Assembly Standing Committee on Public Safety

Hopefully other Members will be here so we can establish a quorum. We have a very limited time. Ms. Wilson, you may come and begin. You're the last one to sign up and the first one here. So guess what? This enjoys an aye recommendation from the chair, and I feel pretty confident that. I mean, I just feel confident that your attempts to end slavery in California might be pretty successful.

Well, thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to the members of the committee. It is my absolute pleasure to be here today, not only standing, not only being the Assembly member who's authoring this bill but also as the Chair of the Legislative Black Caucus, to bring forward this particular constitutional amendment, ACA 8. This Assembly constitutional amendment would remove the exception of involuntary servitude from our state constitution and declare that all forms of slavery are prohibited. Period.

California is among only 16 states with an exception clause for involuntary servitude in its state's constitution. Most recently, voters in Alabama, Oregon, Tennessee, and Vermont removed involuntary servitude language from their state constitution. ACA 8 is an opportunity for the most progressive state in the union to catch up to these states and also serve as a model for others in our nation. Involuntary servitude is an extension of slavery. Period. There is no room for slavery in our constitution, which should reflect our values this year in 2023.

The legacy of slavery and forced labor runs deep in California's history, from the exploitation of indigenous people in Spanish missions to Black slaves forced to mine for gold. Though California entered the union as a free state, free with quotes around it, there were more than 1000 enslaved African Americans, as well as thousands of enslaved indigenous people in California at a time when the total population was just 100,000 people. Today, slavery takes on the modern form of involuntary servitude, including forced labor in prisons.

Slavery is wrong in all forms, and California should be clear in denouncing that in our constitution. ACA 8 prioritizes rehabilitation for incarcerated people. Incarcerated people should be able to choose jobs and shifts that allow them to work. Incarcerated people should be able to choose jobs and shifts that allow them to continue their education, to get counseling, and to participate in other rehabilitative programs that facilitate growth and transformation without the fear of additional punishments for exercising their right to choose. Here to testify. She's here. I'll see if April Grayson has made it into the building. Okay. John Vasquez. April was with Sister Warriors Freedom Coalition. If she walks in, I'd like her to be able to testify. And here we have John Vasquez.

About my reading glasses. Catch it up to me.

What's on top of your head?

These are like sunglasses. It's going to be 90 degrees today. Well, good morning, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. My name is John Vasquez. I'm the policy manager for CURYJ. I also survived 25 years of incarceration, so I'm very familiar with the harmful effects of slavery behind prison walls. Upon my release, I graduated summa cum laude with a BA in sociology and minor in criminal justice. And although history wasn't my major, it was one of my favorite subjects.

The history of slavery in California's prison system is directly tied to racial capitalism, white supremacy, and the subjugation of Black and indigenous people. This is evidenced by the 1850 Act for the Government and Protection of Indians, which made it legal for any white man who found a native person loitering, strolling about, unemployed, begging, or leading an immoral life to take that charge before a judge.

The judge would then have the native person arrested, tried in court, imprisoned, and sold at a public auction to the highest bidder without person would be forced to labor under threat of punishment. Although California no longer uses the public auction block, our current prison system still practices slavery under the guise of involuntary servitude, which is simply slavery by another name.

This euphemism does not hide the fact that slavery in any form is an evil institution and has no place in California or anywhere else, for that matter. It also doesn't hide the fact that the vast majority of people forced and coerced to labor in today's prison slave system are Black or have indigenous ancestry. Last November, voters in four states, including Alabama, Alabama, y'all, approved ballot measures that changed their state constitutions to prohibit slavery and involuntary servitude as punishment for crime. It's imperative that this Legislature allow California voters the opportunity to reject slavery in all its forms, now and forever. I respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. If your witness comes in while we go ahead and take any others that are in support of the bill.

Natasha Minsker, Smart Justice California, in strong support.

Danica Rodarmel, on behalf of Initiate Justice, the GRIP Training Institute, and the Transformative In-Prison Work Group, in support.

Good morning. Margo George, on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association and also the San Francisco Public Defenders Office, in support.

Milinda Kakani with the Children's Defense Fund California, also in support.

Teja Stephens with Catalyst California, in strong support.

Dorsey Nunn, founder of All of Us or None, and Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, in strong support.

Thank you.

Joanne Scheer, on behalf of Felony Murder Elimination Project and my son Anthony, in strong support.

Good morning. Emily Harris with the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, in strong Support.

Tatiana Lewis with All of Us or None, in strong support of ACA 8. Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Aaliyah Muhammad with Simply Unique Community Services and All of Us or None, in strong support.

Thank you.

Sol Mercado, Planting Justice out of Oakland, in strong support of ACA 8.

Sonja Tonnesen-Casalegno with Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice, in strong support. Thank you.

Colin representing Dreams Beyond Bars, in strong support.

Jim Lindburg on behalf of the Friends Committee on Legislation of California and also voicing support today for California for Safety and Justice.

Good morning. Henry Ortiz for Legal Services for Prisoners with Children and the All of Us or None chapter here in Sacramento, in strong support. Thank you.

Susan Bustamante with the California Coalition Women Prisoners, in strong support.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and members. Jeronimo Cuauhtemoc Aguilar, policy analyst with Legal Services for Prisoners With Children, also here representing All of Us or None, proud co-sponsor in support and also would like to state that Anti-Recidivism Coalition is also in support. Thank you.

Good morning. I'm John Cannon with Legal Services for Prisoners with Children and a proud member of All of Us are None, in strong support. Thank you.

Good morning. Tanisha Cannon with Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, and a member of All of Us or None, in strong support of ACA 8.

Jesse Clyde Burleson, CDC number D-90284, 31 years, '87 to 2018. On behalf of everybody, strong support. LSPC, All of Us or None.

Thank you.

Good morning, everybody. Alex Diaz, I'm with Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice. We strongly support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Adrianna Champagne-Zamora with the League of Women Voters of California, in strong support.

Thank you.

My name is Don Wilson and I'm from All of Us organization.

Thank you.

Danica Rodarmel delivering support for the ACLU.

Thank you. Are there any others in support? Is there anyone in opposition to the ACA? Anyone in opposition? Seeing none. Bring it back to committee members for any questions or comments. Yes, Ms. Ortega.

Just want to thank the author for her leadership on this issue, and we'll be fully supporting.

Thank you.

Yes.

Good morning. Sorry I'm late. I know I missed some of this and I had a few questions. One is regarding legal coercion. Did we go over that at all?

Not as a part of the original testimony. I mean, as the opening statement, no.

Because we did some research into other states that have it and we couldn't find the legal coercion portion of it. I was just wondering if maybe anybody's talked about that part.

So if I can ask for clarification. So legal coercion is not defined currently in the provision within our constitution, nor is it included in the updated language. And so if you can clarify, what specific parts of legal coercion are you referencing?

Well, I went through a few of the states, and I couldn't find that legal coercion is in the other states if they maybe haven't addressed it either. If this is a national thing that needs to be addressed, I don't know if your committee has talked about that.

So each various states form their constitution with every state is formed through their constitution, and not every state had this provision or exception to slavery when they did amendments. California did. There are 16 states currently in the nation that have this provision that states that involuntary servitude is allowed in terms of punishment or sometimes you use words with incarcerated individuals. It varies.

Recently, as we noted as a part of the opening statement, that states like Alabama and Oregon, their Legislature sent that to the voters and it passed to remove that language. And so we still, as a state have it. But not every state, there's only 16 left that have this type of language. And it's not in the same format or same wording, but this type of language that allows an exception for involuntary servitude to use or forms of slavery to be used.

And so this is what we're trying to remove from our particular state.

Got you. And then my other concerns are with the good and work time that are calculated into sentencing at the time. Is that going to be addressed also? Because normally good and work time is our times that are given to basically lower their time or get them out earlier now that we're not requiring the work part, has that been discussed? Like, is work time not going to be given anymore?

It's not that we're not requiring the work part. There is a rehabilitative aspect to working and this doesn't impact this. What this impacts is the part related to involuntary servitude that says that if you don't work for whatever reason, then you can have your time increase. So say you got credits for working and you had them. I don't know the right terminology. Maybe you can help me with it, John. But you got credits. Now, punishment will take those credits that you've earned away.

It's like for you getting working an hourly job and you booked leave and then someone was upset with you because you didn't show up to work that day and you have 20 hours of leave on the books. We don't care. We're taking those 20 hours back because we're upset that you didn't show up for work this day where you earned that. It's your right to have it. No one can take that away.

And that's what's being done is they're being punished with taking credits that they've earned away. They're being punished with what's the right term? It's a form, the 115s, which endangers them to being able to leave early, have visits with their family, things like that. And so there's a lot of punishment related to it, which makes it then involuntary servitude, which is forced labor, which we do not have in any other aspect in our state. And forced labor is a part of slavery.

And so that's why we're asking that to be removed so it doesn't impact rehabilitation. And we're working to figure and to define things in the legislation, not this legislation, but legislatively. So it's not defined in the courts, but the constitution has to be pure. This goes to the voters. And so we can figure out legislatively and define what rehabilitative work looks like. But that is not something that needs to be in the constitution because that is dynamic and would change from generation to generation.

Okay. I was just worried that with this bill, maybe unfortunately, then now the courts will start saying that, well, now we're not going to give you work time because you don't even have to work. Whereas I know a lot of them are looking forward to that because they can get out earlier.

Absolutely.

I was just afraid that, and I'm sure you have the same concerns. If it does, it'll be addressed. But that was something that worried me.

There's a rehabilitative aspect to working, but it's rehabilitative, not punitive. Not forced. It's a part of the rehabilitative responses because we want to reduce recidivism, and we want to ensure that people who are incarcerated come out whole, healthy, and ability to integrate fully into society and be able to work. And so this is part of that. But it cannot be under a system of coercion, punishment, anything that resembles slavery, because slavery is not rehabilitative.

And so another aspect that I'm also thinking about is, like, on the civil side, where, say, somebody's trying to get their kids and the judge says that you have to go through this, this and this to get your kids. Would that be something that would also be addressing that? Like, they can't be forced to go do something that they don't want to go do?

Well, this particularly the language, we said, accept punishment of a crime. And so in aspects of child custody basis, that's not impacted by a crime. Our exception in the constitution relates specifically to an exception as it relates to punishment of a crime.

And then so, like, maybe drug rehab. What if you're ordered to do drug rehab? And they're like, I don't want to go do drug rehab as well. I know I'm playing devil's advocate, but I'm just trying to make sure that we don't.

Drug rehab would not be forced labor. So we're talking, particularly in our prison system, where we have work requirements

What about community service? Part of their thing is also, okay, you don't want to go to jail. You're going to have to also do community service.

But one, that is also an option. You can do one or the other, right? So you can choose, but I don't think that that would impact, community service is not the same as work as it's defined currently in our constitution. Not that I believe.

Okay.

I don't think that would be impacted by that.

I'm sure you were right. Those were my concerns that I had while reading this bill.

Mr. Vasquez, is there anything you want to give light to that I didn't explain properly?

No, I would just say everything you said is right on point. From my experience of 25 years incarceration here in California and CDCR, I would say that the vast majority of people incarcerated want to work. There were several times when I opened up a new institution and they didn't have job assignments yet, and I volunteered to work.

Why? Because I want to get out myself. There are certain fringe benefits of getting out and working. And so the vast majority of people want to work. They want to better themselves. Right? But this concept and this practice of slavery, as the member stated, is not rehabilitative by any means. And that's what this bill is simply to do.

And in fact, I believe that when this changes, it will strongly promote rehabilitation for incarcerated people who want to work with rehabilitative programs and not be punished for maybe being sick one day and not showing up and getting a 115 and not being able to go home with their families for several more months and being punished for just not going to work because they're sick.

And so are they getting punished right now when they are sick?

When some people, it's a process to get, like, a lay in, right? And I know several people that were sick, and because they didn't get their lay in time, you got to see the doctor and all that. And there's a whole process for that. And if I wake up sick and I don't go to work that day, I'll get punished and get a 115 and get those good times credits taken.

Because I didn't get a chance to go to the doctor yet to get a lay in. And that happens quite frequently. And people shouldn't be punished for things like that. Like I said, the vast majority of people want to work. And there was a time when I was on a waiting list for, like, two years trying to work, and I was, like, appealing it, like, hey, I want to know. I'm not the exception. And there's plenty of people that want to do that.

And Ms. Wilson, maybe that's addressed, too. But what if they do voluntarily want to work and then, unfortunately, he does get sick? I don't know. Maybe that's something else you guys can maybe address also to where they don't get penalized for that. Right. We can get sick at work.

Yeah. And we have the ability to call in, but you lose a bit of autonomy when you are in prison. And so I want to read this definition because I could have to start with your question. And it says, for people serving criminal sentences, servitude means work that does not serve a rehabilitative purpose or fall within the so-called housekeeping exception for chores such as cleaning one's own living area and common areas.

And so it's that key part that it serves a rehabilitative purpose. And so when they are volunteering to work, so to speak, that is a part of their rehabilitative process. And that is something that a judge may factor in or even award in over a prison system. And so that's what I think is key, is that it's a part of their rehabilitative purpose. It's not something that's punishment.

And I forgot to include, and I know Holden is working on this bill, that part of punishment is also solitary confinement. People have been put in solitary confinement for refusing to work. And remember, because they lose a bit of autonomy when they say they're sick. As he noted, there's a process for that. It's not just you and I. We wake up, our stomach's upset, we're having a mental health day, and we call in and say, I just can't do it today. No.

There is a process, and that is subjective as well, and discretion. And sometimes you might have had a boss who didn't like you, right? So if you have someone who doesn't like you or thinks you're faking, they can be like, no, you got to show up. And so they lose that. And that shouldn't be a part of our rehabilitative process that is actually counterintuitive to the rehabilitative process.

So I know your witness is here, and I know Ms. Bonta has a question. I want to hear the witness.

Thank you.

Ask your question. Go ahead. You have two minutes.

Thank you. Thank you. Chair and Committee, my name is April Grayson, policy associate for the Sister Warriors Freedom Coalition, proud co-sponsor of ACA 8. Sister Warriors is a statewide coalition of formerly and currently incarcerated women and Trans people of all genders, as well as people directly affected by systems.

I am a person who was arrested at 19 and served a seven-year sentence as a criminalized survivor of human trafficking, enslaved in a prison that I shouldn't have ever been placed in due to the failure of the state to recognize me as a victim of human trafficking. Looking at prisons today and understanding the foundation on which it was built on, I think back to the hypercriminalization of Black Americans after slavery was theoretically abolished in 1865.

From 1865 to the early 1940s, Black people were arrested for being Black in public for free labor and leased out to plantation owners and manufacturers for cheap labor throughout the country. This system was soon replaced by chain gangs, a dehumanizing practice of chaining together incarcerated people to perform manual labor. While the labor was changed to manufacturing, farming, and firefighting, the system of slavery is still largely the same, cheap labor being performed by over-criminalized Black and brown people.

The 1800s seems so far removed from 2023, but we aren't as progressive as we think we are. When I entered prison at 19, I asked my counselor to place me in school to finish my high school education. Instead, I was assigned to the yard crew to hoe hard dirt for hours. If I would have refused to report to the yard crew to finish school, I would have been put on C status. C status is a custody level that results in loss of privileges, no phone calls, no quarterly packages, a $45 shopping limit on canteen for toiletries per month.

You are only allowed out of your cell for three days a week for a total of 6 hours for the week to wash clothes. And if you're lucky, you can go outside if the yard is open. For lifers, a 115 could be the difference. C status can be the difference from board denying you a date and granting your freedom. As directly impacted people, members of Sister Warrior Freedom Coalition and our partner organizations, we know firsthand the most incarcerated people want to work. We believe they should be able to choose jobs that align with their skills to better position them to secure a job upon release, or to be able to continue their education and participate in programs that facilitate post-release success.

ACA 8 would open the door to making that possible towards reducing recidivism and increasing public safety. A yes vote today brings us one step closer to helping incarcerated people obtain the education and training that they need to come home and be productive, proactive citizens in their communities. Thank you for your time, Chair, and I apologize for being late.

No problem, Ms. Bonta.

Well, thank you. I wanted to thank the author for bringing forward. Yes, all the snaps. I wanted to thank the author for bringing this bill forward again. I know that we've seen this before, and quite frankly, given the fact that we are just now in a state, in the State of California, willing to recognize the importance of rehabilitation as a part of the R in our CDCR, it's a very timely bill.

We spend a lot of time hearing from people who have received between eight cents and 34 cents an hour for the work that they do. And we've heard the stories of people who have gone through COVID and needing to essentially risk their lives for fear of the punitive measures in terms of taking away credits or impacting the way that they, or being put into solitary confinement if they refuse to perform their work. So they essentially had to risk their lives, for certain in order to be able to ensure that they could comply.

And that is, by definition, what involuntary servitude is. So it is time in the State of California that we make sure that we put into our constitution the fact that we are not going to accept involuntary servitude as a fact of life for anybody, and certainly not for people who are incarcerated. So I want to thank you for bringing forward this bill, and thank you for your testimony and real-life examples.

We're looking at people who are here, but for what we provided to you in CDCR. And I want to thank you for being here.

Thank you. Any other comments? You may close.

Thank you to the Chair and the members of the Public Safety Committee. I thank my witnesses for being here to be able to testify of their own personal lived experience. And I would just encourage an aye vote, as we as a Legislature have to say that it is not acceptable for this to be in our constitution and give it to the voters so they can agree with us. As a reminder, we are not the final decision-makers in this. Our voters are. So let's give them the chance to vote their values, vote their morals, and say that involuntary servitude, slavery should not be in our constitution. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. We don't yet have a quorum. We have four members here. We'll establish a quorum, and then we'll vote on your item.

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

Item. Item number three. AB 695.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee. Today I present Assembly Bill 695. I want to start by thanking the Committee staff for all their hard work on this Bill, and I will be accepting the Committee amendments. AB 695 would create the juvenile detention facilities grant improvement grant program. The Los Angeles County Probations Department's juvenile detention facilities are badly outdated and in need of critical renovation. With almost all of its physical plants in significant dilapidation.

Los Angeles County Probation is staffed by thousands of dedicated public servants who have committed their professional lives to achieving successful outcomes for the youth they serve. However, with independent reports dating back 10 years outlining the critical need for major infrastructure improvements and current research forming the basis of a true trauma-informed care model, it is well past the time to make substantial renovations in their current state.

... probation facilities are not adequate to meet the basic state law requirement of a homelike environment, much less meet the current care first intensive rehabilitation model that juvenile justice requires. It is our responsibility to ensure that every possible effort is made to provide a positive outcome for youth that have been remanded to the care of our probation department. This measure exposes an honest and blunt truth. The tools and facilities have hindered our ability to provide the care that our youth deserve.

With me today in support of AB 685 is Jonathan Byrd, second Vice President, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees ASFME Deputy Probation officers.

Whenever you're ready, Mr. Byrd.

Thank you. Honorable Chair and Members of the Assembly. My name is Jonathan Byrd. I love the introduction that she gave me, but I would say my most important position is that I've been working in LA County Probation Department as a juvenile officer for 30 years. And from that, I think this is an easy conversation for me. But it's a difficult task.

This is not normally my forte, but I will say this, that I believe everyone in California, including this Assembly, is in favor of protecting our youth. The youth in the State of California, sometimes they fall into troubled times, and they need that which will give them the environment to succeed in going forth. Also, I'd like to say one of the reasons I'm in California is because I've always seen California as a leader, so to speak, in the industry.

And it is the work of the Assembly and the Senate and other leaders in this state that we try to provide for the youth those things that will make them succeed. And we'll be able to talk about them in the same manner that we talk about ourselves. The conditions of the infrastructure in several counties in California, particular Los Angeles County, which is the largest, are antiquated. Some of the structures have been built in 1912.

So you can imagine that if I was just to give you a tour of the facilities, I wouldn't even have to give a speech in order for you to understand that our youth have not been provided that which we try to provide to them, which is a carefirst, therapeutic environment. Those who are caught in the system per se, they should be provided the best of the best in California in order to succeed. The conditions, as I said, were antiquated.

A lot of them, when they were constructed, they didn't have individual amenities, such as restroom facilities. And therefore, when they are allowed to use those facilities, they do it in group settings, which take away some of the privacy. And that's been an issue. We will also talk about the structure of just looking at how they designed them years ago. When we look back over time, things were constructed for more of a confinement type of environment, rather than a therapeutic environment.

And so in order to get to the homelike environment that we need, we need to remodel or develop new structures. And this grant, AB 695 is allowing, will allow counties to be provided by the state the funding, necessarily, to build those facilities. And when you think about those facilities, a lot of things they don't have, like we have today. I was thinking about computers. I remember growing up, and when they introduced. I'm looking at the age factor here.

Some of you may have never seen a Commodore 64 or RadioShack Tandy computer where they had the big five and a quarter floppy drives. Those things don't provide for today's success. And so when you look at our facilities, a lot of times they don't have the homelike. Neither do they have the vocational ability to survive or to provide for our youth. We need to have better health care facilities. We need medical and dental facilities located within the structures of the detention facilities.

They need to be able to supply these services in real time. But are these areas built within the system currently? Most counties don't have them. In particular, LA County. We have to farm out and contract out, which is okay, but that sometimes causes a time delay. And so we need to be able to supply abilities, amenities to our youth. We need to be able to supply them with vocational training skills on site. What does that mean?

That means we will have to build automotive centers, technology centers, culinary centers, performing arts centers, and then we'll also have to provide wellness and health care. They'll need gymnasiums that's more adequate, outdoor facilities and amenities. Aesthetics has a lot to do with how you cooperate and how you function.

You can take a person who comes into the system and tell them you care about them, but when they can't look out of a window, or if they see graffiti, or if they see the ceiling tiles falling down, or if they can't get to a restroom in a proper time, what are you really saying to the youth? Are you saying they are worthy of having the structures that will dictate how they should strive to succeed? I think not.

And so not only that, but also those who we contract out with, community based organizations, they would like to come in and provide. Thank you. Provide services also. A lot of times, the aesthetics of the building or the facility dictates on who wants to come and what they are going to provide and how they can provide it. So I say to the group, and I know my time is running out, that this is not necessarily hard task.

It's an easy task, because I know we want to succeed with our youth. And this AB 695 will help us. Even though it's an infrastructure, it will help us in developing the things that we need. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Is there anyone else who like to in support, would like to speak name and organization?

Good morning. Joe Schykerynec with the State Building and Construction Trades Council in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

James Michael Agpalo with the American Federation of State County Municipal Employees ask me in strong support.

Thank you. Is there anyone in opposition?

Thank you. My name is Milinda Kakani. I'm the Director of Youth Justice at Children's Defense Fund California. I also happen to be Supervisor Holly Mitchell's Appointee on the LA County Probation Oversight Commission. However, this testimony is in my capacity as a Director of Youth Justice at Children's Defense Fund California. I'm here to express my strong opposition to AB 695. I want to start by saying that the problem isn't with the facilities. It's with the people who make it up.

It's with the culture of a department rooted in exploitation and control. It's with the way we've prioritized consequences and punishment over healing. This has absolutely nothing to do with the color of the walls, the size of windows, the attractiveness of bedding. It has to do with the people, the power they wield, the harm they inflict, and the impunity with which they do it. In case you didn't notice, this Bill does nothing to address that.

It's a blank check to improve facilities, an act, again, that will do nothing to improve the outcomes of our young people currently ensnared in the juvenile system, who I assume are the priority here. It isn't the facilities that provide traumainformed care. It's the people. Honestly, I couldn't help but snicker a little at the institutions in support of AB 695.

It is literally all institutions that would benefit financially from the passing of this Bill who maintain their employment because of it, who get contracts because of it. They have nothing to do with protecting and caring for our young people. They have nothing to do with being invested in the health, success, well being, growth, healing, and vulnerability of our young people. And before you stop me with the narrative that probation officers care about our young people, let's examine that a little closer.

While there may be good probation officers, by and large we have heard probation staff at Barry J. Nidorf Juvenile Hall and Central Juvenile Hall refer to these young people as murderers, sexual offenders, as monsters. And if you don't believe me, I encourage you to listen to the comments at the Board of State and Community Corrections meeting two weeks ago. In quotes, these are not kids who ran away and oh my God, are victims. These kids are murderers.

When you have staff who don't see these young people as anything more than their worst offense, no amount of paint is going to cover that up. When you have the Department of Justice sue LA County and the Probation Department, because young people are storing empty milk containers in their units so they have a place to urinate when staff ignore their banging on the doors to be allowed to use the restroom at night, no furniture is going to change that.

When you have over 400 lawsuits alleging sexual and physical abuse, which the union outright denied on NBC Nightly News, no homelike setting is going to eliminate that type of exploitative and predatory behavior. This Bill is so misguided in its attempt to provide positive outcomes to our young people. And that leads me to all the people and organizations opposing this Bill.

These are literally the folks working alongside our young people to build better outcomes, working with them before they touch the system, while in the system, and when they come home with the expressed goal of supporting their success, their freedom, and their contribution to society. And in case you didn't already know, we spend over $400 million in LA County to incarcerate our kids. This department has already received tens of millions of dollars to improve facilities, training, and the like. $17 million from the state.

$13 million for cameras for Barry J. Nidorf. $35 million for phase one of a three phase homelike setting investment pursuant to the DOJ settlement. We don't need more money to do more of the same, because one, more of the same ends up requiring LA County to set aside up to $3 billion this next budget year to settle the sex abuse lawsuit stemming from abuse inside of facilities and two, prettier jails don't magically create prettier outcomes. Use your power to do something different. Mandate these dollars.

Go to the Department of Youth Development so that no young person finds themselves in a carceral facility. Remove or reduce probation's power in the incarceration of our children. Vote no on this Bill. It is truly a waste of your efforts and our limited resources and a complete rejection of the humanity of our young people. These young people are living in terror, and it has nothing to do with the physical structures they are confined in. I urge you to vote no on AB 695.

Thank you. Anyone else in opposition?

Margo George, on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association and the San Francisco Public Defender in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else in opposition? We'll bring it back to Committee Members with any comments or questions. You may close.

Again, I want to thank Mr. Chair and Committee Members for the opportunity to present this Bill. This Bill is about the youth. It even states it in the Bill, that this Bill would help with facilities and programs. And my passion is about helping the youth. So this Bill would ensure that our justice involved youth have the tools needed for rehabilitation. They deserve no less. So I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Okay? And so I have the same concerns as the opposition, and I've been open and have stated to everyone that would listen, including the Board of Supervisors, the Union, just about everyone. And I even spoke to you about it.

That's why we added language in there so that both the board, supervisors, hopefully everybody, come together as a team to ultimately help these kids, because at the end of the day, we got to focus on the kids and make sure that their lives are much more enriched by going into the system than before.

I believe that the efforts of the BSCC, the Board of Supervisors, and others, and I guess there's a new Department of Youth Development, if they all come together and try to figure this out, things would be fine. But the one thing I did get, I've had staff visit the facilities, and I've heard from the supervisors. One thing that everybody was kind of - everyone is, not kind of - everyone is in agreement is that the facilities needed to be better than what they are right now, much better.

And part of what I wanted done was try to design the facility to match whatever future rehabilitative programs we're going to have. And that's why we put in there, bring things back to us so that we can talk about it and we can help program that. And when I say us, that means this Public Safety Committee, the Legislature, the governor's office, so that we all have some kind of input, so that we all get the best outcome we can, especially in a tight budget year.

For us to make that kind of commitment when we really don't have the money. You're really going to have to show how a new facility, in light of what has been said here today, that this comports with what the vision is of where probation, well, with the probation officers and juvenile justice officers, what they plan to do and how everybody plans to work together to move this forward. And I know it's been difficult because I've heard it all.

I know it's been very very difficult, but I'm hoping that at least this process that we're going through now will get us to where everyone will kind of lower the temperature, think about the kids, and start moving that forward and hopefully we get somewhere. Otherwise, as this go and I sit on sub five, it may not make out of sub five. This is a policy Committee. As a policy, it probably makes sense to have a facility that comports to what we want in the future for kids.

But when it comes to that financial outlay, that biggest hurdle will be ppropriations and ultimately the Budget Committee. We don't have a quorum yet, so as soon as we do, we'll then take it up later in the hearing. So thank you.

Thank you.

All right, Mr. Haney. Next. I believe you're next. I don't see Mr. Ramos. Mr. Berman. Mr. Fong. So, Mr. Haney, your patience has been successful.

I think my witnesses are here too. Okay. Can I start?

Yes, please.

Good morning and thank you. Mr. Chair and Members. I'm here to present AB 1497, the Legal Justice for Domestic Violence and Human Trafficking Victims Act. This Bill ensures that all survivors of domestic violence, human trafficking, sexual violence, and other violence can share their victimization stories in court and allow judges to consider these stories when making sentencing decisions. In California, 34% of women experience domestic violence in their lifetimes and many of these women are caught in yearslong cycles of horrific abuse.

Additionally, women who are survivors of human trafficking have a shocking 90% chance of being arrested and charged with a crime, rather than being rescued from the people trafficking them. Unfortunately, survivors are often arrested and punished simply for protecting themselves or their family's lives. The criminalization and penalization of victims by California's legal system leaves survivors without access to healing or crucial resources like housing, employment and education.

Too often, they are blocked from the opportunity to heal because their trauma is used against them, ignored or not accounted for during legal proceedings. Consequently, judges and juries are left with insufficient information and options when making key decisions about survivors lives, including when they are delivering criminal charges and sentencing. We must provide the decision makers with all of the information about victims of violence, and this Bill does just that.

It builds on the success of the 2021 Justice for Survivors Act by allowing courts to consider the experiences of survivors throughout legal proceedings in all cases, not only for nonviolent offenses. Specifically, this Bill would allow survivors to utilize an affirmative defense in order to prevent unjust convictions, allow judges and juries to consider an individual's relevant mental health diagnosis and treatment.

In more cases, prompt judges to consider survivors experiences when making critical sentencing decisions and ensure that all survivors have the ability to utilize the vacatur process which removes arrests or prior convictions from records of victims who survived abuse, coercion and exploitation. With me today. In support, I have Susan Bustamante, an advocate with the California Coalition for Women Prisoners and April Grayson from Sister Warrior Freedom Coalition.

They are both survivors who dedicate their time for advocating on this issue, and also have Kate Walker Brown from the National Center for Youth Law, who is available for technical questions.

Thank you. We have five minutes altogether.

I sit before this Committee testifying for AB 1497, after advocating for over three years, asking for people to finally see me as a victim and now survivor of human trafficking. I sit here in pain, wondering why people like me are still not seen as victims of crime, as whole people worth listening to. Instead, we are criminalized and disregarded. The person who you see before you now, a strong advocate, woman and survivor is not what the system has ever seen me as.

I am regarded as a predator. I was born in the system. My birth mother was murdered when I was three. I suffered countless abuse, sexual assaults and molestations at a very young age. I was adopted at four and a half into a family that did not need a child, especially not a child with all my trauma. My adopted mother then also dies when I'm 14. My father, who did not want me, put me back in the system within three months of my mother's passing.

A few months later, I find myself in a mental hospital, being arrested for having a sitout. At 15 years old, I was detained and shuffled back and forth through numerous facilities, ultimately criminalized for not having any parents, and made to suffer in juvenile hall for months. I emancipated at 18, but let's be clear. I was kicked out of the system at 18.

And I find myself, within months, sitting in Sacramento courthouse facing pimping, pandering, kidnapping and gun charges at the age of 19, sitting next to my 27 year old trafficker. He was never identified as a trafficker, let alone my trafficker. I was made to be the perpetrator and the mastermind of a crime. Sentenced to 20 years, eight months. I served 17 years. Never once seen as a victim of crime or human trafficking, never getting any help or referral to rehabilitative services or programming.

I sit before you as a survivor of human trafficking, something that still has not been acknowledged by the state. I sit in front of you speaking on behalf of thousands of women and trans folks who are not present to tell you the countless abuses and horrors that we have faced. I sit before you today in hope for justice.

I hope that no other person has to suffer through all these different systems and find themselves sitting across from a judge who should clearly be able to identify a 19 year old and a 27 year old trafficker. And I hope that young person, that child, will not have to suffer through 17 years of prison to finally be seen as a victim of human trafficking.

I sit before you pleading for you to see survivors and victims and understand that we do not have a look, we do not have a face. We don't all have the same story. We come from different backgrounds, different classes, though a lot of it is rooted in poverty. I ask that you see people for people.

This Bill, AB 1497 would see people as people, would see people as survivors, would give survivors an opportunity to be seen as their full, true, whole selves, as sad, as traumatic, as horrible, as shameful as it might be. But they'll be seen. And then the judge and jury will have the full picture to make a decision. I sit in front of you asking you to see them and to see me. I choose them, and I hope you do, too.

Thank you.

My name is Susan Bustamante. I was raised in a Hispanic culture of what happens in the household, stays in the household. At the age of 12, my father started molesting me. And it continued to the age of 18. I finally told my brother about the abuse. He said, don't worry, sis, I'll take care of it. When he came back, he said, go home. He'll never touch you again. And he never did. At 19, I met Stephen, my husband.

When I met, I didn't know he was a Vietnam vet or that he was raised in a domestic violence household. The first time he hurt me, my husband dragged me in the bathroom and threw me around. He kept me isolated from my family, and he only allowed me out of the house twice a year for Christmas and my birthday. In the six years I was married, he threatened to kill my sister and my mom. He said how they would have accidents. It was torturous.

When I was pregnant with my first daughter, he literally dragged me through the house. He was constantly hitting me. He would have flashbacks of Vietnam and I would wake up with him choking me. I have permanent damage in my neck and my head from all the beatings. In 1980, I became pregnant again. He forced me to have an abortion. That was my turning point. I wanted him out of my life, but he threatened to kidnap my daughters if I ever left.

So I reached out to my brother once again and again he told me, don't worry, sis, I'll take care of it. The idea that he would kill him never occurred to me. Later, he called me to say that Stephen was dead. He threatened to call the police and say I planned it. He blackmailed for Stephen's assurance. I was afraid of having my daughters taken from me, I was 24 years old.

A few years later, my brother died and somebody who knew him told a detective, I killed Stephen. When I went to trial, nothing was allowed about the molestation, nothing about the domestic violence. Anytime I tried to say anything, it was struck from the court record. After a two day trial, no chance to tell my story, I was convicted for a murder I did not commit and sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. At 32 years old, I had never been in trouble.

I was sentenced to die in prison. My daughters were 8 and 11. I missed their weddings, the birth of their children, my grandkids. I lost parents and my sister while in prison for three decades. If AB 1497 was law then, I would have been able to share my story.

Maybe I would have been able to access affirmative defense or get a different sentence, or maybe that would have turned out the same, but I would have been able to speak my words, to share what happened to me and what happened to my husband. Thankfully, I was granted clemency in 2017, went to the parole board and came home in 2018. I am a survivor at domestic violence. I'm a survivor at Chalama Station.

I'm a survivor of the California prison system, and I'm an advocate for victims and survivors who should have the chance to tell their stories in court. I'm here in strong support of this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other in support? Name and organization?

Natasha Minsker. Smart Justice California. In strong support.

Thank you.

Emily Harris with the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in strong support. And thank you, April and Susan.

Alice Kessler on behalf of the California Partnership End Domestic Violence. We're a co sponsor of the Bill and urge your support.

Margot George on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association in strong support. Also on behalf of the San Francisco Public Defender's Office, proud co sponsor of the Bill. Thank you.

Danica Rodarmel on behalf of Initiate Justice in support.

Dan Seaman, on behalf of Californians for Safety and Justice, co sponsor of the Bill and strong support.

Melissa Cosio on behalf of Crime Survivors for Safety and Justice, co sponsoring the Bill and strong support, as well as the following organizations. Next Door - of course, my phone decides to freeze in the middle of this. - Next Door Solutions to Domestic Violence, Felony Murder Elimination Project, National LGBTQ Institution on Intimate Partner Violence, Communities United for Restorative Justice, Sunita Jain Anti-Trafficking Initiative, Loyola Law School, Free to Thrive, Freedom From Exploitation, Law Office of Lori R. Mendez, Fresno Barrios Unidos, Youth Leadership Institute, Kern County Participatory Defense, Lassen Family Services, Los Angeles Center for Law and Justice, Pepperdine Restoration and Justice Clinic, Black Women for Wellness, Jennifer Community Solutions, San Diego Organization Project as well as the following individuals: Twyla Russel, Lacey Abukner, Brandy Alask, Lillian Maize, Stephen Larky, Lydia DeWise and Megan Kakuso. Thank you.

Grace Glaser on behalf of Valor in strong support.

Esteban Nunez on behalf of the Anti Recidivism Coalition, Social Change, and Insight Garden Program in strong support. Thank you,

Carmen Nicole Cox, on behalf of ACLU Cal Action in strong support.

Milinda Kakani, Children's Defense Fund California in strong support.

Joanne Scheer on behalf of Felony Murder Elimination Project, in very strong support. April and Susan. Thank you.

Terry Galvin on behalf of Community Against Sexual Harm, in strong support.

Thank you. Are there any in opposition?

Thank you. Good morning.

Good morning.

My name is Ivy Fitzpatrick. I'm a Managing Deputy District Attorney in Riverside County, California. I'm appearing today in opposition to AB 1497 on behalf of the California DS Association. First AB 1497 would undo the important diminished capacity reforms enacted into Penal Code Section 28 following the trial of Dan White for the murders of San Francisco Mayor George Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk inside San Francisco City Hall in 1978.

AB 1497 should not be used to invalidate Section 28 like AB 124 attempted to do in 2021 and was rightly rejected by the Legislature. Expanding the scope of admissibility of diminished capacity to violent general intent crimes is a bridge too far and puts public safety at risk. Secondly, AB 1497 expands the affirmative defense of human trafficking to all crimes, including violent crimes like murder.

Again, the Legislature recognized the serious public safety implications this kind of undue expansion would carry, which is why the exact same proposal was excised from AB 124 and should not be passed this time around either. This Bill, in essence, creates an additional and specific duress defense for all crimes when committed by a member of a vulnerable population. A duress defense generally applies when a person commits a crime as a lesser of two evils. Duress does not traditionally apply to murder.

This Bill, however, creates a duress offense without any consideration whatsoever applied to the crimes the person committed versus the crimes that were committed against them. It does not define how one might prove or disprove such a defense. And it does not, like I previously stated, exclude murder. Finally, this Bill would prohibit a court from imposing consecutive terms for two or more felonies, or from imposing a term of imprisonment for any sentence enhancement if the person has experienced certain traumatic conditions.

But those conditions would not just be at the time of the commission of the offense, but even any time prior to the current offense. By taking this broad brush approach, AB 1497 reduces accountability for offenders and places our communities at risk. To thank the Committee for the time.

Thank you. Are there any other in opposition? Anyone else in opposition? Excuse me. Bring it back to Committee. Ms. Ortega.

Just want to say I see you and I hear you. This is an important step forward in making sure that we correct the wrongs done in the past, including by this body, for not recognizing you as a three year old and protecting you along the way. So, as a Member of the State of California's Public Safety Committee, I want to say I'm sorry. And once again say, I see you and I hear you. Thank you.

Anyone else?

Sorry I missed the presentation, but I know this Bill inside and out because I know April Grayson inside and out. I had the privilege of seeing a film that was made about her life called Little April. The entire premise of the film is how this Legislature cut her out of her own Bill. A Bill that would have given her voice and agency in the courtroom. This is an attempt to right that injustice.

Thank you for your courage in coming here today and for sitting before this body again and speaking your truth and bringing that power. A proud co author of this Bill. If there's not a motion, I'd like to make one.

So move ... if you don't mind. Let us establish a quorum so we can vote on your Bill right now. Go ahead.

[Roll Call].

Motion. Move the Bill. Second. And any other comments or questions? You may close. Mr. Haney.

I first want to thank April and Susan for their courage and for sharing their stories today. And thank the Members for their comments as well. This is something that will correct an injustice, will allow people's full experiences to be brought to court.

I also want to recognize the Chair and thank him for his support and also commit to continue to work on some of the issues that were raised in the Committee analysis and to work on those issues before we move the Bill any further beyond today. And thank you again for your partnership and leadership on that. And with that, we'll ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. And it has been difficult. But I also want to thank you for being here so that we don't always get it right in any legislation. We don't always get it right. But you've given us an opportunity, and I want to thank you both for that, that you give us an opportunity to get something right. That's one. Two, as you heard from here, we're sometimes criticized for not hearing victims.

So giving us an opportunity to show that we care, that we hear the victims, and that we actually will do everything in our power to make sure we can, right or wrong, as best we can under the color of law. And so, again, I want to thank you for that. And I want to thank the author for working with us. That's all we ask here at the Public Safety Committee is for authors to work with us so that we can get the best Bill out.

And so it's because of that and in other bills that we've let things out, because we've had good authors who understand that we need to work through these things. And we can let things out because good authors are willing to make those commitments. And so I want to thank you, Mr. Haney, for making that commitment going forward. A lot of people don't see that. It's a lot of inside baseball. But I think it's now time we probably start letting others know that a lot of things can get done when you work with this Committee. And again, I want to thank the victims for being here today to put a face to it. With that, call the roll.

On AB 1497 by Assemblymember Haney. The motion is do passed to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call].

That measures on call needs two more. Thank you. Mr. Ramos. AB 791. Item eight. Mr. Rules Chair. When you have time later, we'll have a conversation. We got some time. Okay.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We may proceed? Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. I would like to start by accepting the committee amendments listed in the analysis. And thank you to the committee and the Chair for working with us to work through areas that we've reached agreement on. Today I am presenting AB 791, a bill that would amend current bail provisions to prevent defendants who are facing life without parole or death from receiving post-conviction bail. AB 791 is narrowly crafted a measure.

And with me to testify in support of the bill is Ryan Sherman on behalf of the Riverside County Sheriff's Association in support.

Good morning. Mr. Chair and members,

Ryan Sherman with the Riverside Sheriff's Association in support of the bill. Also in support the police officer associations of Claremont, Corona, Pomona, Palace, Verdes, Newport Beach, Placer County, DSA, upland, Santa Ana, Burbank, Murietta, Arcadia, Riverside, Deputy Sheriff Association Monterey County, Fullerton POA, and Culver City POA. All in support.

Good morning.

We support this measure, which is a bill to amend bail provisions applicable to post-conviction defendants facing life without possibility of parole. Currently, post-conviction defendants facing a death sentence are barred from eligibility for release on parole. However, there's some confusion and occasional inconsistency with regards to the application of this section to defendants facing LWAP. Calpenal Code 1272 reads, quote after a conviction of an offense not punishable by death, a defendant who has made application for probation or who has appealed may be admitted bail.

However, since conviction of an offense punishable by death is also punishable by LWAP, clarity is needed to ensure that it is the offense for which the defendant was convicted that acts as a prohibition on bail in these limited circumstances. A person is convicted of first-degree murder with special circumstances should not be released on bail. These defendants are facing an LWAP and have no incentive to return to court for sentencing.

They have every incentive to use extreme violence against the public and law enforcement to avoid capture and return to custody. For these reasons, we support AB 791 and respectfully request an aye vote.

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

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. Shane Levine on behalf of the Deputy Sheriff's Association of San Bernardino County, Sacramento County, Orange County, the Long Beach Police Officers Association and the California Fraternal Order of Police. Thank you.

Ivy Fitzpatrick, Managing Deputy District Attorney, Riverside County District Attorney's Office on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association, the Riverside County District Attorney, and the Placer County District Attorney in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other anyone in opposition?

Margo George, on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association and the San Francisco Public Defender, in respectful opposition, we thank the author and the Committee for Narrowing the Bill. Um, would still opposed, and I think that I have never heard of a judge ever releasing someone on bail who was facing life without parole. I don't think that this is necessary.

If a judge were to consider releasing someone who was facing life without parole, I think it would be an extraordinary circumstance where the judge felt there had been a miscarriage of justice. And I just don't think that that is something that we need to legislate. It's instructive to look at other states and the federal courts. Federal law and most states give courts broad discretion as whether or not to grant a defendant bail pending his appeal from a conviction.

In situations involving discretion, courts look at a number of factors, which California courts already look at, which are whether the defendant will flee, community ties, the record for appearing in prior stages of the criminal proceeding, and the added incentive for flight because of the conviction. Another factor that is paramount is, of course, danger the defendant presents to specific individuals or the community, in General. Courts also look to the nature of the crime and the defendant's prior record.

So all of these things would be taken into consideration already. Um, most states do follow the General rule that appeal from a state criminal conviction is a matter of court discretion. We argue that you should not restrain judicial discretion, and it's better to put in place additional guardrails. Other guardrails the courts could consider or the Legislature are curfews, electronic monitoring, reporting to the probation department, house arrest, rather than instituting a flat ban. We respectfully ask for your no vote.

Thank you. Any others in opposition?

Good morning, chair Members. Joshua Thubei, on behalf of the California Attorneys on Criminal Justice, late opposition. But we will get a letter to the office. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no more opposition, bring it back to Committee Members for any questions. Or, Isaac.

I'm wondering if the author or the witness can give an example of an instance where somebody was released post conviction for something for which the sentence would be LWAP. Is that a thing that happens, or is this just kind of clarifying the code?

Clarifying the code. And under federal law, defendants are post conviction. Defendants are not prohibited LWOP bail either. So this is more kind of a consistency, kind of cleaning up the code. The build start out as something entirely different. And this is what we had kind of worked out with the Committee to at least clarify this section when we were looking at amending it previously, we saw these inconsistencies and it just brings more clarity to make sure that the offense is. what triggers the convicted offense is what triggers this restriction, not whether it's the actual they're facing the imposition of the death penalty.

Gotcha.

Okay.

And the reason for the question is because the California constitution already prohibits even pretrial release for certain things. It's not granted in all instances, particularly for capital crimes, when the facts are evident or the presumption is great. My concern with clarifying the code is that the bail conversation is confusing to the General public at this point, given the work we've done on SB 10.

Rolling back SB 10, there was a bill last year, and that this could be potentially more confusing given that it probably won't have a tangible impact, but it's more of a technical cleanup. I am going to support it today because I have a lot of faith in the author and the direction it's going, but just wanted to raise those General concerns for kind of the pretrial conversation when this is post conviction, a post conviction conversation.

Thank you. Any others? You may close.

Second, and I want to thank you for taking your amendments. We heard from the opposition and we try to. Again, I want to thank you. And I also want to thank your supporters, who we always don't always agree, but I think we may have gotten to a place where a comfort level where we can move this forward. And so the chair is recommending an aye, and this is a very unique situation, so it must be a full moon out there.

Thank you.

Well thank you Mr.Chair and members, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Well, thank you, Mr. Chair, for that and the workability and a step in moving forward, safeguarding our communities together.

Okay.

[roll call]

[roll call]

[roll call]

That measure passes.

Thank you.

Mr. --Oh, I'm sorry, Mr. Fong. Almost, almost got in there. AB 732 and 733. Whichever one you want to do first.

Can we do 732 first?

Whenever you're ready.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. I would first like to thank your committee consultant for his assistance on this bill and accept the committee's suggested amendments. Assembly Bill 732 strengthens the process for removing firearms from people who aren't allowed to own them due to a criminal conviction. As deadly mass shootings dominate headlines on a near-daily basis, including the tragic mass shooting in Monterey Park in my district a few months ago, we know the need for stronger protections for our communities is clear.

AB 732 will increase the court and prosecuting attorneys' roles in ensuring that firearms are turned over at the time of conviction. It will also require increased coordination between the Department of Justice and local law enforcement agencies to address the backlog of nearly 24,000 individuals who may illegally own firearms. Together, these efforts will help keep our communities safer. Here to testify in support is Natasha Minsker from the Prosecutors Alliance of California. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Good morning. Natasha Minskar, on behalf of the Prosecutors Alliance of California, proud to sponsor AB 732. The Department of Justice reports that each year, approximately 5,000 people are added to the list of armed prohibited persons as a result of a new criminal conviction. That's 5,000 times a year that our criminal courts fail to secure a firearm from someone who has a gun registered in their name, but because of a new criminal conviction, it is now illegal for them to own that firearm.

AB 732 seeks to close this loophole by essentially saying to courts, judges and prosecutors, "You can't close a case until you secure the firearm." AB 732 will also ensure greater communication between the Department of Justice, prosecutors and local law enforcement in their joint effort to clear the backlog of people on the armed prohibited persons list by securing firearms from people who still have them. We urge your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. If there are others in support?

Rebecca Marcus, representing the Brady Campaign in support.

Laura Lane, on behalf of Everytown for Gun Safety in support.

Julia Weber, on behalf of Giffords in support.

Cassandra Whetstone, a volunteer with Moms Demand Action in support.

Thank you. Do we have any primary witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Do we have any who are providing public comment in opposition? Seeing none. I will bring it back to the committee for comments or questions. Mr. Zbur.

I think this is a terrific bill. Thank you so much for bringing it. I would love to be added as a co-author if that's welcome at the right time, and I move the bill.

I would love to have you as a co-author. Thank you.

Any other comments or questions from the committee?

Move the bill.

Mr. Zbur moved. Mr. Bryan seconds. But I will offer Mr. Fong an opportunity to close.

Thank you so much. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. With that, please take the roll.

On AB 732 by Assembly Member Mike Fong the motion is do pass as amended to the Appropriations Committee. Jones-Sawyer. Alanis. Aye. Bonta. Aye. Bryan. Aye. Lackey. Aye. Ortega. Santiago. Zbur. Aye.

That measure passes.

Thank you so much.

We'll move now to AB 733,

Item number six.

Item number six. Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair and members. Again, I'd like to thank your committee consultant for his assistance on this bill. I'd accept the committee's suggested amendments. Assembly Bill 733 will prohibit state and local government agencies and departments from selling firearms, firearm parts, ammunition and body armor back to the public. In the wake of the tragic mass shooting in Monterey Park. It was reported that a local law enforcement agency attempted to sell surplus firearms in an online auction the weekend of the shooting.

I thank LA County Supervisor Hilda Solis and the La County Board of Supervisors for their quick action on this. This revealed a gap in our current system. There is no state law that prevents state and local government agencies and departments from selling surplus firearms to members of the public. AB 733 will ensure that government entities are not playing a role in increasing access to deadly weapons in our communities.

Here to testify in support of Assembly Bill 733 is Natasha Minsker from the Prosecutors Alliance of California. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Five minutes.

Good morning. Natasha Minskar, on behalf of the Prosecutors Alliance of California, proud to sponsor AB 733. Simply put, the government should not be in the business of selling guns to the public. We urge an aye vote. Thank you.

Yeah, any other witnesses in support? Name and organization.

Mr. Chair and members Dan Philosotto, on behalf of the Los Angeles County District Attorney's office, in support.

Thank you. Anyone else? Anyone in opposition? Sherman.

This morning, again, apologies for late opposition. Ryan Sherman with Riverside Sheriff's Association, bunch of other law enforcement groups. We must register our opposition to AB 33, which prohibit a law enforcement agency from selling surplus firearms to anyone or any entity, including our concern is the peace officers, whether retired, reserve or active.

We understand the author's perspective about the government being in the business of selling firearms to the public, and we believe there are some persons and entities to whom a law enforcement agency should be able to transfer firearms. Officers who have used and trained with their department-issued firearm who would like to continue to be able to purchase would like to continue to be able to purchase that firearm under certain circumstances, such as when the department switches from firearm models or manufacturers or upon retirement.

Allowing officers to purchase the firearms that they have been training with for years poses no safety risk to the public ensures that the surplus firearm in the secure possession of a fully trained and experienced law enforcement professional. Also, we have a concern, although this is more of a funding issue, is while the issue relates more to management concerns, wasteful department spending or practices remain a concern to rank and file.

Sales or credits, pardon me, allow departments to reduce or offset the costs of their ongoing firearms purchase needs. And this bill potentially could make that much more difficult for those departments to recoup some of that money. And it makes little financial sense to prohibit a department from returning surplus firearms to a manufacturer or wholesaler for refund or purchase credit. It is for these reasons that we stated here that we are post AB 733 and respectfully requested, no vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else in opposition?

Good morning, Matthew Siverling on behalf of the California Peace Officers Association and Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs, we contacted the author's office with the same concerns, just regarding active duty peace officers and honorably retired peace officers and their ability to purchase their own service weapon. And hopefully we'll continue to work with you and your staff, sir. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else? All right, committee.

Yeah. Having been one of those people who have retired and actually have purchased my firearm, I don't consider myself a threat to the public in any way, shape or form. And I have to tell you that when you train with that instrument that provides you the protection for years and years and years, I find it an important fact to be able to purchase that very instrument that afforded me the protection that I needed throughout my entire career and to legislate that away is misguided.

And so until there's a carve out for that, I will not be able to support this bill.

Any other committee members?

Just want to clarify, Mr. Fong, you are focused on the sale, right? Can you just review in response a bit to Mr. Lacky's point?

Thank you so much, Ms. Bonta. And thank you, Mr. Lackey, for comments and questions. This would preclude any local and state agency for selling firearms back to the public.

And if I could just clarify also the opposition witnesses have reached out to the Assemblymember's office, but because of the short timeframe, we haven't been able to sit down and talk. So I'll say honestly, Assemblymember Lackey's description of the reasons why it's important to have access to the firearm, for the officer who's trained with it, is just more opportunity than we've had to hear from the opposition, through no fault of the opposition.

It's just that we haven't had time prior to this hearing to sit down and discuss why this is important to them. So it's an ongoing conversation. And I do think Assemblymember Fong correctly identified the goal of the bill is to prevent more firearms being put on the street because we know that the more firearms that are out there, the greater the risk of firearm violence.

And look forward to future conversations with the opposition on this as well. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Ortega.

I actually think your overall intent is good, and I trust that you will work with Mr. Lackey, because I also do have that concern.

Thank you. Look forward to future conversations with Mr. Lackey and the opposition.

Okay, Mr. Fong, the chair is back. I'm going to speak as a committee member. I also had the same concerns as I, too, fall into this category that you're speaking of and have been able to purchase my old service weapon after we switched to a different caliber and make so. I'm sure your office will work with them as well. And I know this came in late, and I thank you guys for acknowledging that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I will move bill.

I will say this. I'm not sure, but you may close.

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair and the committee members. And thank you for the comments from the opposition as well. I look forward to future conversations opposition on this. And really, as we look at how we prevent additional incidents in the future, we really want to look at how we prevent local government agencies and state ages from giving more firearms back to public. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Call the roll.

On AB 733 by Assemblymember Mike Fong. The motion is due pass as amended, to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

That measures on call needs one more.

Thank you so much.

I think your one more is outside, Mr. Santiago.

Okay, let me go talk to him. Thank you so much.

Could you make this announcement? I accidentally said the motion wrong.

Oh, I just wanted to make a technical clarification for AB 791. The motion is do pass as amended, to the Appropriations Committee. Thank you, Mr. Gabriel. AB 36, item number one. Mr. Berman was before you, but he's not here.

He's happy to defer his time to me. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. And we'll start by accepting the Committee amendments. I am pleased today to present AB 36, which will address the too often deadly intersection between gun violence and domestic violence. And this bill will prohibit the purchase and possession of firearms by individuals who are subject to domestic violence protective orders for three years after the expiration of that protective order.

As we think about all the different ways that we can crack down on our state's gun violence epidemic, we know that too often domestic violence turns into domestic homicide. And in fact, when an abusive partner has access to a gun, a domestic violence victim is five times more likely to be killed. Studies also show that two thirds of women killed by an intimate partner are killed by a gun.

Under existing California law, access to firearms by abusers expires as soon as the protective order expires or lapses. And experts have warned that after many protective orders expires, survivors at that moment are at a significantly elevated risk when violent and abusive partners regain immediate access to firearms. So this will better protect survivors of domestic violence and other forms of abuse and help to address the epidemic of gun violence we have in our state.

This is a common sense measure to keep firearms out of the hands of abusive partners and reduce the incidence of gun violence and domestic homicide in our state. And with me today to testify in support is Julia Weber, on behalf of our sponsor, Giffords. She is the Giffords Law Center's implementation Director and an expert on domestic violence policy who has spent her career working to develop and implement evidence based strategies to present and respond to violence. Thank you and respectfully request in aye vote.

Good morning. Chair and Members of the Committee, pleased to be here today, actually wearing the consultant hat. I was the former implementation Director with Giffords and now as an attorney consultant, and I've had the privilege of talking with you in prior hearings on this important issue. We are, of course, strongly in support and as sponsors of this bill, believe strongly in the need to address the intersection of domestic violence and firearms. As the Assembly Member has already mentioned, it is a particularly deadly combination.

One aspect of this bill that I'd like to initially emphasize that we are very supportive of is that it addresses multiple civil restraining orders. So in addition to the Domestic Violence Prevention act restraining order framework, it also includes civil harassment orders, workplace violence prevention orders, school violence prevention orders, and elder abuse orders, which is critical because all of those types of violence are often connected to domestic violence as well.

And I know from the many years I've spent training judicial officers, law enforcement, court staff and attorneys that one of the issues we have in California is with the inconsistency across our various firearm policies. So in this case, this bill would seek to address that inconsistency by providing similar approach across the various civil restraining orders.

And the additional piece of information I think is critical here is what it would do to penal Code section 1524, which is to provide an additional basis for a search warrant across violations of these types of civil restraining orders, making it easier for courts and law enforcement to address those violations when an application for a search warrant comes before the criminal court or the on duty judge. So I want to again strongly urge your support of this important measure. Thank you.

Thank you. Only because we have such a hard time being a quorum. Just give us a minute or go through the proposed consent calendar while we have. Oh its only four. No, we've got five, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. On the proposed consent calendar we have item number two, AB 522. Kolera. States departments investigations and hearings administrative subpoenas. Item number seven, AB 762. WIX California Violence Intervention and Prevention grant program. Item number nine, AB 818. Petrie North Protective Orders. Item number 10, AB 1125, Heart Vehicle Code Infractions.

Item number 12, AB 1402 Megan Dahle Medical Evidentiary Examinations Reimbursement. Item number 151519 Baines Vehicles Catalytic Converters. Item number 16, AB 1559, Jackson Elections. Item number 17, AB 1647 Suria Veterans Treatment Courts Grant Program.

[roll call]

Thank you. We have such a frat. People going in and out. Why I had them. I wanted to get them. Anyone else in support?

Rebecca Marcus representing the Brady campaign. In support.

Anyone else in support? Anyone else in opposition? Anyone else opposite seeing none. Questions from bringing back to Committee? Questions from Committee Members. Comments?

I will move the Bill.

You may close.

Respectfully request an aye vote.

Chairs recommending aye.

Call the roll on AB 36 by Assembly Member Gabriel. The motion is do passed as amended to the Appropriations Committee. [roll call]

I don't see Mr. Berman, so I think I'm going to cut in front of you past the gavel.

Here. Item 11, AB 129. Joan Sawyer something.

They're going to go get my witness right now. Okay, we can't wait because you're only here for so long. I'll read real slow. zero, here he is.

Perfect. Thank you.

Good morning. I would like to thank my staff for their diligence and start by accepting my committee amendments. I present AB 129, which ensures that people who cannot afford private attorneys can meaningfully access their rights to legal counsel prior to their initial court appearance. As recommended by the Committee on Revision of the Penal Code. Across the state, thousands are appearing in court without counsel and without understanding the complexities of an intimidating legal process.

Once in court, they feel pressured into waiving their right to counsel and plead guilty to crimes they may not have even committed, all without ever having spoken to an attorney and without being advised of the consequences of entering such pleas. These consequences include loss of public housing or custody rights, eligibility for professional licenses, reduced employment and for noncitizens, loss of immigration status, or permanent family separation.

Uncounciled pleas, which are entered without attorney representation or without the right to counsel being properly waived, increase the likelihood of erroneous convictions and overall undermine our criminal justice system and California's trust in the process. Providing legal assistance earlier in the criminal justice process not only improves outcomes for individuals, but also enhances public safety.

For instance, a study of nearly 100,000 cases show that people who were provided legal assistance before their bail hearings were 64% less likely to have a bail violation and 26% less likely to be rearrested as such. AB 129 upholds California's constitutional rights to legal counsel in all cases before they enter a plea. I remain committed to working closely with public defenders to ensure effective implementation of this important measure, which will uphold California's constitutional right to legal counsel. With me is.

You don't look like a Hong Tee Thigh.

Rick Owen.

Okay, we have Rick here, who... Rick Owen with the Committee on a Revision of the Penal Code to share the Committee's work on this issue.

Thank you. You have five minutes.

Thank you, and good morning. My name is Rick Owen. I'm a Senior Staff Counsel for the Committee on Revision of the Penal Code. The Penal Code Committee is a state entity charged with making recommendations to the Legislature and the Governor about criminal law. Its goals are to improve public safety and equity while reducing unnecessary incarceration. AB 129 is based on a penal code committee recommendation that lawyers should be assigned before someone's first court appearance.

The committee made its recommendation after reviewing extensive research and data showing that effective legal representation at an arrested person's first court appearance reduces recidivism and saves money. In California, unlike many other states, recently arrested people who cannot afford to hire their own attorney are not guaranteed access to a lawyer until after their first court appearance, during which a judge makes important and long-lasting decisions, such as determining a bail amount and, in many cases, accepting a plea deal.

I'll repeat some of the data that was mentioned, which is that recent research using data from over 100,000 cases in Philadelphia found that people who were provided assistance from the public defender's office before their bail hearings were 64% less likely to have a bail violation and 26% less likely to be arrested in the future. Early representation was also associated with a decrease in the likelihood of conviction, less harsh sentences, and a significant reduction in racial disparities in pretrial release rates.

These outcomes not only benefited the individuals who were arrested but also improved public safety for the entire community. 24 other states, including Illinois, Florida, and New York, require that the state provide counsel at a person's first court appearance. The Penal Code Committee also heard testimony from practitioners in other jurisdictions who describe prompt appointment of counsel as an essential element of their systems. Current law in California requires that public defenders be notified of all juvenile bookings within 2 hours of arrest.

The Penal Code concluded that extending similar reforms to the adult system can improve public safety and generate cost savings while recognizing that people should be treated equally regardless of how much money they have.

Thank you.

I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Anyone else in support.

Natasha Minsker for Smart Justice California in strong support.

Melissa Cosio with Californians for Safety and Justice and support.

Margo George, on behalf of the California Public Defender's Office, in support and the San Francisco Public Defender, in support. Thank you.

Carmen Nicole Cox, on behalf of California...ACLU California Action co-sponsor, and strong support.

Emily Harris with the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in support.

Joshua Thubei with the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, in support.

Thank you. Anyone in opposition. Hearing none. Committee? All right. Anyone else? Chair, I do have a couple of questions, probably for your witness. I know in my county, I don't know, maybe we're the only ones doing it, but I know prior to an arraignment, we actually have the public defender's office come out and speak with defendants before they even speak with the judge.

And I forget what case that was called or what the hearing is called or why they do it, but I remember there was a recent case that allowed that. Do you have any comments on that one?

I'm not aware of a recent case that allows that public defenders throughout the state do that in different counties. The problem is that in many counties they do not. So some counties will have that practice where public defenders go out and meet with a person before the arraignment, which is the first court date that's been recognized as a best practice. But in many places, they do not do that. In some of the larger counties, they're doing that practice, but it's not consistent throughout the state.

And then my other concern is, will this burden some of the public defender's office by maybe having to have staff come in during the weekend? I know, again, going back to Stanislaus County, I already know they're impacted by staffing levels, and I fear that this would hurt them for staffing. Is there wiggle room for mean? Is there, like, they have to have somebody there or they have to try to do it?

There's nothing in the bill that requires the public defender's office to actually come out on a weekend and interview people. And in fact, a number of public defender offices don't assign attorneys necessarily to represent people at these early proceedings. A number of places will have social workers or interns do that type of work. They're doing this type of work anyway because they have to intake their clients. They have to meet with them.

They strive to do it early in the case, but we're just pushing the clock forward. I think that this would result in significant cost savings because of the data that we mentioned. So, I think that it's more of a shifting of resources than a need for a tremendous war.

Okay, thank you. I would just recommend reach out to Stanislaus' public defender's office and see how they're doing. Because what you're explaining right now, like, we already do that, so I guess we're a little bit ahead of the curve. Thank you. Any other comments? You may close.

And thank you. I do believe your county is probably a little bit ahead of the curve and use the word progressive in that manner. And if, for example, the public defenders and or their attorney's representatives that they usually send in if they need to increase the number that are there and they need some kind of budget augmentation. I personally know the chair of sub five public safety budget, and I'm pretty sure we can talk through those issues.

Thank you. Requesting an aye vote.

AB 1209 by Assemblymember Jones-Sawyer. The motion is do pass as amended to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

That bill passes.

Mr. Berman, and your witness. You may begin.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and colleagues. First, I would like to thank the committee staff for their work on this bill, and I'm happy to accept the committee's suggested amendments. AB 1420 would ensure that the Department of Justice has the authority to inspect and write citations for any violations related to the sale, transfer, and storage of firearms. California has one of the strongest firearm laws in the country, and these laws save lives.

Having these laws is important, but it's equally important to ensure the laws are being adequately enforced. Currently, the Bureau of Firearms under the Department of Justice lacks inspection authority on many of California's strong firearm laws. There are only a handful of statutes that allow the Bureau of Firearms to inspect and even fewer statutes that allow for any sort of civil fines to be issued. AB 1420 will broaden the Department of Justice's inspection authority to ensure these laws are being enforced and any violations are remedied.

And here with me is Candace Chung with the California Department of Justice. Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Sounding good. Don't talk past.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Committee Members. And thank you, Senator Berman. My name is Candace Chung and I'm a Deputy Attorney General with the Department of Justice. On behalf of Attorney General Rob Bonta, who's pleased to support this bill, we'd like to thank Assembly Member Berman for his leadership on this issue and for authoring this bill. As mentioned, California does have some of the strongest gun safety laws.

However, unfortunately, the laws authorizing DOJ to inspect for compliance with these laws just simply has not kept up with the evolution of all of these laws. For example, the current list of violations that DOJ inspectors can cite for does not include important safety measures that have been passed in the last 13 years, including whether a dealer has sold or transferred assault weapons, whether that dealer holds a dangerous weapons permit, a valid dangerous weapons permit, or is keeping records of off roster weapon sales.

AB 1420 will give the DOJ authority to check for firearms for compliance with these new laws. More importantly, 1420 expands the authority to assess progressive penalties, including civil fines, when dealers fail to correct violations. So this will incentivize compliance and ensure that the citations we do write just aren't a simple paper tiger.

Again, this is a critical bill in maintaining the high standards and gun safety that California has continued to maintain, and this will ensure that firearms sales and transfers are being conducted in a safe and lawful manner. And thank you, and I'm happy to answer any questions you might have.

Thank you. Any others in support?

Ethan Nagler, on behalf of the city of Mountain View in support.

City of Mountain Dew.

Brian Ricks with the Los Angeles Unified School District in support.

Thank you. Oh, that's going to Mountain Dew. You got it. Any witnesses in opposition? Is there Pepsi out there? City of Pepsi? No. We'll bring it back to committee members for any comments or questions.

Thank you to the author for bringing forward this very thoughtful bill. Have I already moved the bill?

We have not. Yes, you did. zero, sorry. Nothing. Okay. You may close.

Respectfully ask for aye vote.

Chair is recommending the aye; let's call the vote roll.

On AB 1420 by Assemblymember Berman. The motion is do passed as amended to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

Thank you very much.

Thank you. So we've probably done our record. We've done nine bills in less than 2 hours.

Okay, next we will do... next, we will do any add-ons, lifting of calls and vote changes, and formal votes of measures. Madam Secretary, please go through all the measures taken up today.

On the consent calendar. Brian Lackey. The consent calendar, sir? Consent calendar? [Roll Call]. Item one, AB 36 by Assemblymember Gabriel. [Roll Call]. Item number three, AB 522 was on consent. I'm sorry, that was item number two. Item number three, AB 695 by Assemblymember Pacheco. This bill was testimony only. Do we have a motion? Second moved by Ms. Ortega and seconded by Mr. Zbur. The motion is due pass as amended, to the Appropriations Committee.

[Roll Call]. That measures on call. It needs one. Item number four, AB 702, was pulled by the author. Item number five, AB 732, by Assemblymember Mike Fong. [Roll Call]. Item number six, AB 733 by Assemblymember Mike Fong. This measure was on call. [Roll Call] Still waiting for members.

Item number seven, AB 762 by Assemblymember Wicks, was on consent. AB 791 by Assemblymember Ramos we're waiting for absent members. Item number nine, AB 818, was on consent. Item number 10, AB 1125, was on consent. Item number 11, AB 129 waiting for absent members. Item number 12, AB 142 was on consent. Item 14, excuse me. Item 13, AB 1420 we were waiting for absent members.

Item number 14, AB 1497 by Assemblymember Haney [Roll Call]. That measure now passes. Item number 15, AB 1519, was on consent. Item number 16, AB 1559, was on consent. Item number 17, AB 1647, was on consent. Item number 18, AC 88, by Assemblymember Wilson, moved by Mr. Alanis. Is there a second? Seconded by Ms. Ortega. The motion is due passed to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call] That measure passes.

We're still waiting on two absent members, Brian and Santiago. We'll keep the roll open for another five to 10 minutes.

Call the absent members.

On the consent calendar. [Roll Call]. Item number one, AB 36, [Roll Call] Item number two, AB 522, was on consent. Item number three, AB 695, [Roll Call] Of course, on AB 695, vote change.

Lackey vote change from no to aye.

Lackey vote change, no to aye.

Thank you. Oh, I'm sorry. You need to say it too. I didn't realize it was both. Alanis, vote change, not voting to aye. Thank you, both. Item number four was pulled by the author. Item number five, AB 732, [Roll Call]. Item number six, AB 733, [Roll Call]. That measure now passes.

Item number seven, AB 762, was set on consent. Item number eight, AB 791, [Roll Call] Item number nine, AB 818, was on consent. Item 1011, AB 1125, was on consent. Item 11, AB 1209, [Roll Call].

Item number 12, AB 1402 was on consent. Item 13, AB 1420, [Roll Call]. Item 14, AB 1497, [Roll Call]. Item 15, AB 1519, was on consent. Item 16, AB 1559, was on consent. Item 17, AB 1647, was on consent. Item 18, ACA 8. [Roll Call].

Good. We're waiting for Mr. Bryant. It's the last one. Yeah, well, we were able to do nine bills in 2 hours, so less than 2 hours, so it's pretty good.

You put them all on consenting?

We do what we can, when we can.

Go ahead and call the absent members. We almost broke our record. We did nine bills in less than 2 hours.

Record. Are you ready, sir? On the consent calendar, [Roll Call]. On item number one, AB 36. Bryan. This measure is by Assemblymember Gabriel.

Yeah, I know what it is. Aye.

Bryan I.

Item number two, AB 522, was on consent. Item number three, AB 695. [Roll Call]

Item number four, AB 702, was pulled by the author. Item number five, AB 732, has been dispensed with. Item number six, AB 733. [Roll Call].

Item number seven, AB 762, was on consent. Item number eight, AB 791, has been dispensed with. Item number nine, AB 818, was on consent. Item number 10, AB 1125, on consent. Item number 11, AB 1209. [Roll Call]

Item number 12, AB 1402 was on consent. Item number 13, AB 1420 by Assemblymember Berman. [Roll Call].

Item number 14, AB 1497, has been dispensed with. Item number 15, AB 1519, was on consent. Item number 16, AB 1559, was on consent. Item 17, AB 1647, was on consent. And item 18, ACA 8. [Roll Call].

This concludes the meeting of the Public Safety Committee.