Assembly Standing Committee on Public Safety

Okay. Good morning. We'll call this meeting to order. It looks like we do have a quorum. Please call the roll.

Roll Call

Okay. Thank you. We will begin by dispensing with the consent calendar. We have two items on the proposed consent calendar. AB 1855 Alanis and AB 1875 McKinnor, motion and second on the consent calendar. Motion by Reyes. Second by Ting. Please call the roll

Roll Call

Okay. Thank you. Consent calendar is adopted. We will now begin with the regular order of business. And we will begin with the items that Members through sign in order. And our first Member on the docket is Assemblymember Jim Patterson.

I'm going to defer.

Okay, Assemblymember Quirk-Silva, please come up. Item number seven, AB 1909. Please proceed.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Today I present Assembly Bill 1909, which upholds the rights of victims of crime by ensuring they obtain the restitution from defendants. According to the California Constitution Center, survivors of crimes often struggle to receive restitution from defendants, with many receiving very little compensation despite their losses. Californians have the constitutional and all right to seek restitution from the persons convicted of the crimes that cause them harm and suffering.

Following the implementation of our state's diversion laws, there is a rise in the number of defendants in diversion programs. Our justice system is centered on rehabilitation and the power of second chances for those who have done wrong, which I firmly believe in. However, we must recognize that while we do all we can to support redemption, we cannot forget those who have been harmed along the way.

AB 1909 is about striking that balance, supporting individuals' opportunities to turn their lives around, while also making sure that those who have been harmed receive the support they need to heal and move forward. Once a defendant has successfully completed their diversionary period, we must ensure the victim receives their fair share of compensation that is rightfully owned to them. Ensuring that victims receive their compensation is not only fair, it is a fundamental part of the very nature of justice.

With me today to provide testimony and answer any questions the Committee may have is Ms. Tamar Tokat, Deputy District Legislative Advocate for the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office.

Thank you. You have five minutes to divide amongst your witnesses.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. My name is Tamar Tokat. I'm a Deputy District Attorney with the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office, and we are the proud sponsors of this important legislation. Although this Bill offers a minor, clarifying amendment to the existing law, it will have a significant impact on the crime victim's ability to actually receive the restitution that a court has already ordered at a restitution hearing.

Crime victims have a constitutional and a statutory right to be made whole by receiving restitution by the defendant. It is an accepted and well established part of the criminal justice system, and it is not considered a punishment for the defendant. If anything, it is an important part of the rehabilitation process because it gives a wrongdoer the opportunity to take responsibility for some of the damage that's been caused as a result of the crime.

Otherwise, crime victims would be left with not only dealing with the burden and the trauma of the crime itself, but they will have to deal with having to bear the burden of the financial damage caused by the crime. And this is a significant amount of burden for any one person to have to handle, especially when they've done nothing wrong. Our existing laws around restitution recognize this fact.

In every criminal case, when a court orders restitution and a person completes their probation or their parole, or their supervision, or their release from local custody, the court is able to convert the restitution, any unpaid restitution, into a civil judgment if it hasn't been completed by the time the probation or the parole has been completed. And that is so that crime victims don't have to file a separate lawsuit in a civil court.

Lawsuits are not only costly for the state, but they're also extremely burdensome on crime victims. And it forces crime victims to actually have to relive the trauma of the crime by having to recount the details of the crime over and over again. And restitution orders are also allowed for in diversion cases. In fact, recent diversion laws that have been passed in recent years expressly call for the right to restitution and for a court to order restitution in diversion, even though someone hasn't been convicted.

It allows the defendant to complete a program to be rehabilitated, but also make the victim whole. Unfortunately, the law is silent as to the viability of these orders once the diversion is completed otherwise. So if restitution is the only thing outstanding, and the defendant has successfully completed every other aspect of diversion, the law is silent as to what happens. Does that turn into a civil judgment like in every other case, or does it not?

And this is actually because the law is silent on this point, this has caused a significant amount of confusion in the courtrooms. In LA County, for example, we've had conflicting answers from judges. Some judges believe that, yes, it can convert to a civil judgment even though the law is silent, because it's a constitutional right for a victim to have diversion. But the vast majority of judges have taken the opposite position, which has made restitution orders in those diversion cases meaningless. And we have several examples from LA County where this is a problem. I'll give you one example.

We had an elderly victim who was attacked in a parking lot. He was punched and shoved into the ground, he broke his hip, and he sustained $300,000 in medical bills. The court placed the defendant on mental health diversion and also ordered the defendant to make this restitution to the victim. But the issue is that diversion lasts anywhere from one year to a maximum of two years, depending on the type of diversion you get.

And so that's usually not enough time for someone to be able to make a significant restitution payment. So unless that amount is able to be converted to a civil judgment and enforced, that victim is going to be left having to pay that amount themselves without the restitution actually being meaningful in their lives. AB 1909 does not change any of our existing diversion laws or the court's ability to order restitution in diversion cases to begin with. This Bill picks up where the diversion program ends.

We want defendants to be able to benefit from any diversion program if they are eligible and suitable. We want defendants to be rehabilitated and earn a case dismissal if that is appropriate for their situation.

But we also want crime victims to be able to receive the restitution that a court has already ordered for them, so that we can at least alleviate some of the burdens from them, so that they don't have to pay for the medical bills and the property damage bills and the counseling bills themselves. So to that end, and on behalf of the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office, I would like to thank Assemblymember Quirk-Silva for her dedication to helping crime victims.

And I would respectfully ask this Committee for your aye vote on AB 1909. Thank you.

Thank you. Any more witnesses? Assemblymember? Anybody here to testify in support, please line up.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Ryan Sherman with the Riverside Sheriffs' Association in support. Also the police officer associations of Arcadia, Burbank, Claremont, Corona, Culver City, Fullerton, Marietta, Newport Beach, Novato, Palace Verdes, Pomona, Riverside, Santa Ana, Upland, the Reserve Peace Officers Association of California and deputy sheriff's associations of Monterey County and Placer County, all in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair and Members, Dan Felizzatto, this morning on behalf of the Crime Victims Alliance in support.

Erin Friday, Our Duty. Mother of a daughter who used to believe that she's a boy. Proponent of Protect Kids California, I support.

Thank you. Do we have any witnesses in opposition? Please come up. You have five minutes to divide amongst yourselves.

Good morning. Margot George on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association. We are opposed to AB 1909 because it seeks to extend the restitution requirement and impose it on Californians who have not been found guilty of any criminal offense, including Californians whose cases were diverted as a result of serious mental illness.

The fact that a person has been diverted, including pursuant to 1001.36, does not mean that the person is guilty of the charged or any offense. Bill AB 1909 seeks to treat presumptively innocent, vulnerable people who have not been convicted of any offense, as if they have been convicted of criminal wrongdoing. And most pointedly, mental health diversion is routinely applied to defendants who are incompetent to stand trial.

So AB 1909 would unconstitutionally and pointlessly impose criminal restitution liability on people who were unable to comprehend the nature of the charges against them, let alone any corresponding restitution order. So we have communicated with the author and we are seeking amendments that would make this better. It would add procedural protections to restitution hearings for diverted individuals and clarify that this procedure does not apply to diversion ordered during incompetency proceedings. It would add time limits to the period for which the post diversion restitution order applies.

And we're asking for ability to pay provisions to allow courts to opt out of pointless attempts to seek restitution from unhoused mentally ill Californians, which would merely result in additional court cost since these individuals are unlikely to ever be able to pay any restitution. So we respectfully ask for your no vote on AB 1909 unless it is amended. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Ignacio Hernandez on behalf of the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice Statewide Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. We are in respectful opposition. Let me just offer a couple of observations and a couple of suggestions going forward. I want to thank the author and her staff for having conversations last week about this Bill and the sponsors for bringing it. I really thought about it the last couple of days.

And I've been involved in discussions on the civil judgments for victims when we rewrote that statute a few years ago. I think here's the situation. Diversion is a legal construct designed to treat people differently than as if they were convicted. The gap in law now, it's not vagueness. It is a deliberate gap where we did not include diversion in the transformation into a civil judgment for victims. It's simply not listed. Diversion is listed in the restitution fee, which is capped at $1,000.

That's collected by the Victims Comp Board. So that's where we did include diversion, but we didn't include it in the money judgment or civil judgment. So that's why there's a gap. It was intended. And also because it covers a lot of situations, as the previous witness mentioned. So what do we do with this wrinkle in law? Because on the one hand, we see that there might be victims who would like to get more pay and should get more restitution.

And so I have a couple of suggestions. One is, as was mentioned, I think there should be an ability to pay assessment on the back end of diversion. Diversion is supposed to be different than a conviction. And if you have someone who successfully completes diversion, and it says in law that failure to pay full restitution should not be, cannot be a reason to not provide the end of diversion or successful completion of diversion.

It says that in law, so we can't keep them on diversion, and it's different than being on probation or parole. So we should do an ability to pay at the end. And also make an assessment of somebody who maybe intended not to pay throughout the period of diversion. If they simply just chose not to pay and just hoping it would go away, then there should be an assessment on the back end.

Yes, my name is Robert Bowden. I'm in opposition, respectfully, of 1909. Thank you.

They think there should be an assessment for mental health conditions and other things, because we do need to treat diversion differently than someone who finished probation or parole, who was in jail or in state prison or on community supervision. We just have to. Otherwise, that's the design of diversion. So I think there's a balancing.

I think we can thread the needle if we did some back end procedures similar to what was mentioned already, but I think, at minimum, ability to pay and an assessment of conditions of that particular individual. On the back end. Thank you.

Thank you. Sorry, that's five minutes. Just trying to keep the rules in place here. Should have given you notice. Any others in opposition? Please line up and get your name and organization only.

Yes. My name is Robert Bowden. I'm in opposition, respectfully, of AB 1909.

Thank you.

My name is Lawrence Cox, LSPC, All of Us or None, in opposition.

My name is Gilroy Morrio, LSPC. All of Us or None. Opposition.

My name is Lena Din, LSPC. I'm in opposition.

Okay, thank you. Questions or comments from Committee Members. Mr. Lackey?

Yeah, I would just like to say I really don't have any questions, but I'm very thankful that the author has addressed this issue because I think too often victims have become ghosts in our judicial system. And this actually recognizes a very, very critical piece of restoration. And I think that both sides would consider justice satisfied when judgments are met. And so restitution is in our California constitution, and it's an important issue that I believe this fairly addresses, and I'm happy to support it.

Thank you. Mr. Ting. I was hoping the author or the sponsor could just address Mr. Hernandez's thoughts and comments and also the issue around asking for restitution for folks that haven't been convicted. Could you address that issue?

This Bill is a really difficult Bill. I know that when we talk about victims and then we talk about defendants, we usually have very polarized sides. We have, as was mentioned, diversion, and it is a very difficult Bill for me to actually have brought forward as more and more I have wanted to look into our justice system to find out ways that victims can be made whole. And yet defendants can also not exit our systems and have a tale that follows them for maybe decades.

And then also know that the likelihood of pain restitution may be very unlikely, particularly with the population. So we know that there is work to do on this Bill. We know that some of the suggestions we take seriously, and we'll continue to work on that.

It's a Bill that, at this time in our state, where we have such division amongst advocates for one group or the other, whether it's for victims or for those who have committed crimes, to maybe make a step to say, is there a place we can get to?

There is research that shows that when defendants have- when we say, made whole, meaning dollars, that may not necessarily actually happen, but the attempt to address the impact they've had on somebody, whether that's verbally, whether it's in restitution in dollars. So it's a step towards coming towards the center. But I'm fully aware of, as you said, your comments and your suggestions that it may not be possible, but it's a place to try to clarify, and we know that we have work to do on this.

Thank you. Mr. Zbur.

Thank you. I want to thank the author for bringing this Bill forward. I do think that it takes some important steps to really protect victims. With that said, I'm grateful to hear that you're open to considering some of the suggested amendments that CPDA has submitted. I do think especially the one related to ability to pay is something that's important that you consider in the next round.

And so I'll be supporting the Bill today, but hope that you'll continue working with CDPA on some of the suggested amendments.

Thank you. I, too want to thank you for bringing this Bill. And I appreciate the comments by my colleague that this is in the Constitution. Our victims must be made whole. They do have rights. I am concerned about the fact that this is a diversion as opposed to a conviction. And there have been very good comments that have been made. And I appreciate your response. I think you're the perfect author for this Bill because you do recognize both sides.

Assemblymember Reyes.

You recognize the need to protect our victims and to make them whole. But you also recognize the issues that affect people. Mental health, also incompetence that were mentioned earlier and issues to be discussed at a future time. I will support it today. I think this Bill deserves to have further conversation on it. So I thank you for bringing this forward.

Thank you. And I'll just also say that some of the issues raised, we didn't hear them earlier, so we weren't offering author's amendments, Committee amendments for you. But I do support this. But I do think there's some questions potentially you could work at as you go through the next step to the Appropriations Committee. So I support this. It's aye recommendation. Mr. Alanis, lastly.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I also want to thank you for bringing this Bill forward. And a reminder, as my other colleagues have also, that this restitution is a constitutional right, and that's something that we need to remember. And so I have a question for the Deputy DA. Something that was brought up that people have not been found guilty of the criminal offense. Could you attest a little bit more to that or add to that? Because I know that's something that we're talking about going to diversion.

Well, there's a reason they went to diversion as opposed to being found guilty or not guilty.

I would start by saying that under existing law, restitution is expressly allowed in diversion situations. Recent diversion laws that passed, including mental health diversion, expressly already call for a right to restitution and call for a court to hold a restitution hearing to make that evidentiary determination at the time. That also includes an ability to pay determination at a restitution hearing. This Bill doesn't change anything about that process. That is a separate process.

This is just about what happens when diversion is completed and that amount has not been paid. But it was ordered by the court. So diversion. Yes, they haven't been convicted.

But the reason the restitution language was put in existing law in the first place is because the point of diversion is not to put people who haven't committed a crime into a diversion program. It is rather to put people who have committed a crime into a diversion program if they are eligible and if they are suitable for that program, because they could be rehabilitated and they can earn the right to get a dismissal.

So it's not for a person who's in a diversion program to completely bypass all of the consequences and obligations that come out of having committed that crime in the first place. But the most important thing to remember is that it's already allowed for under our separate diversion statutes. So we are amending the section that talks about the civil judgment part, but the restitution order in a diversion is already allowed for. So it seems a lot of the opposition's point is a criticism of existing law. But that's not what this Bill is. That would be a completely different Bill.

Thank you for making that clear. And again, thank you. I've seen too many times, in my experience in the courthouse, in law enforcement, watching victims have to come back and try and do that and again be revictimized, as you guys said, happen to tell their stories again, and they shouldn't have to miss work or anything else to make sure that this is made right from the beginning. So thank you for doing that, and you'll be getting my support.

Thank you. Would you like to close, Assemblymember?

I just would respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Okay, thank you. Motion? Moved and seconded. Zbur and Alanis. Please call the roll.

On AB 1809 by Assemblymember Quirk-Silva. The motion is do passed to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll call]

Thank you. That measure passes. Thank you. Next. Author, Assembly Member Patterson. Two. Measure, Assembly Member Jim Patterson will start at the AB 1803.

Thank you very much, Chair and Members, before you is AB 1803. As we all know, according to the California Department of Justice, our State of California is considered one of the largest regions for human trafficking actually in the country.

And as the state continues to try to prosecute the traffickers and free the trafficked, we really do need to hold those traffickers accountable for the, for the act. But also we need to ensure that the victims are compensated for their pain and suffering. Under current law, victims of crimes are not allowed to collect noneconomic losses, ie. Pain and suffering. With the exception of child molestation related crimes, AB 1803 expands this eligibility to include victims of human trafficking.

Now, I've had quite a bit of experience with those who've been trafficked because of my relationship with Breaking The Chains. Being the former Mayor of Fresno and the stories, the realities are horrific. These trafficked girls are often beaten. They're often drugged, raped, and while the victims are hurt and scarred, many for life, the traffickers are cashing in. While the victims struggle to basically get through life, the traffickers have cash and jewels and cars.

And also I've seen and talked with Members who have been helped by Breaking The Chains, that when the victims are out, the pain doesn't stop. There has been harm, certainly to the victim's bodies, but there is harm to their soul, and it also harms their future. And I just think we need to, on the one hand, see the trafficker and using these trafficked victims to gain substantial amounts of money.

And it's pretty clear that these traffickers are enjoying the profits of something that is evil, hurtful, and possibly even for life. So AB 1803 will now make those profits available to the victims to help them repair their bodies, their minds, their soul, and their future. So, as we think about this, we have trafficked victims who are forced into unimaginable circumstances.

One of the things I love about Breaking The Chains here and what I really love about how the Fresno Police Department handles these kinds of things, when our police encounter the trafficked woman, they don't arrest them and they don't put them in the county jail. They separate them from the trafficker, and oftentimes they are then sent to a safe house in Fresno.

And so what we're basically trying to do here is to recognize the hurt, how long it lasts, and how restitution could really help heal and move these individuals out of that life for good and move them forward. On the one hand, we have the victim who oftentimes exits that life in poverty, scars, hurt, and the trafficker who just goes on and cashes the, puts the money in and has a great old time, just goes and tries to find another victim to take the place.

So I think we need to make sure that, as I said earlier, those profits ought to be used for this restitution, and that's what we're attempting to do here. Debra Rush here is the founder of Breaking The Chains. She will testify. And Dominique Brown, who was trafficked but graduated, got through the program at Breaking The Chains and will tell her story.

Thank you. You have five minutes to split amongst yourselves.

Thank you. So, I'm Dominique Brown, and I support AB 1803 Bill, because as a lived experience expert, a survivor, I know firsthand that human trafficking is a horrendous crime that often involves exploitation and very violent abuse, which leaves survivors with long lasting traumas to endure and profound consequences for their victimization.

Financial restitution can and will address some tangible issues and concerns that survivors of human traffickings, of human trafficking may have experienced, such as loss of income, medical expenses, documentations, housing, and other economic hardships resulting from victimization. It's important to know that restitution is just one component of a broader support system needed for survivors. Compensation assistance may also help survivors access, may also help survivors access medical and mental health services, legal support, housing, education, and job training.

Helping survivors help themselves gives the opportunity to rebuild our lives and move forward in recovery and independence.

Hello, I am Deborah Rush. I am one of the founders and the CEO at Breaking The Chains, and I also am a survivor. My teenage years were stolen from me by a violent trafficker who preyed upon my vulnerabilities, manipulating and forcing me into a life of sex trafficking. While my rescue by a Fresno police officer marked a turning point, it was far from the end of my ordeal. You see, this was 25 years ago.

With no support systems in place to shield me from the long term impacts of human trafficking, my life quickly spiraled out of control. My trafficker, he didn't just rob me of my dignity, had a year of my teenage life. He also exploited my information. You see, just like so many others, he used his control over me to commit further crimes. He purchased vehicles, opened bank accounts, and perpetuated fraud against my name.

My name and my credit was destroyed before I even had an opportunity to use it. The devastation of these co-occurring crimes left me unable to obtain a vehicle, a home, or even a bank account. Because of this; though I was rescued, I was homeless, jobless, re-exploited, and forced to live on public assistance and by any means that I could find. This is an experience that is happening to 87% of the survivors identified to date.

Over the last 10 years, my organization, Breaking The Chains, has established one of the largest and most comprehensive trauma treatment centers in the nation for individuals impacted by human trafficking. We have served just over 2,000 individuals in the Central San Joaquin Valley and are seen as a beacon and model for services throughout not only California, but this nation. Over the last 20 years, I have used my experience and platform and now expertise to help others.

To also seek a deeper understanding of the barriers that are present in the lives of victims across the country. Today, I sit before you not just a survivor, but a certified trauma professional that is nationally respected and recognized. I am a clinical social worker, a certified drug and alcohol counselor, and a published author. I can assure you, with no reservation, in full expertise, that the lasting effects of trafficking on victims, fueled by the actions of their traffickers, extend far beyond the moment of rescue or escape.

It shatters their ability to ever regain a sense of normalcy for years, if not decades, to come. This is why this is imperative, that victims of a crime who suffer economic losses as a result of criminal acts receive direct restitution from the perpetrators that perpetrated the act. It will help to remove critical barriers, restore dignity, and ensure that victims of human trafficking receive the justice and compensation that they deserve.

For those of us, and I'm assuming at this Committee today, who intimately understand now the motives of traffickers to exploit others for financial gain through force, fraud or coercion. We should ensure that direct restitution is given back to the victims. This Bill for victims of human trafficking should be a no brainer. And I want to thank, Senator, or, excuse me, assemblymen Patterson, for everything that you do, not only for the victims in our community, but throughout the state.

Dominique, for being such a powerful voice and for the countless survivors who I would be gathered here today. But they all assume that this is a no brainer for the Public Safety Committee, too.

Thank you. And the others in support, please line up and state your name and organization only.

Greg Burt, Vice President of the California Family Council, in support. Thank you.

Alchemy Graham on behalf of the Fresno County Board of Supervisors, in support. Thank you.

Erin Friday, Our Duty, author of Protect Kids California, mother of a daughter who used to believe that she was a boy.

Tiffany Apodaca co founder of Breaking The Chains, in support.

Judy K. Hill, registered Democrat. I'm in support.

Ed Little on behalf of Debt Free Justice California, in support, if amended, and happy to work with the author's office on amendments. Thank you.

Brock Campbell from Lighthouse Baptist Church in Santa Maria, in support.

Emily Campbell. I'm a mom from Lighthouse Baptist Church in Santa Maria and I'm in support.

Okay, thank you. Opposition. Do we have opposition? Please come forward.

Ryan Sherman with the Riverside Sheriff Association and all the other POA's and DSA's previously stated in support. Thank you.

Margo George, on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association, in opposition clearly, being trafficked for your labor or sex is abhorrent and traumatic, and we acknowledge that AB 183 is an unwarranted extension of restitution for non-economic losses from the limited of child molestation victims to all human trafficked victims, which is bad public policy for two reasons.

One, it undercuts the careful balancing and weighing of interest that the Legislature has historically used in determining restitution for some losses that would be available in criminal courts while others were better left to civil courts to determine. And two, it will cost the state and counties millions of dollars to hold restitution hearings that would be better spent in actually providing services for the victims.

Under existing law, restitution can be ordered for adults for economic losses, which explicitly includes mental health counseling expenses, as well as out of pocket losses and wages or profits lost due to the injury incurred by the victim, housing counseling and time assisting the police and prosecution. Victim restitution also includes interest at 10% per year. It is enforceable as a civil judgment by garnishing wages or liens once the individual no longer is on probation or parole out of prison.

The difference between restitution for economic losses and noneconomic losses will lead to more court hearings. Economic losses, housing, mental health counseling, they're fairly easy to ascertain, and defendants often stipulate to the amount without a hearing.

On the other hand, noneconomic losses and the amounts that have been awarded for noneconomic losses in the child molestation cases that have made it up to the appellate courts so far have been in the range of hundreds of thousands of dollars to millions of dollars for people who were facing 1015 to life, incredible lengths of time in prison or may never get out. And that amount is being compounded at 10% a year.

Defendants are going to litigate each and every one of those claims, costing the state and counties more money for courtrooms, for prosecutors, for defense lawyers. Finally, the majority of individuals convicted of human trafficking will never be able to pay. And so this promise of these large restitution awards for pain and suffering will be another false promise to the victims. We respectfully ask for your no vote on AB 183.

Thank you. Any others in opposition? Seeing no others questions or comments from Committee Members? Assemblymember Reyes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Everything you said at the beginning, assemblymember, I agree with this is horrific. And Dominique, thank you for sharing your story, your lived experiences, and thank you for being the author and being that expert that you've talked about in both of your testimonies, you talked about economic damages, economic losses, those are already covered in law.

Everything that you talked about, medical expenses, health counseling expenses, wages, lost profits, housing, the law already provides for that. So the big issue is the non-economic losses. As of now, under current law, there are only three circumstances in a criminal case where non-economic losses are allowed. Felony violations of lewd and lascivious acts against a child under 14 years of age, continuous sexual abuse of a child, and sexual acts of a child 10 years of age or younger.

To traumatize a child that young twice for a criminal case and then a civil case, was one of the understandings in providing that sort of an exception to the rule that economic losses are going to be granted. That's part of probation, part of parole, part of even a diversion program that was discussed earlier. But noneconomic damages were limited to just those three very serious crimes against very young children. I spoke with the author briefly before.

I think that if we were to have the non economic losses for the children, I don't think there is an issue about that. You talked about the human traffickers that have lots of money. If you have a judge making a decision on the non economic losses as a result of the criminal trial, you'll have no experts to introduce to talk about what this human trafficker, the money that they have or the deep pocket they may have.

It'll be based only on what has been provided during the criminal trial. And I'm not a criminal trial expert. I am a civil trial expert. But for criminal courts and Mr. Patterson can share it's whatever the testimony was during that criminal trial. So as an adult, if there is a judgment given by a criminal during a criminal trial, you're then going to be precluded from having a civil trial where you can actually seek those millions for pain and suffering caused by the human trafficking.

That testimony will not be given in the criminal trial. So I recognize the value of having something related to this, especially for the children. But to limit an adult from seeking economic, non economic damages in the civil trial, I would be concerned about that and the expansion of this type of a law. I would be concerned about, because I think we're tying the hands of our very victims to be able to seek those civil damages outside. I hope to be able to work with the author.

We spoke just briefly, and I hope that that is something that we can look at, because I think if economic damages is what we are talking about, the law already provides for that. It's the non economic damages that we are talking about.

In our conversation, you suggested amendment. I've talked with breaking the chains and all. We're willing to work. Wonderful. To fix that kind of concern. If there's this unintended circumstance, I'm glad to change the Bill.

Wonderful. Well, based on that and the fact that you'll continue to work with us on it, I will be voting for it.

I appreciate that. Debra wanted to make a comment.

I just want to thank you for your wisdom and for direction. I always think that it's important that we consider all facets that are involved as we do with our victims. And I also think that I would like the Committee to consider as an ongoing conversation that exactly what was stated in the beginning, adults or victims. We do know, again, from our expertise that the majority, the overwhelming majority will not seek civil.

If you have not been through a trial, especially one of this magnitude, it is completely devastating. So for us to kind of streamline, and maybe that's some places we can have that conversation, kind of like the young children. That's really our goal, because they deserve that restitution and compensation, and they should not have to go back through a grueling court process.

Few more Members, Assemblymember Wilson and Lackey, then Zbur.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you for bringing this forward. I think it's an important issue and an impactful issue. Thank you for your bravery, for not only moving beyond your own trauma, but taking time to ensure that others are not traumatized, as you were, and that those were traumatized have a potential for a better life. And that's extremely important. I like to align my comments with my colleague from the Inland Empire, very thoughtfully said. So I won't rehash it, but just echo one particular point.

My concern about the Bill centered around that the exceptions were just related to children and that this sought to expand it to more than children. And so for me, if the addition as one of the items was human trafficking, but keeping with the similar age requirements for children, it'd be clear, no brainer.

But the fact that it does expand to everyone, and then I find with that expansion, it would continue to expand because then forms of rape are very traumatic, that have nothing to do with human trafficking. Would that go in there? That are difficult to experience two trials? When it comes to murder, it's difficult to experience two trials. I mean, so it's this constant, whether something's criminal or civil. And so I think it should be narrowed.

The original intent of the exception was for children, and I think it should continue to be narrowed for children. And so for me, without that language in there, it is hard to support. And I would like to listen to my rest of my colleagues before I consider supporting the Bill. But that is the sticking point for me. And that would be the type of commitment I would need to be able to progress this Bill.

We will make a commitment to amend it. What we need to do is kind of scope where that childhood is it 18 and under 17 and under 17.

And you're looking at me. I would say that that's a conversation we should continue to have, I think your commitment to work with the Members.

Yes, Mr. Lackey, Members. I want to make sure we focus here on the lineup, but also commitment to work with these. I don't want to hash out the amendment right here, though. Thank you. Assemblymember Lackey.

Yeah. I have a little different perspective. I think that due to the uniquely, to use her term, abhorrent and tragic nature of this offense, I think that a significant amount of hurt never goes away to these people and to Dominique. My heart goes out to you. You're very brave to be here today. And what you've gone through, we can't even imagine. We can't imagine it. And this is such uniquely hurtful that I think for us to just expand this to non-economic loss.

I don't understand why there's hesitation. I do not. And I'm sorry that these offenses continued. I can't comprehend them. I can't. I think it's animalistic. It's not even human to be able to allow such behavior to take place for profit. And now we're just having wrestling with the fact of whether these victims are deserving of non economic loss. Wow. I don't understand it. I'm so sorry.

But I'm thankful that you've had the courage and willingness to come and kind of revisit some of those very hurtful experiences. So this is not hard for me to support, and I'm proud to support it. And I would like to be considered to be a co-author if this continues to move.

Thank you. Assemblymember Zbur?

Thank you. I mean, I think the issues with respect to human trafficking are among the most reprehensible. And so I do look at this in a way that's different than I do other kinds of abhorrent criminal behavior. With that said, I agree with the comments of my colleague from the Inland Empire. I think often in these cases, the devil is in the details of these laws. Obviously, the goal is one that's a good one.

But I agree with my colleagues both of my colleagues points which this needs to really be fine tuned. It needs to be narrowed. One of the things that I'm really concerned about, in addition to the other issues that have been expressed, is really the ability of this to get to actually people that are victims of human trafficking, but at the same time got caught up in the activities, so they become accomplices.

And so I really do think that you need to focus on the victims of human trafficking and really start looking at some of the exceptions there so that folks like those of you who are sitting in the room now are not subject to having long drawn out processes related to restitution. I also think, just in terms of preserving the efficiency of our courts, that I would bound this sum. This could be really anything and while victims of.

While human trafficking is something that I do think we need to do much more to sort of help victims of that. And I think that's a good goal of the Bill, and I will support it today. But I'm hoping that you'll continue working with folks around the table and with the chair and with the Committee and really tighten this up pretty significantly.

Okay, thank you. Assemblymember Nguyen.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you to the author for bringing this forward. I grew up in a neighborhood where sex trafficking, human trafficking was a thing. It was an everyday thing. And I would see it. I came across a young lady, several, actually, where I tried to help them escape, but they couldn't because of so many different reasons. Thank you so much for coming out and speaking for sharing your story.

It is very honorable for you to do this because there are many, many young girls who are trying to escape and just can't. And what you're doing is giving them the opportunity to say that we can't take care of you. I also know that you are going to live with this for the rest of your life. There are trigger moments. Colors, rooms, individuals, cars, homes. All of those cause trigger moments.

And I agree with my colleague over here that this shouldn't be something that we have to sit down and figure out what the entire details is. The non economic losses are something that, yes, you get a home. Yes, there are support services that are in place, but you also need money to be able to survive. And sometimes these support services that are in place aren't enough, as you have mentioned earlier. And so I will absolutely support this Bill. I think that this is absolutely needed.

This is something that we need to be able to show. You said 80% are still out there right now and are in need of services. Well, you know what? This is a great step to let them know that help is there, help is on the way, and that we are there for them. I'm a mother of two young girls, and I think several of us here, as well, are parents. I would not be able to live with myself if my daughter was picked up.

And I understand that sometimes you get caught up in it, but you get caught up in it because mentally, you have nowhere else to go. No support system, no help, nowhere else to run to. Not because you want to do this, not because this is something you enjoy doing, but because you get caught up into it mentally. And we have to do everything we can to save these girls. So I absolutely support this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Further questions. Yes, we don't have any proposed changes today, but I take your words earlier. You can close in a second. But I just want to say I support this measure, and I respect your conversation with Assemblymember Reyes and looking to address.

I'm glad to do that. The one concern I have, if we are narrowing it to young people.

Mr. Patterson, we're not doing that right now. I just want to ask that you commit to converse with Assemblymember Reyes after this. I support this measure. You can make your close.

Well, I appreciate the conversation. I'm willing to work with the Assemblywoman, and we need to maybe talk about those details and how I just would hate to lose traffic. Young women at 18, 19, 21. Right. If we have this arbitrary cut-off, we're denying a whole raft of victims access. So I'm willing to talk about that. We can narrow it, but we do need to capture those, I think, some of those 18, 20, 21, 22 year olds.

And we'll also have conversations with Breaking the Chains about their experience, with. How young does this go? So we'll have those discussions, and I'll commit to that.

Okay. Thank you. I think we had a motion for Mr. Lackey and a second for Ms. Wynn. Please call the roll.

On AB 183 by Assemblymember Jim Patterson. The motion is do pass. [Roll Call]

That measure passes. Thank you, Mr. Patterson. Next, measure 184.

Thank you. Assemblymember Wilson, would you like to join with Member Reyes as we talk about where that goes? And again, the concern.

Mr. Patterson, let's focus on your Bill right now.

Yeah. Thank you. Okay. Please proceed.

I understand that.

Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chair Members, we all know this, that thousands of Californians are being poisoned as a result of fentanyl. We hear the cry of moms and dads whose teenagers die. We're in the midst of a crisis, and we need to give law enforcement some tools that they need to target the suppliers. Current law permits an interception of wire or electronic communications when the case involves 10 gallons or three pounds of fentanyl, consider that's enough fentanyl to kill over 680,000 AB 1804.

We're really trying to balance the approach because of the drug's legal potency. And what we're proposing in the Bill is to lower the threshold of that intercept. Let's just call it what it is. It's wiretapping to 1.6 gallons or 8oz, which would give law enforcement the necessary intel to discover and prosecute large scale distributors. And so here to testify about how this Bill will work and how we think it will help save lives is Fresno Police Detective Dean Cardinale

Thank you. You have five minutes amongst each other.

Yes, sir. My name is Dean Cardinale. I'm a detective with the Fresno Police Department and have been in law enforcement for over 27 years. I worked in the field of narcotics for over 20 years. In 2020, I started a team in Fresno called The Fentanyl Overdose Resolution Team, better known as The FORT, which would be what should become the second overdose response team in the State of California.

One of the responsibilities of The FORT team is to identify the distributors who sell this poison to our victims and to give the victim's family some sort of closure. One of the ways to accomplish this is by applying for a state-wire electronic interception. By reducing the interception threshold for wire electronic communications, the AB 1804 bill strategically focuses on providing valuable intelligence to catch major drug dealers rather than the individual users.

By adjusting the interception authorization amount by 1.67 gallons by liquid volume and 8oz by weight for solid substance containing fentanyl or its precursors. It will assist us in law enforcement in investigating major fentanyl suppliers. To kind of give you an example of the lethal dose of fentanyl for non-opioid dependent subject, which is approximately two to three milligrams, is a lethal dose for fentanyl. 1oz of fentanyl is approximately 28.5 grams.

28.5 grams, converted to milligrams is approximately 28500 milligrams, or two milligrams is approximately 14,250 lethal doses. This Bill will not focus on the users who will sell fentanyl to support their habit. Rather, it will focus on the major fentanyl distributors. A couple of days ago, I got a message, a text message from a 17 year old that I arrested. I chose not to arrest, who was a full blown fentanyl addict, supporting his habit.

And I would like to share that message with you to kind of show you, in law enforcement, we do have compassion for the users, the users that are actually selling fentanyl to support their habit. I understand this addiction and I'd like to share this message they sent to me on my phone. Hey, Dino. I go by the nickname of Dino. Just want to let you know again how grateful I am for what you have done for me.

I will never forget the grace you showed me and the second chance you gave me. It was the three year anniversary of when we met a week ago today. I'll be 21 years old on the 25th. And I just wanted to tell you again how grateful I am. Absolutely everything I have today is because of what you did for me. If you haven't intervened, I'd be dead. And if you weren't so gracious, I'd be in prison. Don't ever forget how important the work you do is.

You have saved countless lives, including mine. I can't tell you how many people that I've come in contact with victims, and I call them victims, that are selling fentanyl to supply their fentanyl habit, because I understand how this addiction of fentanyl is taking over our kids. This Bill would assist us in law enforcement to go after the major suppliers of fentanyl. And when I say major suppliers, as you could see, just an ounce of fentanyl, how much fentanyl that can kill in your communities.

So this Bill would assist us in law enforcement and I'm asking you, please, to help us in law enforcement on this 1804 Bill.

Thank you. Next witness. Are you here to speak, sir?

Brian Escamillo here is a forensic chemist. He's available to answer technical questions about the substance.

Thank you. Any others in support, please line up. And your name, organization and position only.

Ryan Sherman with the Riverside Sheriff Association. California Narcotic Officers Association, and the other POAs and DSA as previously stated. Thanks.

Greg Burt, California Family Council in support.

Erin Friday, our duty author of Protect Kids California in support.

Good morning. Kim Stone. Stone advocacy on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association in support.

Brock Campbell from Lighthouse Baptist Church in Santa Maria in support.

I'm Emily Campbell. I'm a mom from Lighthouse Baptist Church, and in support.

Jerry Scheidbach, pastor at Lighthouse Baptist Church in support.

Christine Campbell from Wheatland, California, a mom in support,

Grace Gregory from Yuba county. And I'm in support.

Pastor Brandon Campbell with California Baptist for biblical values in support.

Pastor Isaac Davis at Harvest Baptist Church. In Orland, California, in support.

Thank you. Opposition? Do we have opposition? Please come forward.

All right. Good morning, Chair, Members apologize for my voice. Sacramento, allergy season. Alicia Benavides here representing Drug Policy Alliance here in opposition. Drug Policy Alliance is a national organization dedicated to advancing drug policies that are grounded in science, compassion, health, and human rights.

And while we understand the pressing desire to run legislation to address the overdose crisis, we implore this Committee to recognize this as a health crisis and reject old drug war tactics that have not curbed the drug trade or infiltration of contaminants like fentanyl in the drug supply. AB 184 represents a significant reduction in weight amounts that will provide the basis for surveillance practices that will not curb the overdose rates in California nor guarantee the targeting of only high level traffickers.

Instead, by lowering the minimum quantity required for judicially authorized communication surveillance, we risk prosecuting low-level users and individuals who sell fentanyl due to their struggles with substance abuse and mental health, which the history of drug war policies has taught us largely results in an increase in repeated incarceration of indigent people, which is likely disproportionate impact on people of color. Policies such as this divert resources away from proven strategies that are effective in connecting people to care and services.

As of 2022, the total cost of conducting authorized interception operations in California was at over 17 million, an approximate 15% increase from what was reported in 2021. Reducing the weight requirements for electronic surveillance will increase the costs associated with this practice.

In order to address the tragic increase in drug overdose deaths, California should instead be investing in evidencebased solutions such as the expansion of robust voluntary substance use treatment systems and harm reduction services such as drug checking, testing, tailored public health interventions, and increased investments that address the root causes. Rather than pursuing expensive drug enforcement policies, this Committee has made incredible strides in addressing the devastating impact the carceral based policies have had on our communities and instead have opted for programs that focus on prevention and rehabilitation.

I respectfully ask this body to continue on that path for California. For these reasons, and those have been shared by my colleagues in meetings with you, we urge her no vote.

Okay, thank you. Now opposition can line up and state your organization and position. Thank you.

My name is Gilbert Anthony Murillo. I'm with LSPC and all us to none, we oppose this.

My name is Robert Bouton, Legal Services with Prisons with Children, and respect for opposition.

My name is Lena Din, LSPC, all of us are none and I oppose this Bill.

My name is Annalisa Zamora with Young Women's Freedom Center and Sister Warriors Freedom Coalition in opposition.

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

Dana Gorman Darnell, on behalf of Initiate Justice, in opposition.

Jim Lindbergh, on behalf of the Friends Committee on Legislation of California, opposed.

Good morning. Eric Henderson, legislative advocate with ACLU, California Action in opposition.

Morning. Henry Ortiz with Legal Services for Prisoners for Children and the all of us in Sacramento Chapter and respectfully opposed. Thank you.

Ignacio Hernandez, on behalf of the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice and opposition.

Thank you. Questions or comments from Committee Members? Mr. Lackey?

Okay. Well, first of all, I'd like to thank you for trying to address this very big threat to our society right now. This fentanyl is a very tragic poison that's being distributed, and I'd like to, if this thing survives, be considered a co author. There's just a real important distinction that I think is deserved here. Distributors are much different than users, and that is the focus of this Bill. Even though there's a reduction, there's a sense and there's an allegation that it's focused on users.

And I think it's an unfair allegation because this is still an enormous amount of fentanyl that you're focusing on. And what this Bill does is just give our judicial system an opportunity to gather evidence. That's really all we're trying to do is make sure that we're focused on the distributors and not on the users. And so I think it's a very fair approach, and I think it's as balanced as you can be when you're addressing this very nasty, tragic toxin.

There are some who actually, as you mentioned, the example, there are some people that have unfortunate addictions, and that's a whole different path. And I think we all agree on that. But this is focused on the distributors. Shame on people who value money over lives. It's a real problem that I think our society deserves our attention on. And this is a tool to help that happen. And so I'm glad to support it, and I will be supporting it today.

Thank you. Assemblymember Wilson.

Thank you. I appreciate the sentiment related to this Bill. In terms, know, going after the distributors versus the users, that is a really good thing. We have a lot of laws that are inconsistent, that we have a lot of cleaning up to do in the Legislature. And so overall with this Bill, my concern is we're being inconsistent.

So I have a question, and it might be for you or for the expert witness, or it could even be for our Committee staff is that, as I recognize the language, it says you're reducing it, because the amount that you're reducing it to is still an exorbitant amount of fentanyl, and that the only person who would possess that would be someone who is a distributor. But fentanyl is the drug of today. That's causing us quite a bit of headache.

But there'll be a new drug tomorrow, and we've had drugs in the past, cocaine, crack, heroin, all of those things. And so I'd wondered what the standard was in terms of the number of units that a typical person would use or hold if they were a user, in comparison to the number of units that someone hold if they were distributing. Are we being consistent in law with comparison to previous drugs that have plagued our communities? Do you understand the question? It's a ratio question.

I kind of understand it, but I can tell you, based on the example I gave here of Julian Carvajal, who was a 17 year old full blown fentanyl addict, a lot of my expertise came from him. And to kind of give you an example, he was using about a gram a day to maintain from not getting drug sick. And before he changed to powdered fentanyl, he was taking one of those M30 pills, those fentanyl lace pills, every 3 hours.

So about seven or eight pills a day, so he would not get drug sick. When we talk about ounces, these are folks that are selling ounces for profit. And not only that, but now we're transitioning to these.

And actually, I'll interrupt you for a second, because I understand that. And I think that in terms of our laws, we definitely need to target the distributor. And this is just saying that, hey, they could do a wiretap on to find out the network and all that. And I get that, but I guess mine is consistency in a sense that, let's say, for instance, I'll just use this as an example because it's easy numbers.

One unit is a person who's using, and 10 units is a person who's distributing no matter the drug. Right. And so that's the threshold for wiretapping.

Correct.

So I'm wondering, what is wiretapping for someone who's distributing cocaine or someone who's distributing heroin or other illicit drugs that are illegal according to our laws? Are we changing the threshold for fentanyl different than a threshold for another drug?

Yeah, we don't have the answer for you right there on that question. And it was a different issue that he was addressing.

Right. And that was different, and that's why I wanted to stop.

I could tell you that obviously fentanyl is a lot different than cocaine and heroin and methamphetamine, because obviously the only end results with fentanyl is death if you do not do something about it, unlike cocaine and crack and other things like that, the only end result usually is death from fentanyl.

And just a little comment on you could come back. I'm not sure if she had a question for you, Mr. Patterson. Mr. Zbur.

What are the precursors of fentanyl? So the one thing that's different about this amendment that's different from the higher amounts for the other substances, heroin, cocaine, PCP, is. It includes the precursors. So what is a precursor of fentanyl, and are there precursors that could be used for benign activities?

The precursor for fentanyl is typically NPP, and we've got that as a regulated chemical. Now, like pseudoephedrine, it's a list. One chemical the cooks have all went to, a chemical called for pyridone, and that's the new precursor. The Chinese have been masking it and doing things to disguise it coming in. But those are the different precursors. They're different than methamphetamine, which is typically pseudoephedrine or P2P. This has a different set of precursors that are associated with the manufacturing of this drug.

Why do the precursors need to be included in this, Bill, when you don't have precursors for heroin, cocaine, the other classes of drugs that are in the other section.

Fentanyl is a synthetic drug. When you look at things like cocaine and heroin, those are derived from natural products and there's an extraction process. Those compounds already exist where fentanyl is a purely synthetic compound that is synthesized in a clandestine laboratory.

Are there uses for the precursors that are benign?

Yes, there's other uses. It depends on the reagents that you attach to those precursors. We can make a variety of different compounds that can be used in commercial use. In this case, though, the clandestine laboratory's sole purpose is to manufacture fentanyl.

Okay. Other question is, how many lethal doses, if this was in pills, would you have included in the eight ounce threshold? If you took the lethal dose, how many pills would be, or I assume it's pills would be, I mean, what are we talking about?

We're going to calculate it. But again, we don't know the amount of lethal dose in each pill because these are made in clandestine labs. So we did a test on two M30 pills, the fentanyl pills themselves. And each pill was different as far as how much fentanyl was contained in each pill. So it's almost playing like Russian roulette with these pills. We don't know how much fentanyl in each one of these M30 pills. These are not pills you get at CVS.

These are actually made in clandestine labs in Mexico. They throw fentanyl and other precursors and they mix it up and they make these pills. So we don't know how much fentanyl is in each pill.

But you know what a lethal dose is. And if you had a lethal dose, and you got to the lethal dose in every pill. I'm just trying to understand, is this 100,000 doses? Is it a million doses and 8oz? I mean, I'm trying to get to this whole issue of distributors versus street use.

It looks like he has the calculation right here.

And then I guess the last thing I'll say while he's doing that, because I know otherwise have time, is I'm sympathetic to the issue of preventing these massive amounts of fentanyl from getting out into the communities, on the streets. And I do look at this a little bit differently than I would something which is a penalty enhancement related to fentanyl. A lot of the bills that I didn't support last year were ones where we had small amounts and we had large penalty enhancements.

This is something that I think I do look differently at, because it's about giving law enforcement the tools to actually detect these things in the communities as they're getting out there. And so I do look at it in a different way. But I am very, very nervous about the fact that, about this issue with respect to the precursors.

I mean, if we've got precursors out there and we're giving law enforcement an ability to go out and wiretap anyone because they may have a compound that is benign use, that's a huge expansion of wiretapping authority, from my perspective. So I don't know if you have a response to that.

The whole point is identifying the fentanyl. The whole point, the notion that there's a precursor in it. So what we're suggesting that people are out there selling what is supposed to be fentanyl, but it's a mixed down something.

Well, isn't water a precursor to fentanyl? Don't you need water when you're producing?

That's a silly question.

No, it's not a silly question. I think it's an issue of whether or not there are benign uses of compounds that we're actually expanding wiretap authority for when it doesn't have to do with fentanyl.

No.

Water is not a precursor.

So do you have the answer to the question for how many pills you can get with 8oz of the lethal doses?

For the eight ounce weight would be roughly a little over 113,000 lethal doses. 113,396 if we're using two milligrams, which would be lethal to the average person.

Okay.

Over 100,000, fair to say.

Okay. I will be supporting the Bill today, but very nervous about the precursor issue and hoping that you'll work on that, because it is different than what you have for the other statute. It's different than what you have for cocaine, heroin. And I'm wondering why that needs to be in there. So I'll be looking at it again. When it comes back to.

Thank you.

We'll save this for your close Mr. Patterson. Mr. Alanis.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I do have numbers to break down here. If you want, I'll give you the copy here. 8oz equates to 226,796 milligrams. With a lethal dosage of two milligrams, this represents 113,398 lethal doses. If 1oz of fentanyl represents approximately 400 fentanyl-laced pills, 8oz represents approximately 3200 fentanyl-laced pills. And I have that here for you guys also.

And to my colleague over there, I think, to help with the question you're having about there written in here, it's about 10 gallons, or if it equates to about three pounds of the drug that we may be talking about. I know we're taking it down to the 8oz. I think the biggest problem here, and this is something that we had on another Committee that I was on explaining it to an elected DA, is that we need to stop looking at fentanyl as the normal drug.

We're taking this to a different level now, is what this is. We got to look at the lethal dosages that it's doing. We can't no longer compare it. This is apples and oranges kind of thing. Cocaine, heroin, meth, all those things. As a supervisor with my deputies would arrive to a scene of an overdose with any of those drugs, I didn't have to worry about my deputy falling over and getting killed by coming into contact, breathing it, touching it. That's how it happens with fentanyl.

That's what we have to worry about now. And I think just by dropping it down to 8oz, I know, you guys are talking all about 1oz is what we're talking about with this. Takes it up to 8oz. Right. That's a huge number in the fentanyl world if we want to look at that way. And I think that's the biggest hurdle that us as legislators need to maybe get a little more educated on as well, is stop looking at it as the drugs of the past.

I know Mr. Lackey and I had a gentleman here testifying about fentanyl, who was a prior law enforcement officer, and we kind of had to educate him on what that did as well. Something that I wanted to ask the opposition. You were talking about increasing the costs. I didn't quite understand why you meant that. As far as increasing costs, if we went to the 8oz, I'd have that.

Full breakdown for you, but I'd have to get you the cost notes after.

So are we talking cost of law enforcement for surveillance?

Are we talking about cost over the surveillance? Correct. But for me to give you further cost breakdowns, I'd have to speak with your office after this.

Okay, got you. And, sir, did you have anything else to add on that?

No, sir.

Okay. Thank you, guys.

Okay. Thank you, Senator Reyes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have the disadvantage that I was not on this Committee. This is my first time on the Committee. I'm an attorney by trade, but not a criminal attorney. I appreciate the Committee's analysis and wanted to share some of what I'm looking at as I'm trying to decide. We look at the statistics about deaths in 2022 21,000 emergency room visits from opioid overdose, 7300 opioid-related overdose deaths, and of those, 6400 were of the deaths related to fentanyl interceptions.

The statistics from the California Department of Justice in 2022 interceptions, 89 drug related arrests and two convictions. Interceptions related to drugs that have already been authorized. In 2018, our colleague, Assemblymember Jones-Sawyer, added fentanyl to the list of controlled substances for which interception of wire or electronic communications could be ordered. And then last year, Assemblymember Baines introduced legislation to establish the Fentanyl Addiction and Overdose Prevention Task Force.

And I understand from the Committee's analysis, $6.7 million is provided ongoing in the budget specifically for that, and that's to collect and organize data specifically related to fentanyl. Fentanyl abuse in California, assess the resources, the drivers of legal and illicit fentanyl activity in California, analyze existing statutes for the adequacy. In addressing this issue, it's clear that this is something, as my colleagues with colleagues who have law enforcement background, and I appreciate their experience. This is a drug unlike others.

I absolutely understand that in the analysis and the comments from the author about the reason for it, he talks about it's to catch major drug dealers rather than individual users. And I appreciate your comment and your sharing that the one person who you knew was a user as opposed to a dealer, and the way you dealt with that particular person.

I can say that over the years, when we talk about the war on drugs, as a Latina, I know that African American men, Latino men, are the ones who are most targeted over the years. That concerns me. I don't want to go back to the period of mass incarceration, especially when we find that our prisons are going to be filled with our African American and Latino men more than any other.

So trying to find the balance, I then go to the question, and then when the most important thing is, we talk about our constitution, Fourth Amendment. The US constitution protects against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. But we also, because of it, we have this expectation of privacy.

So trying to balance that, but to also deal with something that is so when we're talking about fentanyl, it's something more than what we've talked about in the past, but reducing it from 10 gallons to 1.67 gallons, to reduce it from three pounds down to 8oz, I am trying to understand, and I think I go to what my colleague was talking about. What was it that was considered in using the 10 gallons when this was first written?

What is it that is causing us to reduce it to 1.67 gallons? And what is it that was considered to make it three pounds? And what is it that now tells us that 8oz is what we should be looking at? So those are my questions.

You want to respond to that.

This is a different drug than the drugs we've been dealing with in the past. If you look at methamphetamine and cocaine, your average doses were about 10 milligrams. This is 125 micrograms, which would be the average dose. So because of that, we've been treating this as a more dangerous drug. And if you are trying to figure out what's 125 micrograms, it's roughly equivalent to two grains of salt. And that's why we have so many deaths.

Because trying to cut the drug up to a tablet or a capsule that has just two grains of salt worth of drug in there is very difficult to do for a street level chemist. And more than likely you're going to have hot batches go out and that's where we see the deaths come in. We didn't have that same small gray area with the other drugs we've had in the past.

And so because of that, we've had to address this as a more dangerous threat to the public. And one of the more reasons we had to go after the investigations in this case a little more seriously in dropping these special levels is the information.

That you just shared. Is that something that is being provided guided to the fentanyl addiction and overdose Prevention task force?

This is important information because if the State of California is using taxpayers money to the tune of $6.7 million to try to address such a serious issue, I am hoping that this is the information that is being provided so that they can then make an informed recommendation to the Legislature on what we need to do, what next steps we need to take to address such a serious issue. Is this the information that is being provided to the task force?

Ms. Reyes? I'm not aware of that. I believe I'm a member of that task force.

Okay. Have you received the information as a member of the task force? This information as a member, not as an individual, but as a Member of the task force, is a task force meeting and receiving this information so that they can provide the data that would be needed and studied so that we can make informed decisions on something?

I hope so, but it's been fairly silent. I don't know who runs the task force, but maybe we need to get it more active, I suppose.

All right, thank you. We're going to go to Senator Ting.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. My questioning was sort of in similar lines to my colleague from the Inland Empire. So you explained the main reason to lower the dosage is just because the lethal dosages between fentanyl and some of the other drugs is different.

Right. And so that's the reasoning for lowering the dosage. Can you help us understand the dosage amount you chose? Is this something in your experience that you find folks carrying? Where did you come up with the line? Because just based on. I couldn't determine, based on the Bill analysis or anything, what kind of data was used to determine lowering that particular threshold to that particular amount?

Well, we worked with the professionals, we worked with the law enforcement. We dug down into what is the impediment to going to court and getting. And the constitutional questions are dealt with with respect to a wiretap. And again, I think the simplest way to understand it is the kill capacity of fentanyl is so small. I mean, so large. But as has been pointed out here.

But I also, with respect to some of the other concerns raised, the constitutionality of that is tested in the court when they go and ask. We have so much of this and we believe there is a network here. The judge is going to make those kinds of determinations. But I also want to suggest that this is a tool. And then the question becomes, how does law enforcement use the tool? And I keep coming back to the Fresno Police Department.

You saw how the Fresno Police Department worked with a user. This was not about going and fighting that person and throwing them in jail. It was about helping them and using the fentanyl overdose rescue team. That's the fort team. And by the way, last year or year before, I passed a Bill that replicates that fort in six other areas in the State of California, we asked for $3 million for that, for six of these pilot projects, and we got $7 million.

So Northern California, Central California, and then down in Southern California and in Central California. So when you have this interagency working together, that's what the fort teams do. They have health providers who show up at the hospital when there's this overdose and when there's a death to kind of talk and track back to the user.

Mr. Patterson, I think we're going to go back to Mr. Ting's question.

If I could ask your law enforcement, the officer, if that's okay. Mr. Patterson, in your experience, can you help us understand what you've experienced in terms of what people carry, what you found, why I understand the lowering of the threshold. Unfortunately, fentanyl is a huge issue in my city and so I'm aware of the differences in the legal dosage. So I really appreciate having the chemist kind of talk through that and sort of helping us guide through that.

I don't take this lightly in terms of during the search and seizure, but I just want to understand, so that we're not coming up with just some sort of arbitrary number, but that this is based on people's officers experience, what they're seeing in the field, based on some data, not just based on one situation or not.

Sir. Mr. Ting, if you're selling ounce quantities of fentanyl, in my eyes and in my experience over 27 years, you are a major drug dealer. And especially if you're in possession of 8oz or more of fentanyl, this is not the normal user dose I was mentioning earlier grams. These are ounces and these are major drug distributors. And a lot of times they break it down into ounces because they make more money off of fentanyl. If you sell it by ounces, and then you include these ounces being put into other narcotics, like cocaine, methamphetamine, heroin. That's what we're starting to see.

Now. You're talking that, let's say the common street salesperson. Right. Selling what amount are they normally carrying if they're just the person on the street selling it, approximately.

Well, unfortunately, it's not just fentanyl by itself. So they're mixing it with other compounds that give the fentanyl what we call a synergistic a boost, xylacine, ketamine. And so what you might see is maybe 1 mg in a tablet. But when it's mixed with the xylacine, it becomes deadly.

Right. You're talking milligrams, right.

Right. And how many milligrams would make up even 1oz? I'm looking at my. I don't have my calculator roughly. I'm not asking.

Two milligrams is approximately 14,250 lethal doses.

Right. But I'm saying a few milligrams, it would take a lot of milligrams to make up even 1oz. And you're talking 8oz, correct? That's right. So in your experience, what you are saying is that someone with 8oz is not someone, no one on the street is carrying 8oz. This is someone who's wherever their office, their house, they are using that 8oz, and they're going to give it to a whole bunch of other people to sell. Absolutely. You're not going to pull someone over on the street and say, hey, they're going to be in possession of 8oz.

Correct.

So for me, I think that this is. I share my colleague from Sassoon's concerns as well in terms of legislating the drug of the day. However, having seen what this is doing in San Francisco, I do feel like we have to do everything possible to give law enforcement the tools to go after this. And I also agree with the opposition, and this is what we do in our city, too. It's not either or. It's both.

You have to do the law enforcement part and you have to do the public health part, and it doesn't work unless you do both. So, again, I'm willing to support the Bill today. I would really encourage you to make sure as you move forward with that particular amount, that you have some data to kind of back up why that particular line. Because just on first reading, it looked a little bit arbitrary. So I think that would be helpful for the future committees.

Okay. Again, I don't have that detail in front of me right now, but.

Mr. Patterson, we'll get those details later. I'm going to move to Ms. Wilson right now.

Thank you for allowing me for a follow up. I appreciate the dialogue that was happening from my colleague from San Francisco. That helped flesh it out a little bit for me, because that's what I was concerned about, the arbitrary amount. And you said something, I think, in particular, that I wanted to just make sure I heard it correctly and then find out the implications of that. Did you say that for cocaine it was 10 milligrams is a typical dose?

It depends on the user and their tolerance. But if you look on the average and depends on how much purity is in the drug. But 10 milligrams for methamphetamine, for cocaine, for the typical stimulants, is that what's.

Typically what we see would be the equivalent to. What was it?

10 milligrams is the average.

10 for that. But what was it for fentanyl, what was the equivalent?

125 micrograms.

Micrograms?

Yeah.

Okay. Is a dose that's equivalent to 2 grams of salt. Yeah, 2 grams of salt, but equivalent to a 10 milligram dose for a different type of drug for another user, that's the difference in.

Correct. And that's an average. So as you build up tolerance, you could have, obviously, of course, more.

I'm just trying to get the relative of why it wouldn't all be 10 gallons. That was what I was trying to understand, is how do we be consistent in the law? And it sounds like it's more about consistency of impact or consistency of the size is what we're looking for, not the size of it. It's smaller. But the amount that someone would use in a dose and making sure the threshold matches that. Is that the intent? I look to the author for that one.

The question is, your intent is to match similar thresholds because it's such a small amount that's used in comparison to the other drugs, where it was 10 milligrams is equivalent dose.

I think the equation here that we're trying to get to is to recognize the small amount that is as deadly as the large amount of other drugs.

Of other drugs.

So we are trying to equalize. So that.

Mr. Patterson, if question didn't get answered, you want to go and just do your close?

Yeah, sure. As I was saying earlier about the fort team, I think the presumption that law enforcement is going to recklessly use this or in some way, I can only tell you about Fresno, California. Our police want to intervene and get people help. And that's the practice that you heard here. And I really do believe that police practices are evolving and improving over time.

I really do believe that, that they understand that they have the opportunity because they have the force of law, to intervene and to get people help. And we're hoping that this tool will allow jurisdictions to sort of break apart this invisible network that is out there. And that, I think, can be very helpful in identifying, waking up and going after those that are behind the 8oz. Like our expert said, they're smart in packaging. They have a distribution system.

And it has been helpful for law enforcement to be able to get those wiretaps for these other kinds of drugs. And I think that fentanyl has to be fit into that in a way that you're understanding how serious fentanyl is and how it kills in size. I mean, consider the alternative, if you can only. What is it? How many pounds and gallons and all of that? That's not comparable.

And there has been, I think, some difficulty getting quartz to wiretap because it's unusual to find that large amount. But the large amount is real. It's in our communities. They just got it sliced up into these 8oz in a distribution system that's under the radar. With that, I ask for your support. I think this is a balanced approach to it, and I think that this is a tool that I think will be used judiciously.

It will have to test in the courts with respect to a judge's approval. And I think that most law enforcement is interested in stopping the trade, but also helping the addicts. I really believe that. And I think Mr. Lackey and Mr. Alanis, you're examples of that.

Well, thank you.

And with that, I'm asking for your support. I appreciate the discussion. It's been very helpful.

Thank you. And thank you for the dialogue that we had here on the Committee today. Obviously, we definitely make sure that education is something also, that legislation also receives as much as everyone else. I still need a formal motion on this Bill. Second, Mr. Lackey, Mr. Ting and the Chair's recommendation. Chair McCarty's recommendation is an aye on this one.

On AB 184 by Assemblymember Jim Patterson. The motion is do passed to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

That motion passes. Thank you. Thank you, Members.

Appreciate the discussion. You do have my commitment to get the detail behind the choice making of the numbers you have in front, there will be justification and rationale for that. I just don't have it right here.

But thank you, Mr. Patterson. I'm going to have you talk to them later. I'm going to move forward with this. Mr. Briyn. Assemblymember Bryan, are you ready to present?

Yes, sir, Mr. Vice Chair. Chair.

And we have Assembly Member Bryan here on AB 1810. Floor is yours. Wow.

Thank you, chair Alanis. It's good to be back with you all. Good morning, Mr. Chair and colleagues. Today I rise to present AB 1810, a Bill that will bring menstrual equity to California State prisons, local jails, and juvenile facilities. Period products such as menstrual pads and tampons are basic necessities. State law requires correctional facilities to supply these products to incarcerates and women at no cost upon request.

However, a 2023 report from the California Attorney General revealed that nearly half of our state's CDCR facilities are non-compliant with state mandates regarding menstrual product distribution. Even worse are the documented cases of CDCR officers withholding period products as a form of retaliation against incarcerated women who have filed formal complaints against them. Nationwide, there have been numerous reports of correctional officers using access to menstrual products to coerce incarcerated women into sexual favors.

Those gross abuses of power have created conditions where incarcerated people do not feel comfortable asking for the menstrual products they need and deserve, even when they are free of cost, due to the fear that it will lead to that kind of coercion, humiliation, or harassment. These women would rather makeshift pads and tampons out of toilet paper and bedsheets rather than put themselves in an unsafe and undignified position of asking their correctional officers, often men, for a menstrual product.

In some cases, they're walking around in bloodstained clothes because they have run out of their supply of menstrual products and are only allowed to do laundry on certain days. This lack of timely and adequate access to pads and tampons has led to severe health complications such as urinary tract infections, toxic shock syndrome, and, in some cases, hysterectomies for incarcerated people. So while our state currently guarantees free menstrual products, they often come at a price of humiliation and abuse for incarcerated women.

AB 1810 will bring our state closer to the menstrual health equity needed by requiring that menstrual products are free and readily available for all incarcerated women. It will also bring our state closer to parity with several other states that have been leading in this category, such as Louisiana, Tennessee, and Florida, all of which do not require their incarcerated women to request these basic necessities from their correctional officers. Today I have with me Alyssa Moore from legal services, from prisoners and children to provide testimony.

Thank you. You have 5 minutes.

Hi, my name is Alyssa Moore. Today I'm the Re-entry Coordinator for All of Us or None. That said, I served a total of 25 years in both local and state facilities, both as a juvenile and adult. I entered this California State prison system at 17 years old, still very much a child. I will start by explaining the dynamic between staff and incarcerated peoples.

As you are fully aware of the rampant sexual assaults and harassments in California women's facilities at present, it won't be too much of a stretch to envision, if you will, what I'm about to share imagine being sexualized by the majority of staff you come in contact with. Imagine daily unwarranted cat calls, comments on your body, your looks, et cetera, and let that be the least of the worst that you imagine. With that being said, I'm already fearful of most staff, the majority of which are male.

I personally not only witnessed the harassment, assault, and rapes of my peers, but also was subject to several assaults during my incarceration, most of which were reported by other incarcerated individuals to staff. These matters were investigated and never was anyone fired for it, in my case. I was never protected. I often felt humiliated and ashamed and embarrassed when I would have to on occasion ask the same staff that had victimized me for sanitary supplies.

I'd like it to be known that if you have a heavy flow or a medical condition, the amount that is issued to each individual does not suffice. And it should be noted if my reason for needing more supplies is a medical condition, it's also a HIPAA violation for me to have to disclose this to a CO to receive supplies, but it's still an active practice in the State of California today.

When I was in the General population, I would trade and barter for my peers for extra pads and tampons. So more often than not, I would use this method to acquire what I need rather than deal with the humiliation of asking an officer that had previously assaulted me, because I never knew when they would use that opportunity to deny me or humiliate me for what I needed.

Also, this became a much larger issue when I was in solitary confinement in what is known as the shoe or adseg, due to the fact I was totally at the mercy of correctional officers and it is totally acceptable and there are no forms of protections for any incarcerated individuals and no timeline in which sanitary supplies must be issued. And even though there are logs and charts to keep track of this, officers easily and often falsify these documents.

CDCR is fully aware that they do not, cannot or will not issue adequate sanitary supplies in a timely manner and this is why there are tampons, sanitary pads and even toilet paper available for purchase on canteen and in all vendor care packages.

So what this means is that even though we are considered state property, the existing protection for our menstrual supplies that is both state and federal is falling short of the mark and causing more harm as it is common for incarcerated individuals and their families to pay for these items themselves rather than be humiliated. Therefore, I strongly ask for your support of AB 1810 so that incarcerated women will not have to continue with this humiliating, harmful treatment from CDCR.

Thank you. Anyone else? Go ahead.

Danica Rodarma on behalf of initiate justice and strong support.

Margot George, on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association and the San Francisco Public Defender's Office, in strong support

Whitney Francis from the Western Center on Law and Poverty, in support.

Kenneth Hartman from the Transformative Imprisoned Work Group, in strong support

Jim Lindbergh on behalf of the Friends Committee on Legislation of California, in support

Gilbert Anthony Murillo, LSPC and All of Us or None, fully in support.

Annalisa Zamora with the Young Women's Freedom Center and Sister Warriors Freedom Coalition in strong support

Lena Din, LSPC, All of Us or None, in support

Annie Thomas, on behalf of the California Alliance of Child and Family Services, in strong support.

Ed Little on behalf of Californians for Safety and Justice, in strong support

Robert Bowden on behalf of Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, in strong support

Lawrence Cox, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, All of Us or None, strong support

Thanh Tran with the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, strong support

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

Eric Henderson, on behalf of ACLU California Action, in support

Thank you. Anyone else for support? All right, opposition?

Anybody in the room for opposition? Please step forward. You'll have 5 minutes.

Committee Members. My name is Sophia Lori and I'm with California Family Council. AB 1810 seems to be a positive Bill at first glance. How can anyone be against making sure incarcerated women have better access to menstrual products? Yet, this Bill replaces all mentions of females and women with the word person, ultimately erasing women and pushing an ideology that men can menstruate or men can give birth. AB 1810 disregards the inherent dignity of women by attempting to obscure obvious biological distinctions between males and females.

This Bill allows for birth control and menstrual products to be available to all persons. So let's walk through basic biology. Does a man have a uterus? No. Does a man have a cervix? No. Does a man have a vagina? No. Thus, males do not have a menstrual cycle and males cannot get pregnant. Let me repeat that. Males do not and cannot have a menstrual cycle or get pregnant.

It is truly incomprehensible that today we have elected officials who lack an understanding of basic reproductive biology, that men cannot become pregnant or menstruate. Also, why would women need access to birth control in a female only prison? We know through basic common sense, proven by science, it takes one man and one woman for a woman to become pregnant.

This acknowledges the ugly reality that due to Senator Wiener's SB 132 from 2020, incarcerated men are allowed into women's prisons and women are being raped and forced into cells with men, 33.8% of which are registered sex offenders. I urge you all to vote no on AB 1810 unless this Bill is amended to only provide birth control and menstrual products to actual women. To vote yes or abstain further advances the erasure of women and ignores basic biology. zero, and if men menstruate, I'm intrigued. Where does the tampon go?

I am Erin Friday, a Democrat and behind Protect Kids of California Ballot Initiative. Voltaire stated, "those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities". Let's start with the absurdities. A person who menstruates is a female, regardless of how much testosterone is pumped in her or what she identifies as, this is an image of a female reproductive system. Science should be the North Star for lawmakers, and certainly OB-GYNs like Dr. Weber, this is.

Ma'am, any props, we're not going to do any props. You can just do what you have to say.

Men do not have uteruses. A man who has his penis spliced open and turned inside out does not create a functioning vagina, and he certainly does not have a period. Anyone who believes that a woman can become a man, or vice versa, believes in absurdities. Now for the atrocities, in 2020, the state decided it would be a good idea to house male inmates who believe that they are female, including baby killers, pedophiles, and rapists with actual females. What could possibly go wrong?

This Bill makes it perfectly clear that, you know, women will be raped and impregnated. The need for contraception only exists because there are men masquerading as women who place their penises in female vaginas. Yes, the rapes are occurring. Look at the case of Chandler v. CDCR. Instead of trying to prevent sexual encounters in juvenile settings, your response is to supply condoms. Ignoring the root problem. Dana Rivers is a man who desperately wanted to become a woman, but could not.

So he brutally slashed two lesbians multiple times, and then, for good measure, he shot them. He also murdered their black adopted son. This unhinged man is now imprisoned with women. Each one of you who vote to approve AB 1810 will be perpetuating absurdities and atrocities. Stop erasing women and girls.

All right, thank you. Any other witnesses in opposition, please step forward. Name and organization only.

Judy Cahill. Women are real. I'm a woman, not a uterus haver.

Opposition only, please.

Grace Gregory from Faith Baptist Church. I oppose this Bill.

Christine Campbell from Wheatland, California, in opposition as well.

I'm Pastor Tim Bennefield, Golden Valley Baptist Church. And I'm opposed unless this Bill is amended.

Any others? Any questions from the Committee, Ms. Reyes? Probably me.

Thank you for sharing your experience and sharing with us how even something as simple as a pad or tampon is weaponized and used against the women. Thank you for sharing that. I appreciate you providing that. I also appreciate the fact that you talked about HIPAA. Quite frankly, that is an area that I had not considered. In this, you should not have to disclose any condition that you may have in order to receive what you need here a pad or a tampon.

I will share that in my community our girl scouts came to me and said we need to have tampons and pads in bathrooms for third grade through fifth grade, because 6th grade was already covered, and it's something that until we're told that there is an issue, we don't realize that there is an issue. And that was signed into law by the Governor just last year. Assembly Member, I'd like to be joined. I'd like to join you as a co-author, if you'll permit that.

I think it's a good Bill. It provides a protection that I think is extremely important. And with that, I would move the Bill.

Can we do that or second as well? Any other questions from the Committee?

Do that in the beginning. Okay. Just to make sure we. Sure. One of my second. Thank you. If I could. Thank you. I'd like to commend the author for bringing this forward. Is extremely important, as was stated by both the witness and my colleague from Inland Empire, to be able to provide for women their basic needs and for those as this states, which I appreciate the wording here because it's pretty clear and I just want to restate it in case folks were concerned about it.

It says persons. Let's see, let me make sure I get it correctly, who menstruates or experiences uterine or vaginal bleeding will have access to what they need to be able to take care of that. That is a beautiful thing because bodies are complex and it is needed. I think that is an empowering to those people who have that issue to be able to get what they need, and so thank you for bringing that forward.

Thank you for sharing the atrocities that happen, the power imbalance that happens. And we know that there's been proven cases more often than not, and very sad to say, where we have those that are paid to protect inmates are not protecting them, but raping and abusing them. Thank you.

Mr. Zbur.

I also want to thank you for coming and sharing your experiences here. I think this is a really important Bill and want to thank the author for bringing it and would love to be added as a co author, if you'd be open to that. Thank you.

All right, any others from the Committee? Mr. Author, if you'll close.

Thank you. And I appreciate the opposition for coming today.

We fully agree that people who have a menstruation, who have a menstrual cycle, who need care, should have access to that care. Unfettered, unrestricted access to that care. This is about restoring dignity for women who are incarcerated. There are countless women who are currently incarcerated and formally incarcerated who have come and brought this Bill before us. Anyone, any person who menstruates deserves that care. It's not a luxury. It's not a privilege. It's a right.

And it's a right that shouldn't be conditional on your relationship to your jailer. That is the essence of this Bill. That is what we are trying to do. That is what we are behind many other states in doing. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote thank you.

I had taken some notes. I wrote Dignity Bill on mine as well. So ,I'm thankful you covered that. All right, Madam, take the roll, please. And also, the chair wanted me to share that this is a recommended aye vote

Roll Call

Zbur? Zbur, aye.

That measure passes. Thank you. All right, next we have AB 1814. Assembly member Ting.

Thank you Mr. Chair. Let me just first thank the Committee for their work with my office on this bill, and we are happy to accept the amendments. Currently, the existing law on facial recognition is that there is absolutely currently no regulation around facial recognition in terms of what can or cannot be used by law enforcement.

I was proud to carry a bill in 2019, AAB 1215, which had a three year moratorium on the use of facial recognition software and body cameras. I know my colleague from Suisun took that torch last year, and her bill is sitting on the Senate Floor as we speak. This bill attempts to provide a guardrail on facial recognition software because right now there are no guardrails on facial recognition software. That moratorium expired on January 1st, 2023.

AB 1814 simply seeks to prevent law enforcement from justifying an arrest, search, or affidavit for a warrant when the sole basis of that action is a facial recognition match. So, in other words, there has to be additional evidence other than the facial recognition match for law enforcement to take additional action. We think this is a small step in the right direction.

I know that the opposition is concerned that any legislation that does not ban facial recognition software, create a moratorium, is a step in the wrong direction. I would say that the perfect should not be the enemy of the good. This is a small step in the right direction. Currently, it also does not impact cities like my own, San Francisco, where we have banned facial recognition software, or the city of Oakland, and also allows continuing to allow local jurisdictions to take additional action that they see fit.

So again, I think this is a small step in the right direction. I think it's ironic in the analysis the opposition talked about additional guardrails, additional guidelines. I did that bill last year, and they still opposed it. And so again, I think this is a clear issue. I think that right now I would continue to vote for a moratorium if that were the bill that were in front of me. I don't think that we're given that choice.

I think right now we have to take action because right now there are no guidelines around facial recognition software or how it's being used in a law enforcement setting. So, I think this is a responsible first step.

Do you have anyone to testify?

No.

Okay. Anyone else in support?

Chair Members, Jonathan Feldman with the California Police Chiefs Association, in support.

Mr. Chair Members Juliana Voris, on behalf of the League of California Cities in support.

Thank you. Anyone else for support? Okay, anyone for opposition? Please come up here, have a seat. You'll have 5 minutes.

Becca Cramer-Mowder on behalf of ACLU California action in respectful opposition, we appreciate the author's understanding of the harms of face surveillance and his desire to protect Californians from the compounding harms of face surveillance, false matches, and wrongful arrests. However, AB 1814 would mandate a policy that has routinely failed to prevent the life derailing, misuse and harmful mistakes caused by this technology.

In at least five of the seven known arrests based on false matches, police were subject to policies nearly identical to the one that AB 1814 seeks to put into California law. Just like the policy failed to protect those individuals from arrest after false matches, AB 1814 will not protect Californians from the harmful consequences of face surveillance use. Additionally, AB 1814 would continue the problems of face surveillance technology in police investigations by layering on psychological biases that, once introduced, cannot be undone.

The first is something that's called automation bias, which is the known phenomenon whereby people, including experts, reduce the amount of independent scrutiny that they may exhibit when making decisions. If the decision is made by an automated system. So an obvious example of this playing out is the case of Michael Oliver, where police trusted the match, claiming he was a suspect, despite the suspect lacking Mr. Oliver's obvious facial tattoos.

Second is confirmation bias, where once the facial recognition match pops up, officers will be predisposed to find evidence that confirms the result. The most recent public false match case provides a stunning example of how confirmation bias disrupts thorough investigations and the horrific consequences for the people impacted.

Harvey Eugene Murphy Jr. Was arrested after falsely being matched as the suspect in a Houston area retail theft incident, even though an investigation into whether he was a viable suspect would have shown that he was in fact in Sacramento at the time of the theft. A thorough investigation would have spared Mr. Murphy from going to jail, where he alleges he was raped. Instead, trusting the technology, law enforcement looked for evidence to prove the tech right.

The third is racial bias, which extends beyond just the false error match rate to the use of this system with police databases that are essentially a record of racially discriminatory policies, like the war on drugs. Put simply, many of these systems are going to be looking for matches in lists of black and brown people already targeted and harmed by biased policing.

Additionally, policies like the one in AB 1814 reinforce some of these problematic pieces, bringing problematic facial results into other parts of the investigation, including photo lineups and witness interviews so that the facial recognition is not the sole basis for probable cause. When police incorporate facial recognition results into photo lineups, for example, police are not only relying on false facial recognition matches, but also violating best practices of photo lineups.

Decades of research recommend only conducting eyewitness ID if there's a substantial basis to believe the suspect committed the crime, as opposed to simply being a doppelganger for the actual suspect. Compounding this issue is when the officer conducting a photo lineup or the witness reviewing the photo array knows that facial recognition found a match, bringing automation bias directly into the already problematic facial recognition photo lineup.

And this is not a hypothetical, this has been shown to be a factor in several of the false match cases that have led to wrongful arrests where the officer administering the lineup and or the witness reviewing the lineup were informed that there was a facial recognition match. Additionally, even if the sole basis language were effective and didn't bring in these unintended but harmful consequences, there's no enforcement mechanism to ensure law enforcement compliance. And even if suppression or a private right of action were added,

You have 30 seconds.

there is no transparency requirement to ensure defendants even find out that facial recognition was used in their case to be able to deploy the enforcement mechanism, and all too often, facial recognition is not disclosed to the people it's used against. For these and other reasons, we must respectfully oppose AB 1814.

Thank you. Any others in opposition, please state your name and your.

Eric Henderson on behalf of ACLU California Action in respectful opposition. Also here, on behalf of Oakland Privacy Media Alliance, Secure Justice, San Francisco Public Defenders Racial Justice Committee, and the NYU Law School policing project.

Thank you.

Margot George, on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association, we're in opposition unless it's amended. There are already existing protocols

Thank you.

that we would ask the Committee to adopt.

Thank you. Thank you.

Gilbert Anthony Murillo, legal services for prisoners with children, All of Us or None, strongly opposed.

Robert Bowden, legal services for prisoners with children, also All of Us or None, strongly opposed.

Lena Din, LSPC, All of Us or None in respectful opposition.

Alyssa Moore, LSPC, obviously opposing.

Thank you. Any others in opposition? Okay, Committee, Ms. Wilson.

Thank you. Thank you to the author to bringing this forward. We've had lots of conversations about facial recognition technology and including my bill that bans it on body cameras and still support the ban in regard to body cameras. It messes with our constitution, Article One, as well as the Fourth Amendment for our U.S. constitution.

As it relates specifically to this, I see the intent and where you're trying to go with the overall use of facial recognition technology and the fact that currently there are no provisions in place as far as state law and our departments, our police departments and law enforcement agencies are allowed to do what they will with it. And there's inconsistency when you look at who's using it, how they're using it, and what even policies they have around it.

I do agree with one of the opposition's letters, in terms of opposition unless amended, had some really good suggestions for the law that come from practice. I think they were looking at the LASD manual policies and procedures. One in particular that I want you to strongly consider and love to continue to have more conversations on this Bill with it is the fact that FRT is not, as it doesn't hear, is not memorialized in any way in the investigation.

And so there's no way for any person who it was used against them, even though it's not the sole basis for probable cause, there's no way for any person to know that it was used and whether that was faulty and that that faulty led to further harm through investigation. And so I would like to see that memorialized in the investigative report, which is noted in part of the opposition unless amended.

And there are a few things that should be considered, but I think that's probably the strongest one. It's the one that we saw the most examples of when we're looking at the police ban, the ban on police cameras of just this use of facial recognition software and not knowing that it was used. And so that is a really key in ensuring that we don't continue to compound the harms and allow people an opportunity for redress. Thank you.

Any others from the Committee? Mr. Zbur?

So thank you both for being one for bringing the bill and the opposition for being here. I have a lot of respect for the opposition. I think that it was a very good explanation as to some of the risks of facial recognition technology. I think the thing that I'm just grappling with is the fact that it seems like this bill really takes just one minor step in addressing some of the issues that you're concerned about.

So I don't understand, really the basis of the opposition as opposed to, I think, working with the author to try to strengthen the bill in some other ways. Because unless I'm wrong, if this bill isn't passed, you can use facial recognition as the sole basis for a conviction. Is that right, Mr. Ting?

Or any basis. Right now, there are no guidelines around facial recognition software technology. My Bill, my law, the moratorium has now passed. So as of January 1, 2023 law enforcement can do anything they want.

I don't know if you'd like to respond.

Yeah, I would love to. Thank you. We agree that I think everyone here at this table is agreeing that facial recognition poses really serious problems. Our concern is that what we have seen proposed here last year across the country to try and regulate facial recognition. While it sounds good and it looks like it should provide protections, it's been shown that it doesn't actually provide the protections intended.

So, for example, with what's being proposed here, we have seen that in at least five of the seven known cases, law enforcement was already supposed to be using facial recognition, not as the sole basis, and yet people were still arrested despite mismatches, despite very clear exculpatory evidence, and so it doesn't actually provide the promised protection. We're not trying to be difficult when we say that the way to deal with facial recognition is through a ban or a moratorium.

If there was a regulation that would work and would actually provide protection rather than just look good on the paper, we would be all for going for that simpler route.

But the reason that we have continued to say that a ban or mortime is the only way to deal with facial recognition is simply because it's been shown again and again that regulation doesn't actually provide the intended protections, that only a ban or a moratorium provides those protections, and putting down protections on paper that we know don't work, that they fail, that they have harmful unintended consequences, is not the way to deal with the problem. And so that's why we're in opposition today.

Okay, thank you. I don't know if you'd like to respond.

Sure. Absolutely. Well, first, there's no evidence that a ban works because actually there's no state that currently bans facial recognition software. So they have an ideology, they have a philosophy. Certain cities have banned it, but there actually is no state bans. There's actually no data, no evidence.

The other piece, just like my colleague from the Inland Empire, just very quickly, this is my first time on the Committee, and it seems very interesting that opposition on a number of the bills doesn't want to talk about the merits or the pros and cons of a bill, but they want to talk about all the problems with our criminal justice system, of which we know there are many. That's not what this bill is tackling.

Opposition mentions some concerns about the process, many of which happen in other states. But whether you do a lineup or whether you're going through a photo book, that's not what this bill has issue with. Right. A lot of her concerns are, frankly, with regards to the overall system, of which I have a lot of, I share a lot of those concerns. That's not the bill that we're talking about. Quite simply, this bill adds additional protections when there are none.

The opposition has made it very clear what they would like is a complete ban on facial recognition technology. And right now, without that, they can't support any particular policy, even when many of the steps that other Members of the opposition had stated I did last year in my Bill in really pushing this issue forward. So again, I think it's very clear that they absolutely are for a ban.

Again, just to restate that no state has banned, every state that has chosen policy has chosen to regulate rather than to ban the technology. We have a number of major events coming to our state, whether it's the World Cup, whether it's the Olympics. I think it really is important that we have some policies set forward because I know that facial recognition software will be used for those events.

So again, if there is no guidance, and like my colleague from Suisun said, right now what we have is we have every jurisdiction doing it a little bit differently. No guidelines, no policies, no protections. So depending on whatever jurisdiction you're in, there's only a few cities that have bans, including my own. But right now this is, again, small step in the right direction. I would have preferred something more robust.

I offered something more robust last year, which the opposition, again, didn't like because it wasn't a ban. But again, this, to me is a reasonable step in the right direction.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Alanis. Thank you, Mr. Chair

For the opposition, you keep speaking of the five of seven known cases. Out of how many cases are we talking about in general?

That is an excellent question, and we don't know. Like as Wilson pointed out, oftentimes people are not, the use of face surveillance is not included in the record. People are oftentimes not notified.

For folks who got to listen to Mr. Williams when he came last year, he explained, and I think he's the first of the known cases, the only reason he even found out that it was used in his case was that in the interview, one of the law enforcement officials made an off the cuff remark of I guess the technology got it wrong. That kind of stuck with him. He didn't know what that was about.

He mentioned it to his wife, who thought that sounds like face surveillance. They reached out to an attorney. They were able to get that information. But without that off the cuff remark, he wouldn't have even known that it was used in his situation. And so we don't know how many cases it's been used in because it's oftentimes not revealed that it was used.

Okay, thank you. So we could be talking thousands and thousands of cases.

It is unknown how many cases it's been used in, how many arrests are based on false matches. That's why I said that. Of the seven known arrests, yes.

Out of the seven, though, to me, if there are thousands and thousands of cases, we're talking about this compared to how many other lives could have been saved, kidnappings, homicide suspects that could have been solved due to this technology is what I'm getting at. And this is something that we brought up as a Committee earlier wanting to know the numbers, like when we were talking about fentanyl, well can you tell me what the other portion is? Well, I would like to know that also.

I would love to also. So let me know if you'd like to partner on trying to get that information from law enforcement. It would be great to know how many of the cases they use it in, how many of the times it is of any assistance. And also how many times it actually hinders the case by pointing law enforcement to the wrong kidnapping suspect, for example, and all resources get diverted from the actual suspect.

Okay. And then the other thing, do you know, out of those five or seven cases, were those actually taken from body camera footage?

I do not believe that any of them were taken from body camera footage.

And to the author, this is body camera footage is what we're talking about?

No, this is all facial recognition.

This is all. Yeah. My previous Bill, which is my colleague's Bill, was only dealing with body cameras. This is all facial recognition software. And the reason I wanted to do that is because now the technology is ubiquitous. You could be using facial recognition from someone's security camera. You could be using facial recognition from someone's home security camera.

All of it.

I mean, this is a very different situation than we had, say, even five or 10 years ago. So it is broader than that.

Thank you. No further questions. Yeah, thank you. Mr. Ting, I worked with you on this measure last year, and I think this is a fair, balanced approach, bringing some rules to the game, as you alluded. And if you didn't have this, you'd have nothing. We'd have the wild, wild west with everybody for themselves.

Thank you for clarifying that.

So I think that this sets the appropriate standard. So with that, I support this Bill. Do we have a motion? Motion a second from Rayes and Gwynn. Please call the roll. I'm sorry, I just hear voices.

As long as it's done.

Thank you.

On AB 1814 by semester. Ting. The motion is do pass as amended to the privacy and Consumer Protection Committee. McCarty? McCarty, aye. Alanis? Alanis, aye. Lackey? Lackey, not voting. Nguyen? Nguyen, aye. Reyes? Reyes, aye. Ting? Ting, aye. Wilson? Wilson, aye. Zbur? Zbur, aye.

Okay, that measure passes now. We'll go back and lift the call. But before we do that, 401 leaves. I want to recognize our last day for our Chief Deputy consultant to the Public Safety Committee who is taking a retirement. So thank you very much for your service to the State of California and the Public Safety Committee. So, Cheryl Anderson, thank you very much for your service. Well earned. Yes. Please go back and we'll do add-ons and lift the calls.

On the consent calendar, Lackey? Lackey, aye. Nguyen? Nguyen, aye. Wilson? Wilson, aye. Item number one, AB 183 has been dispensed with. Item number two, AB 1804 by senate Member Jim Patterson. Mccarty? Mccarty, aye. Item number three, AB 1810, by senate Member Brian Mccarty? Mccarty, aye. Item number four, AB 1814, was just dispensed with. Item number five, AB 1859, was on consent. Item number six, AB 1875, was on consent.

And item number seven, AB 1909 has been dispensed with. Okay, thank you. This concludes today's hearing. With that, we are adjourned. Thank.