peace officer or law enforcement civilian. So that's both. So you heard the testimony saying we have some problems with this area. This adds sworn officers to that.

So we're actually increasing what sworn officers already have is to make sure we don't have what the opposition said we already have problems with. So this law would allow civilians with five years and it would also put peace officers pursued to this section is subject to the closer as impeachment evidence to the extent required under the Brady versus Maryland law. So we are adding them in. So this Bill is not about doing away with anything.

It's same training, actually making them have that training, saying they have to have that training at the same time making sure that the sworn officers are doing the same thing. So we've actually increased it with our amendments to this Bill.

And this would probably help the process and the other thing that forward at a more reasonable rate because then they wouldn't have to coordinate with somebody to have to be there. And if they can't because they're tied up on a call or whatever.

This is, making sure that the testimony is the person that is doing it, whether you're sworn or civilian, is accurate. And if you aren't, you're going to be dismissed and you're not going to be able to do it. It's holding them accountable. So it's doing what they're saying is already a problem. It's fixing that. And it's allowing somebody who has five years of training has the same POST trainings to be able to do it as a civilian.

I appreciate the clarification,

And it also is helpful for the person that's a victim who may have to come and forward and do that testimony several times, even years later.

All right. Do we have any other Members of the Committee? Thank you, Senator Skinner.

Thanks, chair. So I didn't support this Bill when this was first before us, and I appreciate the expression of much of the opposition around the issue of hearsay testimony, but I am, and I've become, since we first heard this, in interacting with a lot of the communities in my district, we are moving, and I want to be clear. We're not replacing police officers.

We are just using, whether it's, well, we are using community interventions with law enforcement, hired people but who are not sworn officers for appropriate interventions that don't necessarily require a police officer. But, of course, when such a call comes in, one can't always predict what's going to occur in the response to that call. And so we want those community interventions to be as effective as possible, and we want them to serve to help reduce crime and reduce negative interactions with law enforcement.

Anyway, my point being that we are doing more of this, and so I can see a role for these individuals. And the thing that gives me a little more comfort is the requirement of these people having been in such a role for at least five years or having had the equivalent training. This is still tricky, but I don't have the same opposition. I'm going to let somebody else move it. But I just wanted to explain the evolution of my thinking on it.

Thank you. Okay. Senator Wiener, would you like to comment?

Yeah. I supported this Bill last year. I continue to support it. I think I completely respect where the opposition is coming from. But in the end, I just think this makes a lot of sense in terms of just the Administration of justice and not always relying only on police officers for everything. When we have a shortage of officers. And I've been a long advocate of civilianization in law enforcement, not everything has to be handled by a law enforcement officer, certain forms of investigation, et cetera. So I understand the opposition, but I do support this Bill, and I appreciate the work that you've done on it.

Thank you. Senator Bradford. Nothing. So I just wanted to highlight, Senator, I appreciate you bringing this forward. One of the considerations I've made as a City Council Member is, of course, to, what our previous Senators have stated is that, of course, we want to make sure that justice is served, number one. Number two is to ensure that we don't put all our eggs in one basket. And I think that police officers are overburdened with a lot of different things that they have to take care of.

And yet at the same time on council, the number of neighbors that would complain about some of the people in their neighborhood or somebody riding a bike or assuming that they stole something or broke a window or something, and this is a concern I raised last year as well, I don't 100% feel comfortable with that either.

And so it is a balancing act as to what is the appropriate measure when we are trying to ensure community safety, not heavily rely on armed police officers, and at the same time ensure that justice is served. I will be abstaining on this particular measure just because I don't think I'm there yet on this particular Bill. But I will defer to my colleagues to make the choice that they believe is right for them. But I do appreciate your time, your effort.

I appreciate all the speakers as well. And we have a motion by Senator Wiener if we can call for a vote. Senator, would you like to.

1 minute. Yes. I just want to say that I heard you last year and I heard the opposition, and I came back with, I think makes this Bill better. It's actually a lot better with the amendments that we put. So I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Motion is due. Pass to the floor. That motion is out. That Bill is out.

All right, we are going to be moving on to our next presenter, Senator Umberg. Thank you for waiting. Senator Umberg, you will be presenting a number of bills, but if you would like to start with SB 92 first.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members, first of all, thank you to Ms. Mary Kennedy for your assistance on this issue. This is regarding remote access and criminal trials. The Bill simply extends the sunset for one year. Remote access has now been used in the courts for the last four years, and it has proved to be, I think, quite effective. There are a number of provisions in the Bill that safeguard the ability to make sure that you have an accurate record.

Those include one, if the court reporter who is required to be physically present in the courtroom can't hear or transcribe the proceedings, the court reporter has the ability to interrupt the proceedings so that the record can become clear. Two, a defendant has a right, if that defendant so chooses, to appear in any hearing that the defendant wishes, where the defendant wishes to appear. Urge an aye vote with me on behalf of judicial counsel is Tracy Kenny.

You will have two minutes.

Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. Tracy Kenny, on behalf of the Judicial Council, in strong support of Senate Bill 92. Essentially, this legislation would extend for an additional year the existing authority to conduct remote proceedings in criminal cases. This is with protections, as Senator Umberg mentioned, this is only with the consent of the defendant, their informed consent on the record. This is an option that we estimate has been used in about one and a half million cases since March of 2022.

So this is being used by a lot of folks. It's not the rule, but it is something that folks are using to be able to appear in cases to prevent a failure to appear to allow in collaborative cases, especially where there are repeat appearances by defendants. It allows the defendants to be able to do so without interrupting their programming or their employment.

We think this is a common sense way to provide access to justice and ensure the participation of the greatest number of people in our criminal proceedings so that courts can get the information that they need. And we would note that we collect data on an ongoing basis on user satisfaction with the remote proceedings and have found an overall satisfaction rate in almost 100,000 surveys of about 96%. So this is something that is working well. We recognize that there are concerns by some of the stakeholders.

We look forward to working with them to address those as necessary. And we're currently in the process of adopting minimum technology standards to ensure that the technology allows for an accurate, verbatim record and clear understanding of what's going on in the proceedings. We ask for your aye vote.

Do we have any other lead witnesses?

None.

Okay. Do we have any me too support witnesses? All right, we will go to lead opposition. Two minutes.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Sandra Barreiro, on behalf of SEIU California. We represent court employees in 36 counties across the state. Our position is opposed unless amended. Last year, we were unable to reach an agreement on the COVID error procedures for remote proceedings, and so the law was extended for another year. And again, these were just temporary emergency procedures, never intended to last indefinitely.

So maintaining the accuracy of verbatim transcripts remains a priority for us, especially if they include witness testimony. And we hope we can reach an agreement this year. Thank you. Thank you. Two minutes.

Leslie Caldwell, Houston. For the California Public Defenders Association. I'd like to echo the comments just made. We are not opposed. CPDA is not opposed to a judicious use of remote technology and criminal proceedings in non evidentiary or pretrial continuances. However, convenience cannot be more important than people's freedom, efficiency. And I feel like I'm echoing my last comments, efficiency cannot be our focus to the detriment and or the expense of fair Administration of justice.

We have been debating and working and talking for, it seems like two or three years now on this. The virtual justice was an emergency idea plan, and to extend it yet another year is inappropriate. There were many problems and issues that had previously been identified in the Joint Hearing, but held by this Committee with the Health Committee in testimony by prosecutors, judges, defense attorneys, interpreters and court reporters, among others. Some of the problems are lack of access leading to the grave inequality.

I understand that it has been stated that the state is in the process of ensuring that everybody has adequate connectivity, et cetera, but we're not there in the process. Is not there noise in the background or poor connection can lead to errors that lead to unjust incarceration. It doesn't have to be someone saying, I can't hear. They may hear wrong. Witness testimony must be live and in person. And I say this to you as a trained, very experienced litigator.

Too many things cannot be clear in a video call, such as overall demeanor, physical cues of emotional richness, possibility of off camera coaching or otherwise. Video evidence leads to dehumanization. I'm not talking very clearly today. I apologize. Dehumanization of both witnesses and defendants. I look forward to continuing to work with the author on the issues that we've identified, but we at this point, respectfully request your no vote.

Thank you. Me, too. State your name, your organization and that you oppose.

Madam Chair and Members Pat Moran, Aaron Reed and Associates representing the Orange County Employees Association. We're opposed unless amended for the reasons previously stated. Thank you.

Thank you.

Goodmorning, Ignacio Hernandez, on behalf of the California Court Reporter Association, the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice and the California Federation of Interpreters all have an opposed unless amended position on the Bill.

Good morning. Christopher Ruggles, AFSCME, California. Opposed. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no other speakers, we're going to move to Members of the Committee. I will say something. Senator, I appreciate you bringing this. I just want to 100% just address this. This Bill does just extend the sunset on the provisions, correct?

That's correct.

And it extends it to what period of time?

One year till the current sunset date is January 1, 2025 extended to 2026?

Okay. And do you plan on potentially working on this for, let's say, no sunset, but, like, extending this completely?

Do I think it should be extended indefinitely? Yes, I do, but that's not what this Bill does.

Okay. And I just want to say that again, it's extending the sunset. It's only for one more year. I think that there are still places that are still. We have vulnerable populations that still have some difficulty making it in court and so forth. I will extend any questions or comments or emotion by my colleagues. Senator Wiener moves the Bill. Can we call for a vote?

Yes. As I've said a million times, I am not a fan of remote court proceedings, remote depositions, but I understand the reality of where the legal system is right now. And I know that the authors and stakeholders have done a lot of work to put safeguards in place so that people are not forced into this. And we need to be careful that judges are not effectively forcing people into it. But I'll support this.

Thank you. Motion is, do pass to appropriations Wahab aye. Seyarto. Bradford. Skinner aye. Wiener aye. Bradford aye..

This Bill will actually be on roll call so we can have another Senator's vote on it. We are going to move on to the next Bill by Senator Umberg. Senator Umberg, would you please present SB 379?

Yes. Thank you. Just by way of closing the last Bill, I would invite, in fact, encourage Members of this Committee and all Members of the Legislature to actually visit a courtroom so that they can see how remote is currently being used, both in criminal proceedings as well as civil proceedings. I think that will lay some of the concerns. All right, next Bill, SB 379. This Bill was generated based upon a visit to Donovan state correctional facility.

And there we talked to a number of different individuals who expressed a desire to be able to communicate their apology to victims of their crimes. And currently, there may not be a mechanism to do that. And what this Bill does is simply establishes sort of a bank where if a person who is incarcerated wishes to communicate with a victim, they can submit that communication to this bank, and if the victim wishes to receive it, they can acknowledge their interest in receiving it. It does not permit the incarcerated individual to communicate directly with the victim. I would urge an aye vote. I thank Stephanie Jordan for your help on this measure.

Thank you. Do we have any lead witnesses?

We do not.

Okay. We will move on to opposition witnesses seeing none, we will move on to any me toos. Seeing none, we will move on to Committee Members. Comments? Senator Skinner moves the Bill. We have no further comments. It looks like. Senator, would you like to close?

Common sense measure, urge an aye vote.

Thank you. Could we call it for a roll call? I mean, vote?

Motion is do pass to appropriations. Wahab aye. Seyarto. Bradford aye. Skinner aye. Wiener aye.

Thank you. That motion, I mean, that Bill is on call. Senator, would you like to present SB 850?

Yes. SB 850 deals with the issue of folks who do not make their appearance, not because they have intentionally missed their appearance in court. It's because, for example, they've lost track. For example, it's been continued. They're unaware. And what this Bill does is it simply provides a way for the court to notify an individual that they have an appearance. That's coming up in the very near future. We intend to take a number of amendments to this Bill, if it should move forward.

Those amendments would include that the provision of a cell phone number is not required. It is requested but not required, that the responsibility to create the system would rest with the counties as opposed to judicial counsel, and that this information, so should someone who's arrested provide this information to authorities and then not show up. The fact that they provided this information, anything surrounding this communication could not be used against them.

With me to testify in support, Ms. Shayla Wilson and Ms. Titilayo Raskai from La Defensa, thank you.

You will be timed. You have two minutes.

Thank you. Good morning. My name is Shayla Wilson. I am a policy and advocacy advisor with law Defensea. We're proud co sponsors of SB 850. I would like to use this time to further discuss the various amendments we will be incorporating into the Bill following this hearing. So, as Senator Umberg stated, rather than establishing a singular statewide court notification system, we have rewritten the Bill to require the existence of a court reminder system in each county.

It will allow various agencies in that county to operate the system, including, but not limited to, the Superior Court, pretrial services, or community based organizations, but will mandate that it be available to all persons arrested. The Bill will require or establish minimum requirements for these systems, including language access and a minimum number of reminders for each hearing, including the initial appearance.

We do mandate that law enforcement request a phone number for each person arrested, given recent data out of Santa Clara County that shows that around 50% of missed court appearances are for that initial hearing prior to the appointment of counsel. But under the amendments, people who are arrested will be able to refuse to provide that information without consequence. It'll also enable people to opt out when they receive that first reminder.

A major change from last year's iteration of the Bill is that Judicial Counsel will no longer be responsible for any component of the system or related data collection. Instead, we indicate the State's Department of Justice should manage all data collection, as this is a responsibility the agency already holds for other similar initiatives. Finally, SB 850 amendments will provide protections for all personal information collected solely for the purpose of a court reminder. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you. Next speaker, two minutes.

Good morning, Madam Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Titilayo Raskai. I'm an attorney and policy and campaign strategist at La Defensa. We are thrilled to support SBA 50, a Bill that would require a court reminder system to be available in each county and creates minimum standards for those systems. According to the judicial counsel, there were more than 57,000 presence warrants for failures to appear in felony cases in 2022. This means that Californians miscourt in almost 30% of those 183,000 filings for that year.

There are many reasons why somebody may misquote, most of which are unintentional and not an attempt to willfully avoid prosecution. Reasons include confusion about the date, time or location of the hearing, among other barriers. Access to a court reminder system would mean that fewer Californians will be rearrested on a bench warrant or face up collateral consequences of missing court in subsequent hearings.

Court reminders are cost effective, and jurisdictions that have implemented court reminder systems across the nation have reduced failures to appear by as much as 35% for individuals who receive those reminders. Court reminders also improve the court's operational efficiency and decrease various administrative costs. For example, in Hennepin County in Minnesota, the court reminder system saved an estimated $3 million for that year. Many counties in California currently offer court reminders through county probation departments, but those systems vary widely and often only reach a portion of the population.

Pretrial eight SB 850 would actually require uniformity across the state. Additionally, SB 850 would provide protections for all information collected solely for the purpose of the court reminder. We respectfully urge you to pass SB 850, allowing our state to reduce court costs, failures to appear and ensure that all Californians released pretrial have equal access to cost effective court notification system. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.

Thank you. Do we have any other speakers? Me too. State your name, your organization and that you support.

Lynn Berkeley Baskin justice to Jobs Coalition me too with Amendment.

Maria Jose MJ Vidas. On behalf of the Vera Institute of Justice we also support SB 850 with amendments.

Tyena Vargas Initiate Justice Action in support.

The amendments have to be done in. Approach, but he's thank you. Do we have any opposition? You will have two minutes.

Behalf of the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice we're going to a little bit closer with the author on this Bill. We do have a number of concerns with the Bill in print. We have been in discussions with the author's office and the proponents of the Bill. We have seen a draft of the amendments obviously aren't in print yet. We think it's moving in a better direction. We do intend to continue to be engaged as the Bill evolves.

It's a little tricky, obviously, because we have this January deadline. Wish we had a little bit more time to work on this. We'll do our best to provide some suggestions. Even with the draft that we've seen, we don't think we're there yet. We think there's still a number of changes the overall goal of getting folks to court and not miss their court date. Obviously, we support and we think it's not as problematic, and we'll continue those conversations.

Leslie Caldwell Houston for the California Public Defenders Association. While we have not taken a position in opposition, we are concerned, and we're in the same situation as the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice. We look forward to discussing further with the author.

Thank you. All right, seeing none, we're going to bring this back to the Committee. Committee Members, would you guys like to comment? Seeing no comment, can we have a close from the author?

Sure. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, Ms. Kennedy, for your assistance on this Bill. Most folks who miss, especially their initial appearance, do so not because of their intent, but because of inadvertent. After they miss, a warrant can be issued for their arrest. Creates a lot of challenges, especially for those who are charged with relatively minor offenses that complicates their lives. Immeasurably urge an aye vote.

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

Motion is do pass appropriations. Wahab aye. Seyarto. Bradford aye. Skinner. Wiener aye.

Thank you. That Bill is on call. Thank you, Senator Newman, thank you for waiting. SB 251, floor is yours.

Morning, Madam Chair Members. I appreciate this opportunity to present SB 251. This is a modest proposal aimed at ensuring the credibility of candidates for public office in California. Current law provides that candidates who knowingly make false claims in their candidate statements are subject to a current maximum fine of $1,000. This amount was established in 1993 and has not been raised since then.

It has become evident since that the $1,000 fine threshold established three decades ago is unlikely to adequately deter candidates from intentionally misleading voters, making it a common sense measure to increase the maximum fine to a threshold that will. SB 251 will provide that a candidate convicted of knowingly making a false statement on his or her ballot materials will be subject to a fine as high as $5,000. As the Committee analysis notes, after including penalty assessments, the proposed 5000 fine would be approximately $20,000.

This, we believe, represents a decent deterrent to that sort of willful misrepresentation. SB 251 will ensure that candidates will abide by the required guidelines when crafting a candidate ballot statement, thereby ensuring transparency and integrity in California's electoral process and protecting the interests of California voters. This is before your Committee because it has jurisdiction in the case of the raising of fines such as this. I am respectfully asking for an aye vote today.

Thank you. Do we have any witnesses in support?

We do not.

Do we have any witnesses in opposition? In support or opposition?

In support.

Okay, you have two minutes.

Eric Lawyer with the California State Association of Counties. I'll keep my remarks short. We've seen some of the dangers at the local level of unqualified candidates for office being elected to their positions, which often are technical in nature. This Bill won't guarantee that these actions don't happen, but will provide an important protection against them happening in the future. And for those reasons, we're in support.

Thank you. Thank you. Do we have any other too support? Okay. Do we have any opposition seeing, sir. Okay, you have two minutes.

Thank you very much. Although I do have much respect for Senator Newman. Great guy. As you all know, I do feel that this legislation is somewhat vengeful, if you will. I want you all to take into consideration that when people run, they may not have the information in the background and the people supporting you that you all do that have gotten to office. And I think this will intimidate people from running. I don't think people anyways, make misleading statements because they want to be bad.

They may be trying to prevey a message, and they may not understand the rules. Putting more of a burden on them financially will discourage people from running. So I ask you to vote no, sir.

What's your name and what's your organization?

My name is David Bolog. I'm a private individual.

All right, thank you. Thank you. Do we have any opposition, toos? Seeing none, we will move on to Members of the Committee. Committee Members, do you guys have questions, comments? Okay, so Senator Wiener has made a motion I would like to just clarify. Specifically, these are for candidates, correct?

Correct.

And this is when you say a false statement, what specifically are you referencing?

This is strictly with respect to the typically 250 word candidate statement that is submitted as part of the election process, part of their filing at the state level. That involves accepting the voluntary expenditure limits, and that gives you the wherewithal to submit a 250 word statement. This pertains only to that statement, and I think the rules are fairly clear. The existing fine already is already in place. This measure would simply raise that fine.

Thank you. I do appreciate that. And I also just want to say I fully support this measure. Specifically. I wish that it was extended even to special interest groups that are partaking in campaigning, campaign literature. And we also know how difficult it is where false messages are shared to the public en masse. So I really appreciate you bringing this forward. I hope that we can continue working on this issue. We have a motion by Senator Wiener. Can we call a roll call vote? Would you like to close?

I appreciate it. I would like to point out I had another measure, SB 248, last year, that was actually a little more comprehensive. It would have required that all candidates would submit a very simple statement of their qualifications as part of their election filings. That measure failed in appropriations. This is an incremental improvement, but it's an improvement nonetheless. I ask for your aye vote today.

Thank you. SB 251 motion is do pass to elections and constitutional amendments. Wahob? Aye. Wahob, aye. Seyarto. Bradford, aye. Bradford, aye. Skinner, aye. Skinner, aye. Wiener. Wiener, aye. Those on call. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Members.

So next we have our final presenter, Senator Glazer, on SB 73 Jurisdiction. Senator.

Yeah. Thank you. Thank you, Members. Can you hear me? I'm going to say that I don't hear it, but the Bill before you, SB 733, has been narrowed to focus strictly on collecting data on California's solitary confinement system. I still believe what I said last year in my first presentation of this Bill, that solitary confinement in our prisons is in need of significant change. We should not tolerate inhuman conditions for inmates in solitary confinement.

My Bill today is even more important in light of the new emergency regulations that the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation has implemented. These new regulations are due to go through regular regulatory channels this spring. The issue is the same with that matter as it is with other efforts to enact solitary confinement reforms. Both are seeking changes without collecting fundamental data on what's really happening in our prisons.

The only way to ensure any change in this space that is responsive to the rehabilitative needs of inmates is through accountability measures like this Bill to collect and share data on the actions that are occurring in real time in our prisons. Specifically, this Bill, starting January 12026 would require CDCR to collect data and annually report back to the Legislature on very specific data requests. One, specific descriptions of the type of offenses inmates are held in solitary confinement or restricted housing in the institution.

The number of times individuals were kept in solitary confinement or restrictive housing for that year. The total time individuals placed in solitary confinement or restricted housing were kept in solitary for that year, along with existing mental health diagnoses of those who are in solitary, and the analysis does a good job of identifying some of the other important data requests this Bill would require my Bill to collect and share.

This data will ensure the changes that we consider going forward result in a safer environment for inmates and those who work in the system and lead to a greater focus on rehabilitation. I'm pleased that some organizations have now removed their opposition to the Bill, and I'm hoping others will follow suit as we consider supporting it today. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have a lead witness in support?

No.

Okay. Seeing none. Do we have any? Me too. Witnesses in support? Seeing none, we will move on to opposition. Lead witnesses. Okay. You will have two minutes. You are timed.

Good morning. Jackie Gonzalez, Policy Director for Immigrant Defense Advocates. I'm here also on behalf of the California MandeLA campaign, a coalition of dozens of organizations across the State of California who care about conditions in jails, prisons and immigration detention centers.

Our coalition also includes people who have spent decades in solitary confinement, aka torture, and testified before the same Committee in opposition to this Bill and spoke about their experiences when the Bill was first heard last year. Senator Glazer, despite having many, many months to continue to engage with the community that has been impacted by this practice, I don't see anyone in the room in support of this Bill, and I don't see any organizations in support of this Bill.

In the analysis, what continues to exist is a lengthy list of opposition. The reasons for that opposition primarily are focused on the fact that there is a Bill, AB 280, which passed out of the California Legislature and is now sitting in the Assembly. Several of the Members of this Committee are co-authors on that Bill, and it's an attempt to comprehensively end the practice of solitary confinement, which is long overdue in the State of California today. There is still no definition for solitary confinement in California.

This Bill may seem on its face to be a simple data collection Bill. I would argue that it is not even able to do what it sets out to do because the Bill says that solitary confinement, also known as restricted housing, will in the State of California. And then it goes on to say what data should be collected. There's no definition for solitary confinement in California, and solitary confinement is not restricted housing.

If you go onto CDCR's website today and there is a question there that says, do you have solitary confinement? Do you engage in solitary confinement? The answer is no. So how can we track data on a practice that we don't even agree on? If you don't know what you're tracking, you can't track the data.

We agree that it's important to collect data on this practice, and that is why AB 280 again includes information about what solitary confinement is, attempts to define it, and also has a provision to collect much of the same data that Senator Glaser's Bill would collect. So the Bill is at once redundant. Thank you. And insufficient. Thank you. Thank you.

Do we have any other lead opposition witnesses seeing? None. We are going to move on to me to opposition. I want to be very clear. I want to be very clear. State your name, your organization, and we move through this pretty quickly.

Good morning. Micah Doctoroff, Senior Staff Attorney at the ACLU of Northern California. Here today, on behalf of ACLU California action, we have removed our opposition. We're grateful to the author for taking into consideration our concerns, and we're now neutral on the Bill. Thank you.

Jesse Clyde Burleson, in custody program coordinator, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, in opposition.

Good morning. Jeronimo Aguilar, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Robert Bowden, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children all of us are in opposition.

Hello. Haley Little, Surge Bay Area Policy Committee, in opposition thank you.

Good morning, all. Nikki Martinez, my pronouns are she, her, we. I'm Deputy Director at Sister Warriors Freedom Coalition, in opposition.

Rachel Mueller, on behalf of NextGen California, in opposition.

Tana Oppliger with California United for Responsible Budget, in opposition. Thank you.

Gregory Kramer, on behalf of Disability Rights California. We're a Member of the Mandela Coalition, also in opposition.

Lone Piper, she her. Young Women's Freedom Center, Oakland in opposition.

Alyssa Moore, in custody, representative for all of us are none legal services for prisoners with children, in opposition.

Lawrence Cox, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children all of us are none in strong opposition.

Gabriel Anthony Morillo, the Legal Services for Prisoners with Children sorry about that. All of us are strong the opposition of it.

Good morning. Amika Mota, Executive Director, Sister Warriors Freedom Coalition we are in opposition.

Good morning. April Grayson, Policy Manager for the Sister Warriors Freedom Coalition, also in opposition.

Good morning. John Cannon, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children and a member of all of us are none in strong opposition.

Good morning. Tanisha Cannon, Managing Director with Legal Services for Prisoners with Children and all of us are none in strong opposition.

Good morning. Sway Lakai, with Communities United with Restorative Justice I'm sorry.

Pamela Couch, I'm a retired cc two counselor with CDCR, and I now work with Balanced Freedom Project and TPW, and I'm in strong opposition of this Bill.

Good morning. Mona Cavana, Equal Justice USA, in opposition to this Bill.

Noe Godino, I'm with Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, all of us are none and I'm in strong opposition.

Jim Lindberg, Friends Committee on Legislation of California we're removing our opposition to the Bill. Thank you.

Hello. Melissa Valdez with Silicon Valley Debug, in strong opposition of this Bill.

Xavier Espana, formerly incarcerated in CDCR, on behalf of Debug and Silicon Valley Debug I oppose this Bill.

Raymond Goens, a formerly incarcerated solitary confinement survivor. I try to commit suicide in there so I know how bad it is. It's bad. I oppose it. I strongly oppose.

Cynthia Dalcourt Longs Silicon Valley debugged San Jose, California. I oppose this Bill strongly. I have a son who's at San Quentin now. Ma'am. It's just it. Yes. Thank you.

Hello. Good morning. Lizette Alvarez with Sister Warriors Freedom Coalition in Tehachapi, and I oppose.

Natalie Mota with Sister Warriors Freedom Coalition and I oppose.

Good morning. Don Davidson. All of us are none. Prison from the insight in opposition.

Lucero Rerra, she, her, hers pronouns, Young Women's Freedom Center and founder, Sister Warriors, strong opposition. Okay.

Mayonelle Alexander from Young Women's Freedom Center in opposition.

Alia Jones from Young Women's Freedom Center in opposition.

Lupita Martinez from Young Women's Freedom Center, opposition.

Thank you. Seeing no other opposition witnesses, we will move on to Members of the Committee who would like to comment. Seeing none. Okay, Senator Skinner,

Seems to me this is the kind of information, as legislators, we can request from CDCR. I don't understand why we'd need to put it in statute. So I'm not prepared to support the Bill. And I also feel that it doesn't deal with the principal issue, which is the negative impacts of solitary confinement. So I'm not prepared to support. Thank you, Senator Wiener

Yeah, so I'm a co-author of AB 280, and I'll continue to support that Bill, and I hope we can make it a reality. And I did not support the Bill in Committee last year when the author brought it forward. But at this point, it's a data collection Bill. I understand the concerns that it might not be necessary.

There are times when we do data collection bills where you can maybe get the data in other ways, but I don't think the Bill, personally, I don't think it's harmful. I don't think anyone's going to interpret this as an alternative to AB 280. It's been reduced significantly to a data collection Bill. So I'll support it.

Thank you. I will just say, historically, we have opposed the previous version of this Bill, and I think that many of us have supported the assemblymember Holden's Bill regarding solitary confinement. I think many people have been a little frustrated with solitary confinement as a whole and the mere fact that it's still on hold in the Assembly and obviously further conversations are taking place there. I do appreciate you specifically whittling this down to specifically data collection and data notifications, if you will. Right. I would like you to be able to address any of the concerns you've heard and then make your closing statement.

Thank you, Chair. Look, I'd like to have this information. I think the Committee would like to have this information. So I've made that request to CDCR and haven't been successful. I think that the Members of the Committee would be able to make the same request because this is the data that's not been provided in the discussions of 280, and it's the kind of thing that's foundational for making good choices going forward. So I recognize that there's concern about restricted housing, solitary confinement.

Appreciate the good hearts of the folks who have come to testify. I know it comes from a good place of concern. But the issue is whether we make progress. And this Bill is an attempt to create a foundation for potential progress from those who oppose the Bill, desire and others. And I think it's a modest step forward.

Look, the Administration has not been as cooperative as we'd like them to be, and my discussions with them on these matters will continue, but it's not easy because it is important information that really hasn't been provided to all of you and to us. So I think the Bill is a positive step forward and appreciate your support today.

Thank you. Do we have a motion? Do we have a motion? Okay, thank you. Senator Wiener has moved. Can we call a roll call vote?

Motion is do passed to appropriations. Wahab aye. Seyarto aye. Bradford. Skinner. Wiener aye.

That motion is on call. That both on call, but thank you, Senator.

Thank you.

All right, can we go and through each of the bill's call roll one more time for Senators and let's close out the roll.

[Roll Call]

3-0. It's out. Adjourn. Thank you.