Senate Standing Committee on Public Safety

[Roll Call]

Okay, quorum has been set. We're going to ask for the first author to come and present. It is Senator Min with SB 894. And just for some ground rules, as I often go through it, we are going to have both witnesses at that lectern. Everyone will be timed for two minutes, both opposition and support.

And then for the me toos, we ask that everybody quickly state their name, their organization, and whether they support or oppose. And we like to move quickly because we have a number of other bills to get through. So, Senator Min, SB 894, please.

Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Committee, I'm here to present SB 894, which would create a new offense of sexual exploitation by a member of the clergy, of a religious clergy who engages in sexual acts with an adult congregant that is under their religious supervision or has a relationship similar to that. We have taken some amendments to narrow this to misdemeanor. We have also proposed a number of sets of amendments which I will be happy to discuss.

Look, this is a real problem that we know happens in our churches, in our temples, in our religious institutions, where predators who are serving as religious clergy take advantage of that position of the moral and spiritual authority granted to them by the institutions for which they work to take advantage of, to coerce and exploit people under their care. This happens much more often than you would think.

One study from the Church of England found that 67% of clergy persons responding claimed to have known a colleague who engaged in sexual misconduct with the congregant. Another study found that 70% of Southern Baptist ministers have known of other ministers who have engaged in sexual misconduct with the congregant. seven American rabbis have been dismissed on account of this of sexual misconduct with congregants. And a number of Buddhist religious leaders have been accused of sexual misconduct as well.

The most comprehensive study to date found, with a random sample of the US population, that 3.1% of women who attend religious services at least monthly reported at some time during their adult life, they had been the object of a sexual advance by the clergy person or religious leader that led their congregation in their own congregation. More than half of these reported sexual advances by a religious leader who was married as to someone else at the time. Thus, you can put this in context.

On average, in a US congregation of 400 adult members, seven women have been victimized at some point in their adult lives. This is a problem we're trying to solve. We are happy to consider amendments going forward. We've been in negotiations, but have some philosophical differences. I know there's a lot of discussion around whether consent should be a defense to this or not, and happy to discuss in my close.

There are lots of circumstances in US and California law where we don't allow consent, and we think this is important to not allow consent in this particular circumstance because of the nature of the relationship.

When you have someone, again, who is the voice of God, who many people think of as the pathway to heaven, who you've been told your entire life, probably by your family, is someone who speaks on and is the conduit to a higher power that you're supposed to confess your sins to, that you are required to listen to. This creates a power imbalance of the type that a US and California law have typically disallowed consent as a defense forward in other contexts.

So we'll be happy to discuss this Bill further. I know that we received a no recommendation. I was disappointed in that. Happy to discuss some of the amendments we're considering. But with that, I want to just introduce my witnesses, who are Doctor Hermina Netalescu and Dorothy Small. And I think you guys. Do you want them at the lectern or do you want them.

Yes, the lectern. And you will be timed for two minutes.

Thank you, Dorothy.

Thank you. My name is Dorothy Small and good morning, Members of the Committee. I am not saying that I am glad to be here. I am a survivor of clergy abuse. I was 16 years old at the time when my perpetrator decided to exploit his position over me. I had been in therapy for five years at the time with a clinical psychologist.

It takes decades, often for those of us who were abused as children, to be able to even come to grasp, to grasp with that abuse. And I was working as a nurse. I'm a registered nurse. I worked in nursing for 40 years. Half of it is a licensed practical nurse.

I know that in relations with my patients, I had the position of power over my patient, and my job was to protect all of them, because all patients are vulnerable when we are ill or in any life circumstances, many of us who have a faith Association will turn to the church at the time when my predator came, I was the most vulnerable, having sustained quite a bit of abuse as a child that followed me throughout my life because I learned how to live in abuse and not to speak up to it.

Survival meant dealing with it. And so I was in therapy to try to let go of an abusive relationship. And I was going to church, and I wasn't seeking counsel from this priest. I was a ministry. I sang in the choir, and I was a cantor. And I was seeking to heal myself through God and not through a man that I could change and have him be the dad I never had.

And in walked the priest, and he saw and he liked, and he pursued me from the beginning. And I knew something was wrong, and I fought it. I reported him. They went ahead and pulled him out for a week. They let him come back, and the pursuit intensified. And I tried to protect him like I tried to protect all my abusers. I thought, he's the priest. He's more important than I am. And he tried to establish a relationship of trust with me.

I opened up to him and revealed what happened to me as a child. He stepped in there.

Thank you.

And opened that up. So that's it?

Yeah. Two minutes. Thank you.

Chair Wahab, Senators, my name is Doctor Hermina Nedalescu. I'm an Orthodox Christian and a neuroscientist at Scripps Research in San Diego. I study the neurobiological control of abnormal behaviors relevant to human psychopathology. I'm speaking on behalf of myself and not my institution or employer. Clergy abuse and sexual exploitation of adults is an abnormal, predatory behavior. 90% to 95% of victims of clergy sexual abuse are adult female congregants. Clergy abuse is about power and control.

When there's a personal or family problem, 25% of people of faith turn to their pastor or priest first before a therapist. About five to 20% of clergy of all Christian groups have misused their position of authority and trust to sexually abuse their adult congregants, mostly women, under the guise of providing spiritual counsel. This small yet significant percentage uses their position of ultimate authority, together with grooming as tactics to gradually break down the victim's boundaries in order to sexually exploit them.

I'm a survivor of adult clergy sexual abuse at the hands of a Greek orthodox priest who remains in ministry today in San Diego serving the Greek Orthodox Church and Bishops of San Francisco are aware of this abuse. When it comes to clergy, these abusers have an added advantage, because for people of faith, clergy represent God's messenger on Earth. For them, there's an automatic trust. The power differential between clergy and a congregant is immense and larger than any other human to human relation.

It's a false equivalency to compare the clergy congregate relational interaction to any other secular relations, such as attorney client, therapist client, etcetera. The existing law does not adequately cover non consensual sexual acts or contact with an adult congregant. Because of the grooming behavior. A congregant will not immediately realize that the perceived God's messenger on earth is actually sexually assaulting and raping them. I ask you to please vote yes on this Bill to stop the violence against women's bodies who are silenced and abused by church administrations.

Thank you.

If we can have individuals that want to support this Bill, please state your name, your organization and that you support.

Katherine Archer. I am a survivor of abuse by a Greek Orthodox Priest. Support.

Thank you.

Lucy Huh, on behalf of the Diana Garland School of Social Work at Baylor University, strongly support.

Thank you.

Bonnie Rhow, on behalf of Human Trafficking Legal Network, Freedom and Fashion Hope of Survivors, Mennonite Abuse Prevention and the many victim survivors of adult clergy sexual abuse who could not attend today but have submitted support letters and are watching this live stream of this hearing, strongly support.

Thank you. Do we have lead opposition? You will have two minutes. Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Lesli Caldwell Houston. I'm with the California Public Defenders Association, and we oppose this Bill unless amended. I grew up in a church that we later found out to be a nest of sexual predators in priest garb, four of my family Members were affected, so I know the anguish. I know the anguish well that comes with sexual exploitation by the clergy.

However, we respectfully urge your no vote on this Bill, as it is not the answer to the problems it seeks to address. This Bill makes it a crime for a member of the clergy in a position of trust or authority over an adult parishioner, even if the sexual conduct is consensual. This type of contact is definitely inadvisable. But this law would be a radical departure from existing law.

This is a massive government overreach and an overreach that is unprecedented, and I hate that word because it's used all the time, but unprecedented in existing law. This proposed law is not necessary to prevent non consensual sexual conduct between a member of the clergy and an adult parishioner, because existing law already criminalizes such non consensual sexual conduct, regardless of their relationship.

Further, the proposed law is overbroad and likely void for vagueness for instance, this Bill does not define what it means for a Member of the clergy to be in position of trust over an adult congregant. This could apply broadly to consensual relationships where there is no fraud, no manipulation, and no underlying exploitation. Also, to take away the defense of consent is a radical step.

While there are very narrow circumstances that the defense of consent would not be applied, what we have in this Bill is not one of them and should not be. We have had discussions with the author's office and have proposed amendments that could cure the issues we've identified in this Bill. These amendments thus far have not been taken. We hope to have further discussions, but at this time, we urge your no votes. Thank you.

All right, we have another, and please state your name, and if you have two minutes. You have two minutes. Thank you.

Hi. Good morning, Chair and Members. My name is Rachel Bogwood. I'm with ACLU California Action. We are in respectful opposition to this Bill. We want to align our comments with the previous witness and state that we fear that SB 894 could be used to criminalize consensual sexual conduct. The language as written is overly broad and unnecessary given existing laws that already protect against situations of non consensual sex. Penal Code Section 243.4. Sexual battery carries a term of one to four years. Penal Code Section 261.

Rape is a felony offense carrying a term of three to eight years, except in situations where sexual acts are committed under the guise of providing professional diagnosis, counseling, or treatment, and where the victim could not have reasonably manifested consent. Sexual conduct between two consenting adult children not be penalized. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any other opposition witnesses? Me, too. Seeing none. I'll turn it back to Committee Members, seeing no conversation. Senator, would you like to close?

Yes. So, as our witnesses have described, the problem of religious clergy members using their positions to coerce or exploit congregation members into sex is a real issue. And while we don't have all the precise data on this, I recited some statistics that I think make clear. This happens far more often than we realize and that it should. Now, I know that the Committee analysis had raised questions about the Bill being over broad and vague, and I appreciate the comments from opposition.

I just want to point out that we had repeatedly tried to narrow the scope of this Bill. We offered several sets of amendments, including amendments that specifically address the concerns raised in the Committee analysis, which states that in.

On page six of the analysis, it states, for example, in Delaware's sexual exploitation law, the following definition of without consent requires that the sexual contact be committed under the guise of providing, end quote, counseling or treatment, and the victim's reasonable belief that the act was for appropriate counselor treatment, such that resistance by the victim could not reasonably have been manifested, factors that SB 894 lacks.

In response to this criticism, my staff specifically drafted language modeled on the Delaware statute, which I'm happy to pass in front of you. Do we have that in front of them right now? Heather, did you pass that? No, I'm sorry. I have copies, but you can take a look. I think we had sent copies to you prior to this, and I'm happy to send these around here. Could I have these passed out? Thank you.

And so we specifically drafted language addressing this point that specifically said, one, that it's a reasonable belief by the victim, and two, resistance by the victim could not reasonably have manifested. In fact, we adopted the Delaware language verbatim. At that point, the Committee told us that this was not good enough and that the Bill was still over, broad and vague.

We tried another approach, which is also in front of you, then as a last minute Hail Mary approach, which would have narrowed the scope of this Bill extensively by limiting to those in religious relationships where penitential communications, such as confession to a priest, were regularly shared by the congregant. In both of these instances, we explicitly stated that termination of the counseling relationship or termination of the relationship in which penitential communications were being offered would be a defense, an absolute defense to any crime.

We also, as the amendments narrowed this to misdemeanor, by the way, I'll just note that this entire provision and set of provisions is modeled off an identical set of provisions in the BNP code for psychotherapists who have sexual relations with their patients. And so we have tried to bend over backwards to try to amend this Bill to address the concerns raised in the Committee analysis.

And the one amendment that we've repeatedly been offered is the only amendment that would save this Bill was to remove the statement that consent could be a defense. And I will respectfully disagree with the defense witnesses here or the opposition witnesses. I don't think that consent should be allowed to be a defense in all instances.

Now, I understand there are concerns when you have the line that consent should not be a defense, that it might be overbroad, that you might be applying it to truly consensual relationships. And I'll just say we tried to address those. We'll continue to try to address those should this get out of Committee today. But we were never given any language that might fix the scope of this Bill. We repeatedly told consent had to be allowed as a defense.

And I'll just submit to you that I disagree with the Committee analysis and with the defense because it presumes that the victim here is in a position to give consent. And I'll just say that when you have. This is not just in a situation where we've all seen it, where a man is pressuring a woman to try to have sex with them.

This is a situation where you have a religious leader, someone who is seen as the voice of God, the messenger from a higher power, who often, in the cases of grooming, which we see a lot of, you have a child told from a very young age. This is the person you have to respect and listen to. And you have all of the religious trappings of a powerful religious institution behind that person imbuing them with moral and spiritual authority.

And I would just submit to you, I believe that situation is fundamentally one where consent is not possible. We've again offered language where you could terminate the relationships that we think are problematic, where you're confessing your sins. Simple. You just stop being in a situation where that person confesses their sins to you. Alternatively, we've offered language where it would be in counseling relationship where the manifestation of reasonable assent.

Senator, can you please wrap it up?

I have a limit?

No, but we also have been, like, timing people.

I'd like to just finish and just express, because I found this process very frustrating. I'll just be honest, because, Madam Chair, you repeatedly told me that staff would submit to reasonable amendments. I asked you repeatedly. I told you consent was the main issue. We would give on anything else other than the consent piece. And you told us that staff would work with us. Staff never offered us any amendments other than the consent piece and eliminating the consent piece.

And so I'd just like to finish because I think we have a right for this to be heard. We have victims in the room that I know are very invested in this Bill. And I'll just point out there are a number of instances where consent is not allowed as a defense. We don't allow consent to be used as a defense for adults who have sex with a minor.

We don't allow consent to be used as a defense for someone who has sex with an excessively inebriated person. We don't allow consent to be used as a defense for police officers who have sex with people in their custody. We don't allow consent to be used as a defense for health facility employees who have sex with people who are in their care. We don't allow consent to be used as a defense for lawyers and certain types of representation who have sex with their clients.

We don't allow consent to be used as a defense for parole officers who have sex with the parolees that they are overseeing. We don't allow consent to be used as a defense for correctional officers who have sex with their inmates. You may have seen that the federal prison in Dublin, infamously dubbed the rape club because all the sex that took place between the prison guards and their inmates was closed down this week.

And many of the prison guards who were charged with this tried to use consent as a defense. And we don't allow consent to be used as a defense between a psychotherapist and their patient. We, which is the specific statutory example we're modeling this Bill after. And the reason we don't allow consent to be used in these instances is because there's a fundamental power imbalance that makes true consent impossible. And I would submit to you that that same power imbalance exists in religious clergy.

And so I understand we want to narrow the scope of this Bill. We don't want to capture truly consensual relations between two consenting adults. But I will just note, we've tried to narrow this Bill, and the two iterations in front of you, I think, would do that, and I think would probably be narrow, overly narrow in the views of probably many in this room. But we have tried to amend this Bill.

We have not been offered any language to try to save this Bill other than removing the consent piece. And I would just say this Bill was brought to my attention by a Jane Doe in Orange County, who from a young age, was part of the Catholic Church in Orange and was groomed by her priest, and was always told that this is someone you have to look up to and respect. You have to listen to them, and when she turned 18, this particular priest preyed on her.

This priest had been guilty of doing the same thing in other contexts, had been transferred a number of times, and this person is still, I believe, a priest today. This is not a situation of consent when you have that type of power and balance. And so all I'll just say is to close. This is about protecting women and children who are vulnerable. That is what this Bill is about. We are trying to offer a solution.

We're happy to work with you all and to work should it get to the next Committee, with Judiciary Committee to try to address this. But that's all I can say to you, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Do we have a motion.

The Bill will be held in Committee.

Thank you.

All right, we'll see if there's a motion from Bradford or Wiener.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

Thank you.

Next, we're going to move on to SB 989. Oh, no, we don't have her. Will you be only presenting for Jones or Jones will be attending as well? You got an ETA on him?

All right, folks, we are going to move on to SB 1011 by Senator Jones, who also has Senator Blakespear. They will be presenting this Bill. I also just want to highlight, for any staff in this room, as well as anybody watching, please bring your Senators up forward. We would like to hear their bills in a timely fashion. SB 1011.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. It is an honor to be with you this morning with my co-author, Catherine Blakespear. We are presenting Senate Bill 1011, which does three things to help clean up California and protect public health and safety. First, this Bill prohibits encampments near sensitive areas such as schools, major transit stops, and open spaces, regardless of shelter space, and on the streets and sidewalks when shelter space is available. This will help us protect our most vulnerable populations, children, seniors, and families.

In addition, it will ensure that Californians can travel safely and securely using the modes of transportation funded by their tax dollars. Second, this Bill requires a 72-hour warning period before encampment can occur. An encampment sweep can occur. This will give individuals and encampments a chance to find alternative living arrangements and hopefully encourage them to accept services before the encampment is cleared. Third, the Bill requires enforcement officers or agencies to provide information about sleeping alternatives, services, and shelters in the area when conducting the encampment sweep.

This will help connect homeless individuals to desperately needed services as we compassionately clear encampments. California has spent $24 billion in the past five years on homelessness, and what do we have to show for it? Encampments lining nearly every block and children being exposed to open drug use and dangerous situations. Our state has over 180,000 homeless individuals. California only represents 12% of the U.S. population, yet it holds 30% of the nation's homeless population.

Our current approach to homelessness is failing, and Californians are frankly just tired of it. We need to try something new. Cities across the state, including Sacramento, Los Angeles, and San Diego, are taking action to protect sensitive community areas from encampments. In fact, this proposed law is modeled after a measure passed last June by the City of San Diego that has found extraordinary success.

According to the Downtown San Diego Partnership Monthly Census, the number of homeless individuals in downtown San Diego has been reduced by over 60% from May 2023 to this March. We simply cannot continue allowing people to camp at our transit stops or in front of our schools. This is a public health and public safety crisis. It is inhumane and unhealthy for our state to continue looking the other way when homeless individuals and families are living and building housing structures on sidewalks and streets.

It is also unfair and often dangerous for the neighbors, families, and children in these sensitive areas. Our measure, along with other legislation combating the homeless epidemic, will hopefully work together to help end public camping in these areas while also compassionately helping homeless individuals get treatment for the mental and or physical health needs and finding a more appropriate place to stay.

Finally, let me emphasize our goal is to not criminalize homelessness, but rather to protect the public and help lift homeless individuals up and off the streets to their compassionate approach. Every Californian deserves a path off the streets, and SB 1011 will make that happen. That's why well over 1,000 Californians have signed our petition in support of SB 1011. We have a strong coalition of supporters and bipartisan co-authors, and I urge you to join your constituents today in supporting SB 1011.

Presenting with me this morning, as I said, is Senator Catherine Blakespear. And then also witnesses in support will be Mayor John Franklin from the City of Vista and Brett Bowman, a formerly homeless individual and advocate. I will now turn it over to Senator Blakespear.

Thank you.

Well, thank you, Senator Jones, and thank you to the Chair and Committee for allowing me to present with my colleague, Senator Jones today on this important Bill. I am a co-author of SB 1011 because, simply stated, we need to do better to serve our neighbors who are unhoused, and we deserve to have our public spaces, parks, sidewalks, trails available for the public use. Unfortunately, every month in this state, street homelessness grows. We see this in our communities every single day.

Poor souls who are sleeping outside in the rain, wrapped in makeshift cardboard, some with blankets, others without, clearly suffering. Within the shadows of the California State Capitol, here in the state that has the fifth largest economy in the entire world, there are encampments on city streets and in our parks, a lack of facilities for personal hygiene, no places to use the bathroom, small fires, and an ever-expanding footprint of stuff and trash into the public right of way that prevents the public from even using the space.

We need more housing full stop, without exception to solve this crisis. We need mental health and drug and alcohol treatment beds full stop, without exception.

We know this. We continually say this again and again. And meanwhile, while we are waiting for this to happen, we do nothing to address the urgent catastrophic humanitarian crisis that is growing every single month on our streets. We need to communicate to local governments what tools they have. We need to set a standard at the state level. We need to fight to do better by people, by working at both ends of the problem collectively.

We have to be clear eyed here that by allowing our public spaces to become sleeping spaces, we are tolerating this. We are allowing it to happen and we are allowing it to grow every month. The author and I and our witnesses who are here today are not alone in saying that this is an urgent problem. 70% of California residents identify growing street homelessness as the top state problem.

Looking at the conditions of our public streets in videos of Oakland or Venice Beach or countless other communities throughout California, it is truly and deeply horrifying how people are living and what we are tolerating. Whenever I personally walk by someone who is suffering outside, I feel that twin sensation of compassion for the suffering of a fellow human, and also anger and helplessness about the fact that we are letting this happen. The intent of this Bill is one part of a package of solutions.

The Bill says that people cannot camp within 500ft of schools, in open spaces and at transit stops at any time. And when shelter beds are available, they cannot camp on sidewalks. Both the author and I come from the County of San Diego and this Bill is modeled after the successful program that the City of San Diego has enacted and that took effect last July. San Diego's unsafe camping ordinance has had ripple effects that benefit everyone.

It has broadened and sharpened the conversation and the discussion of homelessness and its solutions. And it has created forward progress. Where before there was inertia, when it went into effect, there were more than 21,00 San Diego residents living on the downtown streets, there has been a 60% decline in this street homelessness on the downtown streets. The city has something more broad than this Bill. It's called the comprehensive shelter strategy and all parts of it are important.

It designates safe camping sites and it also aims to increase housing and supportive services for the homeless. This includes a focus on the construction of single-room occupancy rooms, shelters, permanent supportive housing, and pursuing shelters and temporary housing in a variety of different ways. The reality is, if people are going to, are not going to be living outside in these conditions, they need to be living inside.

And laws like this one, this Bill will help create the momentum that's necessary to push all levels of society to create those inside living places. We all deserve to have clean spaces in public that are safe and inviting. We also deserve to have open spaces that protect nature and do not create a flow of human and animal waste and trash and debris into our waterways. The residents of California, our neighbors, deserve better. They deserve to live inside.

SB 1011 is a responsible and humane approach and I urge your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. If the first witness will approach the lectern. You will have two minutes.

Thank you. Senators. My name is Brett Bowman. I used to be homeless and struggled with a meth addiction all my life belongings fit in a shopping cart. I wasn't born into homelessness, but it came for me. I used drugs to numb myself from the pain and anger of a catastrophic life event. I'd lost my son, and instead of seeking counseling for my mental health, I resorted to the streets. That's how I became homeless.

Last year, I stood with Senator Jones as he introduced a Bill which called for compassionately clearing homeless encampments. I was sad to see the bill's rejection in the Capitol. The people elected to this building are supposed to help solve the problems, not stall them. I am standing with Senator Jones again this year as we once again address this issue with an improved Bill. I am extremely pleased to see a bipartisan group of lawmakers tackling this very real crisis as it should be.

This is not a Democratic or a Republican problem, but a California issue. If you care about what is happening in California, I urge all Members of the California State Legislature to join Senator Jones and these lawmakers. Let's get this Bill passed and signed into law. Drive down the streets. Walk down the road. My story is not alone, nor unique, and California needs to step up and tackle this issue.

Senate Bill 1011 is an important step, and I guarantee if it was as easy for me to be as comfortable as it is for most people out there today, I might still be out there, or I might be dead. Together, we can make a real difference. Thank you.

Thank you. We'll go to the next witness in support. You will have two minutes.

Thank you very much. My name is John Franklin. I'm the mayor of the City of Vista, California, with a population of 103,000. I want to thank Senator Jones and Senator Blakespear for inviting me to speak today. And first, I want to read a couple of statements from teachers and parents, and students of local elementary schools in my city. In recent months, the immediate community surrounding our school has witnessed a noticeable increase in homelessness.

With this rise, there's been an alarming escalation in drug use in public spaces, accumulation of trash, incidents of crime. Perhaps the most distressing are the frequent occurrences of inappropriate behavior, including drug consumption in public use of profanity, threatening behavior and speech, public nudity, defecation, and urination on the public sidewalks often in the presence of young children who are walking to and from school. From a parent, this morning, a homeless man became aggressive and hostile toward me simply because he was asked to leave the area that children were walking to school.

The person refused to leave when law enforcement was called to remove them and all of the young kindergartners watched. This is not something that kindergarteners or any student should be experiencing on their way to school. From a student, while walking to school, it makes me feel very unsafe to have them walk by and sit on the sidewalk and even at one of the exits to our schools. It makes me feel anxious.

I don't understand why the police department won't help us. From another student, I feel nervous sometimes when I walk to school and usually try to walk with other people because the homeless scare me. I don't think it's right that I should feel nervous when all I want to do is go to school. From a parent, the behavior of these homeless individuals is not only vulgar, but it is harassing, also unsanitary.

Their living conditions often result in unsanitary uncleanliness, which poses a serious health risk for the children in our community. And finally, from the porter at one of our schools, every morning I have to clean, pee and poop off of the entrance. One time, a homeless man smeared his poop all over the emergency door. We need better tools in our cities to address these problems. Please vote for this modest improvement in our abilities to clear individuals who are illegally habitating and threatening the safety of our schools.

Thank you very much for having me.

Thank you. Can we have me toos in support? Please state your name, your organization, and that you support.

Ethan Nagler on behalf of the City of Carlsbad, in support.

Anybody else> Seeing none. We're going to move on to lead opposition. Lead opposition. We'll have two minutes to speak. Please state your name and why you oppose.

Brandon Green, Western Center. We oppose this Bill because it's inhumane and will result in the disappearance and exclusion of unhoused people. There's no difference between unhoused people and the public. They are members of the public. We've seen that it's ineffective in LA. And the people in San Diego were not housed, they were displaced. There's a difference. This relies on disproven tropes about the dangerousness of unhoused people. It's not fiscally sound.

It costs less to provide for people experiencing houselessness with a stipend which has been shown to be stabilizing, than to expand the criminal legal infrastructure and further target the disenfranchised. This would further entrench people within the criminal legal system and saddle them with debt that they can't pay. Approximately 70% of people experiencing houselessness have already been systems involved. It's anti-Black. Black people and people of color are overrepresented in the unhoused population and the criminal legal system. And this Bill would exacerbate both.

We know that the solutions to houselessness is more homes and more affordable housing. This Bill does neither and passes the buck to unhoused people instead of the government, which is actually responsible for the problem. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any other lead opposition?

You have two minutes.

Hello, my name is Des Martinez from Fresno County. I had the honor to be a part of UCSF BHHI California State Study, the largest representative study of homelessness in the United States since the mid-1990s. A few facts from the study are there are only 24 units for every hundred extremely low-income households in California. One in eight lost housing due to loss of income or rent increase. Nearly half of California unhoused are 50 plus and became unhoused for the first time of their lives.

The mental abuse that I endured on the streets pushed me to create advocacy page homeless in Fresno, to visually show others what we go through, the lack of resources, and to show the world about what unhoused people in this state face on a daily basis. I have witnessed and endured law enforcement over the years, searching, seizing, and destroying our property and our lives. I have witnessed and endured brutal punishments on us, especially the ones that suffer with physical disabilities. Punished because we don't move fast enough.

So everything is taken from us, our blankets, our food, clothing, medicine, tent tarps, even our dog food. Anything that would help us survive the next day. Since last summer, many displacements have been done under Fresno's sensitive use ordinance. This is the same as SB 1011. It has moved us from the middle of the city to the alleys to the dumpsters of the city. We have been run out of our own city limits due to this ordinance because it basically prevents us from being anywhere.

We are pushed into rural areas where it's extremely dangerous and we have no access to water, food, or any types of resources that might even help us out of homelessness. SB 1011 will ultimately destroy many lives by pushing people further away from services. SB 1011 will cause more individuals to contemplate suicide because they are tired of trying and losing hope. I can urge you today not to pass this, but I'm begging you, please give us hope back and say no to SB 1011.

We are dying trying to survive out here.

Thank you. Can I have me toos in opposition? Please state your name, your organization, and that you oppose.

Mark Stivers.

Thank you.

Sorry, take two. Mark Stivers with the California Housing Partnership in opposition.

Thank you.

Rachel Bhagwat, ACLU California action in opposition.

Thank you.

Bethlehem Desta with the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in respectful opposition.Thank you

Thank you.

Lukas Illa with the Coalition on Homelessness in San Francisco in firm opposition.

I'm Nikki Jones with the Sacramento Regional Coalition to End Homelessness and the Sacramento Organizing Committee in opposition.

Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair Members. Gregory Kramer, on behalf of Disability Rights California in opposition, and I've been authorized to convey opposition for additional groups. Housing is a Human Right Orange County, Orange County Equity Coalition, the San Clemente Affordable Housing Coalition, Helping Handups, the California Coalition for Housing and Survivor Justice, Santa Cruz YIMBY, Santa Rosa YIMBY, SLOCo YIMBY, Urban Environmentalists, and Grow the Richmond. Thank you.

Malcolm Harris, Power Building Director with the Residents United Network of Housing California in strong opposition.

Dylan Verner-Crist from Oakland, in opposition.

Jared Johnson from Sacramento, in opposition.

Ishvaku Vashishtha, Inner City Law Center, firm opposition.

Samuel Tsoi with Alliance San Diego in strong opposition.

Erin Tsurumoto Grassi, Associate Director at Alliance San Diego, strongly opposed.

Michelle Pariset with Public Advocates, in opposition.

Lauren Rebrovich with Housing California, and I'm also here on behalf of NoHo Home Alliance, the Children's Partnership, Community Works, YIMBY Action, Ventura County YIMBY, Streets for People, Southside Forward, Progress Noe Valley, South Bay YIMBY and Napa Solano for everyone in opposition. Thank you.

Natasha Minsker, Smart Justice California, and the San Francisco Public Defender's Office, in opposition.

Good morning. Lewis Brown Junior with the Corporation for Supportive Housing in opposition. I'd also like to state the opposition of the following organizations, the National Alliance to End Homelessness, California Public Defenders Association, the People Concerned, GLIDE Center for Social Justice, Tapestry Unitarian Universalist Congregation, Welcome Neighbors Home Initiative, East Bay YIMBY, Northern Neighbors, Mountain View YIMBY, Peninsula for Everyone, and San Francisco YIMBY.

Les Light, Sacramento Valley Tenants Association in firm and strong opposition.

Keith McHenry, all 50 Food Not Bombs groups in the state are in strong opposition. The California Union of the Homeless is in strong opposition. Santa Cruz Homeless Union is in strong opposition. Thank you.

Norma Orozco, Ella Baker, Center for Human Rights in strong opposition.

Leslie Caldwell Houston for the California Public Defenders Association, in opposition.

Michelle Perez, Vera Institute of Justice, in strong opposition.

Danica Rodarmel, registering strong opposition on behalf of Initiate Justice, Root and Rebound, Law Defensa, Californians for Safety and Justice, and Pacific Juvenile Defender Center.Thank you.

Thank you.

Mark Warner, Santa Cruz Free Guide, in opposition. I'm also a 20-year homeless vet.

Laura Chatum, Santa Cruz County Mental Health Advisory Board member, strong opposition.

John Drebinger, with the Steinberg Institute, in opposition.

Alicia Benavidez, on behalf of Drug Policy Alliance and Lands for Boys and Men of Color, in strong opposition.

Joyce, Camp Resolution, and Sacramento Homeless Union, strongly opposed.

Sharon Jones, with the Camp Resolution, strongly opposed.

Roxanna Gonzalez, Initiate Justice Action in strong opposition.

Henry Ortiz, with All of Us or None Sacramento and Community Healers, in opposition.

Hi, I'm Crystal Poutier with Fresno Homeless Union in opposition.

Robert Copeland, concerned citizen, strong opposition.

My name is Terry Murphy. I'm with Camp Resolution and the Homeless Union in strong opposition.

My name is Susan Alhawk. I am from Camp Resolution and I oppose on this.

My name is Danielle Wild. I'm from Camp Revolution and I'm strong opposed.

Jeronimo Aguilar here on behalf of legal services for prisoners with children and strong opposition. Thank you.

Alyssa Moore, All of Us or None Oakland, in strong opposition.

All right, thank you. That looks like we're done with the opposition. I'll bring the conversation back to Members of the Committee. Committee Members? Senator Skinner.

Those of you who read the New York Times may have woken up this morning to a feature in the Times by a man named Mark Horvath, who was homeless for eight years. And the feature is he turned out he ended up doing a set of YouTube videos where he has for the last, for many years now, been interviewing people who live on our streets and who are unhoused. And it's fascinating.

Basically, it comes down to that anyone in this room and any of us sitting on this dais, it's there but for fortune. And we could become that unhoused person at any circumstance because cost of housing and the lack of safety net. Yes, our residents do not want to see encampments. Totally appreciate that, but I cannot support a statewide Bill that does this. You have described the success of San Diego. There are obviously some people that debate whether that was a success or just a displacement of people, what have you.

But what it demonstrates is that any city that wants to do this can do this. So if a community wants to do this, they can pursue it. But for us to put it in law, it's kind of like trying to make a problem invisible versus addressing the core of the problem. Now when we say, look, people don't want to see these encampments, and the state is being blind to this. We have provided funding for cleanups, encampment resolutions.

We have done the state, you know, this is one of these debates. Whose problem is it really? Is it the state's problem or is it the locality's problem? I think all Californians who say don't necessarily argue. But if we look at the source, which is the fact that we have a lack of housing supply and lack of housing supply drives up prices. So thus we have not affordable housing and we have not provided enough subsidy for affordable housing.

And when you get into the subsidy issue, where does the subsidy come from? It's always historically been very little of subsidy for affordable housing has really been government. It's been private sector, and it's been private sector by allowing private sector to build market rate and then having, by giving them more ability to do more market rate than either the requirement to do some number of those units affordable or to pay into a fund.

But if we look over 50 years now, 50 years minimum, California local governments have suppressed the supply of housing. If we suppress the supply of something so needed as housing for 50 years, we are going to have the problem we have today, which is what we have today. And it was not the state that said local governments, make your crazy zoning, or say no to housing. It was these local governments.

The state has now begun to try to reverse that, but the local governments have a responsibility here also. So I am not comfortable with passing a state law that, in effect, a local community could do on its own, but that also basically tries to just decriminalize the people who are unfortunately the in a situation in most cases, because housing has become unaffordable.

Thank you, Senator Seyarto.

I agree with my colleague about housing being unaffordable and the process in which we got so far behind in California in trying to supply housing and have been able to watch firsthand as cities react to not having the ability to put in the infrastructure that's needed to support housing and the lack of investment and the introduction of a lot of processes, including the CEQA processes and things like that, all of our environmental processes that we go through, and rightfully so.

However, those have become huge barriers because the legal system supports anybody doing that. And so if we are not going to make those adjustments over the past 30, 40 years, when we see what the problem is and instead throw band-aid solutions at all of the different areas, we're going to continue to have that issue. But beyond that issue, there are different categories of people that have been immersed in homelessness. Some of them are mentally ill and they need help.

They are not making decisions that they would probably ordinarily make. And they can't organize their lives in a manner that will help them get out of the situation they're in and also manage the money that they do get, whether it's a state subsidy or from somewhere else. I've known homeless people that actually owned homes. They owned homes, then lived on the street wearing bags, literally with a shopping cart when they had a house.

But when you went to their house, there's glass sprinkled all over the driveway. Why? Because this person was mentally ill and did not get help. She had lots of money but she was very unorganized in her life. And those are people that we need to reach out and help. We had a slew of people that came forward to tell us about what we shouldn't be doing. Well, what the hell should we be doing? Because right now we're not doing anything.

And this is just a step to making people start doing something to try to get the ones that want to go down a path to get help, some help. Now, the other part of this is the utilization of our public spaces. When a public space becomes a homeless encampment, it is no longer a public space. It is an area that used to be a public space that has been taken over.

And that area should be available to everybody, including people who are homeless, that want to come and enjoy that public space and then move on. We have a lot of CBOs out there, community-based organizations that we have entrusted with a lot of money to try to help with this problem. And the result, the end result is that we have 40,000 more homeless people than we did when we really started trying to make an impact on this years ago.

So we're not doing, there's things that we are not doing right, and we need to start doing something to try to funnel people into programs that will actually help them get out of the situation they're in, not just enable them to continue that until they die, which will be a lot sooner than you or I. That is inhumane. Eating out of a garbage can is inhumane. Sleeping out in a sleeping bath that's soaking wet out on a sidewalk is inhumane.

While we walk by or drive by, I applaud my colleagues for stepping up, working with something that they've seen work before, and trying to make something happen that maybe, we'll see, if this helps make a dent, if this starts helping people, because so far I haven't seen a whole lot that is helping people that are in this situation, and I really want to see that improve. So today I will be supporting your Bill. In fact, I'm going to make the motion for it.

And again, I appreciate what you guys have done, put into this it Bill to actually try to help people. And I'm sure a lot of other people appreciate it, whether they know it or not. Thank you.

Thank you. You know, both of my colleagues have spoken on this matter, and I know I've spoken to the author directly about this matter. I personally just want to say, and I often try not to speak on a lot of the topics that come up because then our meetings would be very very long. But I do want to highlight the importance of this particular issue.

I understand what the authors are trying to do in the sense that you want your kids to be able to play in parks without any concern about just a random stranger or an individual with a mental health condition or substance abuse or anything like that that most people attribute to homelessness. But the reality is that our homeless population is not homeless because of the fact that they necessarily have an issue. But, and I'm going to reference this because I think that data is very important.

In Alameda County, one of the counties that I represent, we had a point-in-time count. I'm not going to reference the latest one because those numbers have not come out yet. But the one from 2022 came out, and it said what might have prevented homelessness. 49% said rent assistance. Right? And if you really think about it, the majority of us are one or two paychecks away from not being able to afford our rent. We have skyrocketing utilities costs, skyrocketing inflation.

We have a significant concern with the cost of pretty much anything and everything, including groceries. Right? And rents keep going up at a level that is not sustainable. I know with many of my colleagues, I have talked about this a number of times that, yes, we have in the state a state ceiling of rent control at roughly 10%. But if you take a look at it, our fastest-growing homeless population is seniors, and they are on a fixed income.

Let's say they are on Social Security, and the average senior does not have a pension, does not have these benefits. And I really want to highlight that and stress that because they rely on Social Security, and Social Security does not go up year over year over year over year at 5%, 3%, you know, 10% is unheard of, including our union members that are working and able to, you know, increase their funds.

They do not, including our police force, do not get a 5% increase in their pay year over year. And I really want to put that into context. Right? So if the average person is getting $1,200 on their Social Security, $2,000, and all of it goes to rent. And let's be honest, rents, even in Sacramento, for a studio here in midtown, it's nearly about $2,000. Right? And if you're talking about starter homes, the average home cost in California is over $700,000.

And we are competing with corporations, investments from out of state, and much more. We cannot house people. And I know that the conversation at the state level has been development, development. Streamline, streamline, streamline. And, yes, that is one part of the equation, but it's not the only one. In Alameda County, we have 9,747 unsheltered individuals, and at the same time, we have nearly 30,000 vacant units in the same county.

We can house people three times over, and the importance is actually to keep people housed, and we have not been doing that. We have a significant group of individuals that come into this building every single day to advocate for the interest of property owners. And I fully understand that. I fully agree with an asset being an investment to some degree. However, we have to prioritize the social good of our entire community.

And just because individuals that are unhoused make people uncomfortable does not mean that it should be criminalized. And this Bill does, that the penalties will just be added to their already difficult situation of paying for things. Right? And I think it's important to talk to our kids and so forth as to the need for community as a whole. It is not just the wealthy and the homeowners that make up that community. It is our unhoused populations.

It is the fact that in my city, there was an individual that was just a normal high school kid that played football. Their family was very, you know, involved in taking care of them and so forth. Got into a car accident and had traumatic brain injury, something that can happen to literally any one of us. And their family could not keep up taking care of them because it took away from the rest of their family members, it took away from their job.

It took away from their quality of life. That individual ended up on the streets and can't necessarily communicate or anything. And that person deserves all the services that we as a society can provide them. And yet we, for some reason, still can't even do that. So we're not winning on either side. We are not providing enough services for people, and yet, at the same time, we are not preventing homelessness and much more. And for a personal point of privilege, I'm going to share.

My family home was foreclosed upon during the Great Recession, and it is very uncomfortable to kind of go through that process. And at the same time, when you are dealing with that and you're seeing that again, we are talking about different governments and what their role is. The Federal Government bailed out the banks with a cash infusion, if you guys remember that. And the banks also kept the assets that they took from millions of Americans and resold it, making quite some dough right there.

And so I really want to highlight that we have not solved the homelessness crisis. We have not solved the housing crisis. We have not done any of the things that need to happen with that. I personally will not be supporting this, and I've had the conversations with both authors and as well as other Members who have been co-authors. This is an incredibly important issue. However, I don't think that this is the appropriate way to engage on this particular matter.

And I have the utmost respect for tackling this issue and hopefully we can find something that works for all of us. And I thank you guys for bringing this forward. I know that you guys are going to continue to work on this and we hope that we can work together on this. And I believe we have a motion. I will allow you guys to close.

Thank you very much. I appreciate that. Madam Chair. I want to first of all thank the witnesses in support of the Bill. I sent everybody, and it's online now, a video testimony from Doctor Drew, who is very engaged on this issue, wanted to be here this morning, but wasn't able to make it happen in his schedule, but did provide that video testimony for the Committee and for the public. I want to thank Mister Bowman for being here again because he's very committed to this issue.

As a survivor of homelessness, I hope that we'll take his comments to heart. I think one of the things that he shared this morning that should be very impactful on all of us is that it took multiple contacts from agencies, even law enforcement, social services when he was living through homelessness. If he hadn't been motivated by those constant touches from the authorities, he would not have gotten himself off the street. And I think that that's a very important aspect of this Bill.

I want to thank Mayor Franklin for coming out and talking specifically to his issues in his city, which so many cities across the state share. In regards to the comments regarding why do we need a statewide policy on this, I think it's very important to consider a couple of things. I think, number one, it demonstrates that this Legislature is serious about dealing with the homeless issue in California.

It shows that the state is supporting our city governments and sends a message to the constituents that the Legislature is fully involved and engaged in the issue. Second, a statewide measure that is confidently constitutional will provide guidance and support to the cities who may be unsure of how to proceed with their encampment issues. And finally, a statewide measure would lift from the bottom, broadening the homeless discussion and generating momentum necessary to push all levels in society to make change.

I also want to thank the witnesses in opposition. There's dozens and dozens of people that made the trip and the trek to the Capitol this morning, which is for most of California, is not an easy thing to do. It's not easy to get to Sacramento. It's not easy to get into this building. So it's not easy to get up the elevators. Fortunately, there's only one floor they had to go up. Fortunately, they're not going up to the higher offices.

But I understand the commitment it takes and the seriousness that this issue is to those folks that made that commitment to be here. And, you know, overwhelmingly, one of the things I hear on this particular Bill is this is not the solution. And I've said from the very beginning, this is not the solution. And I don't think that California is so far down the line on homelessness that there isn't one solution that's going to fix it. But there's 120 legislators.

We have two legislators this morning co-authoring this Bill. That leaves 118 other legislators to come up with good ideas as well. And I would welcome that discussion that all 120 of us come to the table with one idea that moves the needle in a positive direction on homelessness in California.

And one thing, just to close my close, and then I'll let Senator Blakespear have the last word, is one of the things that the opposition has said continuously is that this is inhumane and it criminalizes homelessness. That is absolutely 100% not the goal of this Bill or this issue. The goal of this Bill is to humanely help people lift themselves off the street. And sometimes it takes a touch from the social service agencies, sometimes it takes a touch from law enforcement.

But I can tell you that I have law enforcement officers in my family, and I've done ride-alongs with them and seen the professionalism of our law enforcement in California, the compassionate caring of our law enforcement in California. They want to help these people, too, and they need the tools to do it.

And I know that the folks that work in our social services departments in our counties also want to be helpful and have a compassionate ability to positively engage the homeless community and have a positive impact. So, Members, thank you very much for your comments. I hope that we can convince you to vote aye on this Bill. I do appreciate the dialogue and look forward to continuing working on this issue. I'll turn it over to Senator Blakespear.

Thank you.

Well, thank you. I just, I first want to say thank you to Madam Chair for your comments and also to Senator Skinner for your comments and Senator Seyarto, as well as the witnesses who came, Mayor Franklin, who came from Vista this morning, on a flight and also the other primary witness, as well as all the people who came in opposition to speak against this, and especially to Mayor Jones behind me for bringing this, or, sorry, to Senator Jones behind me for bringing this forward.

Because what I really, truly want to see is all of us focused on this problem. And I think to Senator Skinner's point about local governments having suppressed housing over many decades, that what's really important, and to me is so clear is that all of the levels of government who are responsible for this are all saying that the other level needs to do more.

And what it means is that no one's owning the problem, that the cities are pointing at the county saying they're supposed to provide for homeless services, and counties are saying we don't have enough money and we don't do land use. And then the state is saying, hey, we're providing a lot of grants and a lot of money. And the reality is that I want to work on this problem. I see this as a top state problem. I want to see energy from my colleagues on it.

And in order to do that, as was mentioned, we have 120 legislators and having. Where is our Homelessness Subcommittee? Where is the homelessness advocate? Where are the bills on homelessness? There are literally almost none. This is one of the very few. And we have a problem with encampments and we have a problem with people not having a place to go. And so we need to be talking seriously about public housing. We need to be talking about cities having an obligation around homelessness. Right now there is none.

Cities have an obligation around zoning for housing, but not around homelessness. And there are obligations there. We're not talking seriously about rental subsidies, as Madam Chair said, is one of the things that's most effective. Our seniors are the ones falling into homelessness the most, as she said.

And the reality is this is getting worse and worse and worse every year as we continue to say, well, we're trying to provide more supply-side approach of building more housing, and that is just not going to solve the problem. And meanwhile, we have this burgeoning, ongoing humanitarian crisis.

So I would love to hear from the opposition, come and talk to my office, reach out to my staff about things that you think we can do, because I am interested in what we can do in this state. And not saying it's just about money. It's not just about money. It's about a variety of policy things and approaches to land use, and it's about money. But we need to be having those conversations.

And I do not perceive that we're having them at the legislative level, and I think we need to be having them. So there's urgency here. I urge your aye vote, because this is something we can do. I recognize that that's maybe not likely today, but I think it's really important that we see this as one step in the future, toward the future, that hopefully we can actually start to see progress here. Thank you again, Madam Chair, for allowing such a fulsome discussion of this.

And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. I do want to highlight that you guys have been nothing but gracious in working on this important issue. So thank you for that. We have a motion by Senator Seyarto. Can we call roll?

Motion is do pass to Appropriations. [Roll call]

That bill's on call. Thank you, Senator Ashby. Thank you for waiting. Senator Ashby will be presenting SB 989. I will also ask our sergeants to start calling other Members. Thank you, Senator Ashby. Whenever you're ready.

All right. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd like to start by. I'd like to start by accepting the Committee's amendments. And, Madam Chair, thanking your staff for, once again, helping us appreciate it. They were great, diligent, and very helpful. Today, I am proud to present SB 989, which we call the Domestic Violence Deaths Act. SB 989 enhances investigation protocols surrounding domestic violence related deaths by empowering investigators with evidence based detection methods to identify potentially suspicious cases.

This Bill gives coroners the authority to inquire into deaths they deem suspicious and expands rights to immediate family members to obtain information about their deceased loved ones. Nearly a third of female homicide victims are killed by an intimate partner. Additionally, experts estimate that around 1,200 hidden homicides occur annually, often disguised as staged crime scenes. Crime scene staging creates significant challenges for investigators, leading to inaccurate death classifications often deemed as suicides or accidents. Research has identified 10 evidence based factors that warrant thorough investigations into suspicious deaths.

They're listed on page six of your analysis, and in the interest of time today, I will not read through them. SB 989 adds these factors into investigation protocols, requiring law enforcement to consider them before determining a cause of death. This Bill equips investigators, coroners, and, importantly, families with the necessary tools and detection measures to identify suspicious cases.

Instead of ruling these deaths as suicide without further investigation, 989 ensures that law enforcement conduct more thorough investigations into suspicious deaths involving domestic violence and establish a voice for families who have long been silenced. Madam Chair, I have two support witnesses with me today. Casey Gwinn, who is the President at the Alliance for Hope International, and I have Sacramento Fire Captain Joe Hunter.

Thank you. You'll have two minutes.

Thank you, Senator Ashby. And thank you to the Chair and the Committee. My name is Casey Gwinn. I'm the President of Alliance for Hope International, and I'm honored to be here today representing our CEO, Gael Strack, the Training Institute on Strangulation Prevention, and literally hundreds of law enforcement officers, medical professionals, forensic examiners, and others who work on these types of cases, both in California and across the country.

SB 989 will be the first Bill in the country to address suspicious death cases where there is a prior history of domestic violence that has not been adequately investigated or documented. Senator Ashby's authorship of this Bill with Senator Rubio for us is a groundbreaking, historic moment in our effort to raise awareness about suspicious death cases. As Senator Ashby touched on, the Bill basically has a set of findings, and it has four key elements as to the findings. First, the findings are all evidence based research.

Nothing in those legislative findings is not backed up by published research on the kinds of cases that are being missed at times by investigators who rush to a conclusion that a case is an accident, accidental death, or a suicidal death, when in fact, it may be something very different. Second, the Bill adds family members to those who have access to records from a medical examiner or a coroner. Right now, only an heir, a legal heir, has access to those records.

And in the cases of domestic violence homicide, the legal heir may actually be the killer. We believe family members should have the same access to records.

Third, the Bill adds apparent suicidal or accidental death where there is an identifiable history of domestic violence to become a suspicious death for the purpose of medical examiners and coroners considering whether an autopsy should be done in that particular case, much like other suspicious deaths, are actually named in the statute, but cases with a history of domestic violence have never been named.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. We urge your support.

Thank you. Next witness. You'll have two minutes as well.

Good morning, and thank you very much. Thank you. Senator Ashby, you're amazing. My name is Joseph Hunter, and I am a captain with the Sacramento City Fire Department for over 17 years. In 2023 alone, there were more than 3,553 calls for service surrounding violent crime with relationship to domestic violence. That's nearly 10 calls per day for service in this city alone. I can tell you that a Bill, simply put, like SB 989, enhances the protocol for investigating suspicious death with a history of domestic violence.

Simply put, it needs to happen. It's powerful. It can save lives and it can bring justice to victims. I can tell you this, that in all this time, I never thought I would be on this side of the podium speaking to you now. And I can say on October 6, 2011 at 8:47 in the morning, when my sister was the victim of domestic violence, it changed my life and everything in it forever. A Bill like SB 989 would have changed her life.

Joanna Hunter would still be here, with something like this in play. This Bill will bring justice to Joanna Hunter and so many other victims like her. This is something that's impactful, it's meaningful, and it can change the way we handle things. And victims. All I want to leave you with is it was once said that for evil to prevail, all that is required is for good people to do nothing. Let's do something about this. Thank you.

Thank you. Can we move on to witnesses in support? Please state your name your and that you support.

Thank you. Faith Whitmore from the Sacramento Regional Family Justice Center in strong support.

Kristen Schlessel, Deputy District Attorney at Sacramento County District Attorney's office, on behalf of California District Attorneys Association, in support.

Joyce Blue with the Sacramento Regional Family Justice Center in support and on behalf of Voices, Survivors of Domestic Violence Network throughout California, in support.

Thank you. I'm Patricia Hunter. I'm strongly in support of this. In honor of my daughter Joanna, I want to make this personal. I'll try to do it quickly. On October 7, 2011 I was preparing to teach my first class of ELD students when the office called and said.

Please state your name, your organ that you support. Sorry, yeah, we're only at me twos.

I'm sorry, Patricia Hunter. I recognize the name of the person. I'm sorry,

Sorry, and I know you have something to share, but we're trying to stick to this name organization and that you support.

I'm a client of the family justice center. Thank you. Thank you. And strongly support.

Thank you.

Karina Powers, chair of the RNHA California I strongly support.

Thank you.

Peggy Delgado Fava, Bridge Network survivor of domestic violence

Yvette Corcoran and survivor of domestic violence. I strongly support.

Thank you. Moving on to lead opposition witnesses. Lead opposition will have two minutes. Seeing none, we'll move on to. Me, too. Opposition. Seeing none, we will move to Committee Members. Senator, Seattle moves the Bill. Would you like to close, Senator?

Yeah. This Bill, at its heart, is about. Who gets to speak for you when you're gone and you heard from family Members and you heard from advocates, and there is a need to expand. Who can speak up on your behalf if you die in a suspicious manner to your family. I urge an aye vote, and I thank you for your time.

Thank you. The Bill is moved by Senator Seyarto. Can we call a roll call? Motion is do pass as amended, to Judiciary Committee. [Roll Call] That bill's on call. Thank you. Thank you. Senator Becker will be presenting SB 1133. Senator, whenever you're ready.

Thank you. Thank you. Chair and Members. Here to present SB 1133, the Reasonable Reconsideration Act. The Bill takes a common sense approach to improving the pretrial system here in California. I'd like to start by thanking you, Chair, and the Committee staff for their work on this Bill. I will be accepting technical amends proposed by the Committee this morning.

When a person appears before the court for the first time, a judge typically sets their bail amount in a matter of minutes or even seconds, and without much information in front of them to inform that decision. As a result, there are many circumstances that can arise after that initial hearing to justify a modification of the initial bail amounts. But it's not always easy to get back into court to argue to make that happen.

Current law allows for automatic review of a bail determination if a person is still in custody five days after the initial bail amount was set. At that point, it's often too late to avoid some of the primary harms of pretrial incarceration, such as loss of employment, loss of housing, or even custody of children. Current law does not codify additionally, does not codify the standard that judges must follow when reviewing initial amounts of bail said at these automatic review hearings.

Nor does it define, quote unquote, good cause for setting subsequent hearing. And as a result, judges take drastically different approaches across the state. Finally, at a person's arraignment, a judge has the option to order someone be released penny trial if they agree to abide by certain conditions. With ever increasing case processing times, it's important that judges are regularly reevaluating whether restrictive pretrial conditions are actually necessary to address the perceived risks. This Bill 1133 addresses these issues by strengthening existing law governing automatic bail review hearings.

Clearly, one, secondly, clearly defining good cause for reviewing bail at later hearings, and thirdly, creating an automatic review period for non-monetary pretrial conditions. Again, this Bill really is all also about preserving judicial discretion. There's nothing in this Bill that removes judicial discretion at all. Revisiting bail is a critical opportunity to reduce the risks of detaining individuals who are not a risk of the public, but who simply cannot afford that money. With me today, my primary witness, Michelle Parris, program Director from Vera Institute for Justice.

Thank you. You'll have two minutes? Yes.

Okay, great. My name is Michelle Parris. I'm the Director of Vera California, a local initiative of the Vera Institute of Justice. Vera has been working on pretrial policy across the country for the last 60 years with a focus on delivering both safety and justice. I'm here today in strong support of SB 1133. This Bill is straightforward. It would improve opportunities for review of pretrial decisions.

It clarifies existing procedures, as Senator Becker said, for bail review in appropriate circumstances, and it ensures that throughout the court process, there are reviews of pretrial conditions, like electronic monitoring. While the proposed changes are modest, they're also important. A well informed bail decision is a matter of public safety. Just 24 hours of jail incarceration increases a person's risk of being re arrested because they can lose their job, their home, their community ties, wrecking not only their life, but also their families.

Onerous pretrial conditions like electronic monitoring, can do the same, making our communities less safe. Yet across California, judges often make these determinations, as Senator Becker said, in minutes or even seconds, with limited and insufficient information. Once a court sets bail and imposes pretrial conditions, those decisions are not often revisited, even when there's important information, like someone getting into a treatment program, obtaining stable housing, or getting a plea offer to a lesser charge. In the case of pretrial conditions, there is no set process for review.

This is especially important for conditions like electronic monitoring, which is skyrocketing in many California counties despite its limited effectiveness and well documented potential for unintended harm. By ensuring appropriate chances for judges to revisit pretrial decisions, SB 1133 will bring necessary clarity, consistency, and fairness to the pretrial process, all while maintaining the public safety every Californian deserves. Thank you to the Committee staff for their help in refining the language before you, and I respectfully ask that you vote aye on this Bill.

Thank you. Is this your only witness?

Okay, can we get the me toos in line? Name, org. You guys know how I like to do this.

Yes.

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

Danica Rodarmel for Initiate Justice Law Defense and Californians for Safety and Justice in support.

Rachel Bhagwat with ACLU California Action in support.

Bethlehem Desta with the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in support. Thank you.

Norma Orozco with the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in support.

Natasha Minsker, Smartosis California, San Francisco Public Defenders in support.

Henry Ortiz, All of Us or None in Sacramento in support.

Head on. Amar, you out here. On behalf of legal services for prisoners with children in strong support. Thank you.

Roxanna Gonzalez, an issue, justice action, strong support.

Alyssa Moore, All of Us or None, Oakland in strong support.

Thank you. We'll move on to lead opposition witnesses.

Good morning. My name is Jeff Clayton, Executive Director of the American Bail Coalition. Noted opposition, but really the issue in California is a lack of consistency in terms of pretrial due process reviews from bails you can't afford. We can see that there is a problem in California with this and have conceded that for numerous years. Three years ago, the California Supreme Court issued the Humphrey decision and in it, Justice Cuellar says there's a lack of comprehensive procedures for bail reviews in California.

But he also notes that they would be glad to decide those procedures. But it's up to you all to come up with those procedures. And so we think a codification of the Humphrey decision, a reason approach, would be a better approach to solve the problems here. We worry that given the status of Los Angeles and other court systems that imposing additional hearings without getting to the heart of the Humphrey issue is going to stall folks in jail unnecessarily.

So we would hope that the sponsor on this Committee would encourage the system, the courts, the prosecutors and the defenders to codify Humphrey once and for all and solve this problem. Unfortunately, we don't think this Bill does that. We think it's a second hearing to look at whether we complied in the first instance. So thank you for your time. We wish you a good day.

Thank you. I appreciate that. Do we have any other lead opposition witnesses seeing none. We're going to move on to. Me too, in opposition. If we have me too. State your name, your org that you oppose.

Madam Chair, Carl London, on behalf of the Golden State Bail Agents Association, also in opposition to this Bill.

Thank you.

David Quintana with the California Bail Agents Association in opposition.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Jack Yanos, on behalf of Bail Hotline Bail Bonds and Financial Casualty and Surety in opposition.

Thank you.

Kristin Schlessel, Deputy District Attorney, Sacramento County, on behalf of California District Attorneys Association in opposition unless amended.

Thank you. Do we have anybody else seeing. None. Bringing the conversation back to Committee Members. Committee Members. Senator Seyarto, do you have any? Member? Vice Chair.

Yeah, just a couple of comments on this one. My concern with the Bill, frankly, is the load that it's going to automatically put on the court system that is already drowning in other mandates from the Legislature for re sentencing, care, court, etcetera. The Humphrey decision, if that could be implemented, it already puts additional load on the court system.

So essentially what you're doing is we're creating automatic hearings, additional hearings that we don't have court space, we don't have judges, and we don't have the personnel to process. And so until we're able to do those things, are you going to be asking for a budget, a budget request to be able to fund all those things?

Because we need the infrastructure to put all these great ideas into real use, and right now we don't have it, and I don't see it on the horizon, and I don't see anybody fighting to ensure that we have a court system that can handle all of this. So is there a budget request on the horizon for you to support the additional court infrastructure needed to make this even feasible?

Chair. Thank you. First of all, I'll make three points. Maybe my witness can briefly comment when I hear you about the courts, the general burden on the courts. Number two, we believe this does not impose additional burdens, and I'll explain why. The first part is really moving the five day to three days. We already have the five days, which is moving it to the three day. Second is really clarifying some of the standards. The third part is additional hearing.

This is sort of the 60 days review, the non additional things like electronic monitoring, things like that. But we specifically designed it to have that part of other, there are other reasons people have to reappear. So the idea is it happens in that 60 days, but it's aligned with other times. They're already reappearing. Can I have my witness answer very briefly on that?

Yes.

Yes, I would just reiterate that two out of the three hearings are ones that already exist. So with respect to the Humphrey decision, we're just clarifying the evidentiary standard that judges should be using consistently across the state. Those hearings are already happening. That evidentiary standard is the law of the land. We're just putting that into the law. So there are small tweaks for two hearings that are already happening.

And the third hearing, as Senator Becker said, we believe the courts actually do have the infrastructure to absorb these hearings into regular court dates. This is not a full blown trial. This is simply reconsidering simple conditions that were imposed. We've talked to practitioners around the state. I've personally gone to watch court in multiple places, including the courts that are recovering from backlogs, and the practitioners in those states pretrial services believe that these types of hearings can be in consideration, can actually be absorbed into court dates.

We also know that the number of criminal cases has been decreasing over the years, and that we think that with the existing infrastructure, with the hearings that are already happening, and now a lot of courts actually being in a decent place recovering from some of the backlogs, that we think that this can be absorbed into the infrastructure without any additional resources.

Interesting. Thank you.

Thank you. Would you like to close?

Yeah. Again, I think we covered a couple of the big issues, and happy to keep working with the opposition going forward, believe we can work with them and respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Do we have a motion? Do we have a motion? All right, we don't have a motion. We will wait for other Members. I want to make it very clear to Members in the public. As Chair, I cannot make a motion, so I have to rely on Committee Members who are at other committees. So thank you, and we'll let you know how it goes. Okay, thank you.

We next have Senator Glazer, but because Senator Smallwood-Cuevas was here first, I'm going to take her, if you don't mind.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair, and we're going to move through this item quickly. And thank you, colleague, for this opportunity to present SB 1484. And I want to say a special thanks to your staff for their detailed analysis on this Bill. And I also want to thank the Attorney General, Rob Banta, who is sponsoring this Bill, as well as his staff for all of their hard work. In 2018, the Legislature passed SB 439.

Authored by then Senator Holly Mitchell, this Bill intended to protect California's children by completely limiting the juvenile court's jurisdiction in cases involving youth under the age of 12. While the intent of the Bill was to entirely prevent youth under the age of 12 from contact with the court system, unintentional omissions in the welfare and institutions code have left these children vulnerable to expedited and informal procedures adjudicating youth charged for non-violent crimes.

This unintentional omission has created confusion regarding the minimum age limits of youth who may be subject to such informal and expedited processes. This Bill would clarify that the age restrictions enacted in SB 439 also apply even in the context of informal and expedited proceedings. In other words, children under 12, we do not want to normalize the process of them being in a court system, particularly when they are faced with nonviolent infractions. So these informal and expedited proceedings look different throughout the state.

But in some counties, youth may be referred to informal traffic courts or proceedings before juvenile hearing officers, and in these proceedings, youth may not have a public defender present or an attorney present, and they may face significant fines and penalties. From the California Department of Justice's review of the 2022 Racial and Identity Profiling Act, data identified more than 1,600 traffic stops statewide involving youth under the age of 12 that led to a citation.

These youth were cited for such conduct as seatbelt citations, bike related citations, pedestrian citations. Some of these citations have resulted in youth under 12 being referred to to informal proceedings. The Legislature has already agreed that children under the age of 12 do not belong in our courts. SB 1484 is a common sense clarification that children under the age of 12 must be protected from negative impacts of the justice system involvement, even in informal and expedited proceedings.

Joining me today are Justin Rausa, Deputy Legislative Director for Attorney Rob Bonta, and Damon Brown, special assistant to the Attorney General.

I'm so sorry. You have three witnesses? Two.

Two.

Okay, you'll have two minutes.

Chair, Mister Vice Chair, appreciate the opportunity to discuss SB 1484 with you on behalf of the sponsor, Attorney General Rob Bonta. We also would like to thank the Committee Council for the detailed Bill analysis and applaud Senator Smallwood-Cuevas for her authorship of SB 1484.

To add to the author's presentation, the Bureau of Children's justice was formed within the Civil Rights Enforcement section at the California Department of Justice in 2015 to safeguard equal opportunities so that every child in the State of California can meet their full potential. The Bureau of Children Justices investigative work addresses systemic issues that impact children and youth across the state, focusing on remedying patterns or practices of discriminatory practices, policies, or procedures.

As noted in the chameleon analysis, it has come to our attention in monitoring implementation of SB 439 that some minors under the age of 12 continue to be adjudicated through informal courts or tribunals and other expedited programs, typically without counsel. SB 1484 is an important Bill to close the gaps in other welfare and institutions. Code sections that clearly fall within the scope of SB 439, chaptered in 2018.

That legislation was intended to apply to all circumstances where the youth under 12 were subject to court processes as set forth through the welfare and institutions code. With me today, I have special Assistant Attorney General Damon Brown, who advises the Attorney General on civil rights matters. If there are any questions, we respectfully ask for your aye vote on behalf of these children across the state that require an age appropriate approach, especially for nonviolent infractions per existing statute. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, we're going to move on to witnesses in support. Me toos.

Danica Rodarmel, on behalf of Root and Rebound, in strong support.

Rachel Bhagwat, on support. On behalf of ACLU California Action in support.

Alicia Benavidez, on behalf of Alliance for Boys, Men of Color in strong support.

Bethel. I'm Desta. On behalf of the Ella Baker center of Human Rights and strong support. Thank you.

Henry Margulad, here, on behalf of Legal Services for Prisoners with Children in support.

Thank you.

Henry Ortiz, on behalf of All of Us in the Sacramento chapter in support.

Alyssa Moore, All of Us or None. Oakland, in support.

Roxana Gonzalez, Initiate Justice Action, strong support.

Moving on to opposition witnesses seeing none, me, too in oppo seeing none. We'll move back to Committee. No comments. All right, Senator, would you like to close?

Leslie Caldwell Houston. California Public Defenders Association in support. Thank you.

I just want to thank you so much. And thank, special thanks to witnesses and technical support today. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Do we have a motion? We will wait for other Members to come to make a motion and we'll let you know. Thank you.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair. Thank you, colleague.

We are going to move on to any other. Okay, let's do consent. Senator, would you like to make a motion? So, a motion has been made by Senator Seyartoto move the consent calendar. Can we call roll? [Roll Call] That bill's on call or those bills are on call. Can we make sure other Senators are in the room, please? Thank you. That's a good idea. That's a wonderful idea. Thank you, Senator. SB 1317. I will be presenting my own Bill.

Welcome, Senator Wahab. And you're going to be presenting your bill, SB 1317. You may proceed whenever you're ready.

Thank you. Colleagues and members of the public, I want to thank the Committee for their work on this bill and will be accepting their amendments. SB 1317 extends for five years the sunset date for seeking court orders to administer involuntary psychiatric medication to those with severe mental health disorders who are detained in county jails.

Penal Code Section 2603 currently authorizes psychiatrists in county jails to obtain an involuntary medication order for persons in custody who are a danger to themselves and or others are suffering from grave disabilities and unable to give consent. Previous legislation extended the sunset date to January 1, 2025. By extending the sunset date an additional five years, this bill would ensure counties continue to have appropriate tools to address the mental health treatment needs of the most vulnerable individuals in county jails in a humane manner.

SB 1317 would also require counties that elect to use this authority to submit specific reporting information. Testifying today is Kara Sandberg, deputy counsel of the County of Santa Clara.

Thank you. You'll have two minutes. Thank you.

Thank you. Good morning, Chair Wahab and honorable Members of the Senate Public Safety Committee. My name is Kara Sandberg. I'm a deputy county council and a member of the Jail Reform and Custody Operations team in the office of the county council, County of Santa Clara. I'm here today to speak on behalf of the County of Santa Clara, the sponsor of Senator Wahab's SB 1370. Thank you, Senator Wahab, for your leadership on this matter.

So, in 2022, the County of Santa Clara began using the authority granted under Penal Code Section 2603 to seek involuntary medication orders for persons incarcerated in our jails that are suffering from acute psychiatric needs. In extreme circumstances, we rely on the authority granted under Section 2603 to provide appropriate mental health care to incarcerated individuals. We take a collaborative approach to care for patients in this context. Our custody health psychiatrists and psychologists are deeply committed to serving persons incarcerated in our jails with excellent care.

The county council's office actively engages with our public defender's office throughout the Section 2603 petition process, and we have a shared goal of ensuring appropriate and necessary mental health care to support and stabilize our patients. We exercise care before using the authority granted under Section 2603. The administration of an involuntary medication is considered an intervention of last resort, but it is necessary in instances when a person is experiencing an acute crisis, is decompensating, and is unable to grant consent for their own care.

Absent legislative action, the authority for counties to seek a court order to administer necessary stabilizing medication will lapse on January 1, 2025. This would leave counties without a critical tool to address the considerable mental health needs of county jail populations. I note that this measure retains the important procedural protections embodied in existing law, which require us to provide an update to the court that has authorized the involuntary medication order every 60 days.

Penal code Section 2603 offers an option to stabilize a person in the county's care who's experiencing a severe mental health crisis and is at risk of deterioration, victimization, or causing harm to themselves or others.

If you can wrap up, I appreciate that.

We thank you for this opportunity to present SB 1317 and encourage your most positive consideration.

Thank you.

Our next speaker, or next witness, I should say, is Randall Hagar, legislative advocate, Psychiatric Physicians Alliance of California.

Thank you.

Sir, you have two minutes. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to the author. I was part of the original group, California Psychiatric Association, that brought this legislation. The reason we did this is one of our psychiatrists was kind of a circuit writer in some of the smaller jails in Northern California. He was on faculty at UC Davis in the forensic psychiatry program. And because there is something like 100,000 individuals who are treated for mental illness in our jails every year, he pointed out a really important problem.

The fact was that if you were adjudicated and you were serving your time, you could get access to the procedure and get medication. If you're in prison, same thing. If you're in the community, same thing. And so what we discovered is that there was this gap in treatment, and because of that, people with disorders like schizophrenia were not able to gain access to medications. And because of that, they were a danger to themselves, a danger to others.

They often disrupted and attacked staff in the conduct of their duties. And so this legislation has been used throughout the state. Where it's been used, it does work. It does allow access to medications. And on behalf of the Psychiatric Physicians Alliance, we urge your support for this.

Thank you very much. At this time, we'll take me toos in support of SB 1317. So just state your name, the organization you're from, and your support for the bill.

Yes, sir. Brandon Epp, on behalf of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department in support.

John Drebinger, with the Steinberg Institute, in support.

Clifton Wilson, on behalf of the California State Association of Psychiatrists, in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anybody in opposition that would like to speak as a lead witness in opposition? If not, is there anybody that just wants to come up and state their opposition? No. We'll bring it back to the dais. You can close.

Thank you. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

I know. Yes. And just for clarification, I cannot do a motion because I'm the Chair right now, and she can't do the motion because it's her bill. So you will all be able to wait in suspense until others arrive, and then we'll be able to take these up. In the meanwhile, other Senators that wish to have their bills heard, make haste through the hallways to get here. Thank you.

Thank you.

So, folks, we're going to recess for about 20 minutes. We'll be back at 11. I think you guys know how much I'd love to make sure we go through our Committee, but we have to wait for other Members of Committee Members who are in different committees, as well as authors who are in other committees as well. So things are happening simultaneously. We are going to take a little bit of a break again. We'll be back at 11. So a little, roughly 20 minutes. Thank you. Senator Grove, would you like to present SB 1414?

I apologize to the Chair. I have something in my throat.

Okay. And I just want to, again, highlight for those people that have just joined us again, since we just recess, the witnesses will be at this lectern. They will have two minutes. Both lead opposition, lead support, and then the me toos. Again, we would like for everybody to line up very quickly, your name, your organization, and whether you support or oppose. And then, Senator, whenever you are ready, I think I got a gavel. Sorry, we're back in.

Again. Apologies, Madam Chair. Good morning, Madam Chair. And Members. Before I begin, I want to thank each of you for meeting with me and talking and taking the time to discuss this important measure. There's been many recent discussions regarding human trafficking and legislative solutions to address this prevalent issue in California. And I want to thank all of you for not only engaging in these discussions, but more importantly, and specifically, for being a part of the solution. As you know, last year.

Thanks in large part because of this Committee, we passed SB 14 and made the crime of sex trafficking children a serious felony in the state of California. Due to the passage of SB 14, traffickers across the state have been successfully charged with this heinous crime and have been stopped for exploiting additional children. We know how horrendous sex trafficking of children is.

The unimaginable pain, anguish, and grief caused by these callous acts leaves long emotional and physical scars on its victims, if they're lucky enough to even make it out alive. We've all focused our attention as much as we should have on the traffickers themselves and the brutality of selling a child. And unfortunately, we haven't focused enough on the buying side of the equation. We know how that supply and demand works.

In order to sell a child for sex, there must be someone willing to purchase that child for sex. That's why we're here today, to address the purchasers and put a stop to those who would pay to have sex with children. Currently in California, any person who solicits, agrees to engage in, or engages in any act of commercial sex with a minor is charged only with a misdemeanor.

Now, there are certain exceptions in the law which allow an offender to be charged with a felony for having sex with a minor. The challenge is often that requires special circumstances. For example, many of the statutes will only charge a purchaser with a more severe punishment if the child is under 14 years old. Additional requirements include force, sodomy, assault, and lack of consent.

As a result, juvenile sex offender victims between the ages of 14 and 17 who are often being exploited in order to allow a buyer to avoid harsher penalties. Let me be clear. A minor can never consent to sex trafficking. The opposition has stated there are many runaways in young adults, ages 15, 16, and 17, that use child prostitution per se as a voluntary means of survival. Our coalition of survivors that are here today would say that's not true.

Traffickers, gangs, and pimps run the street with such a tight grip that it's nearly impossible to act alone. In fact, survivors like Breonna Moseley, who trafficked as a teen that's here with us today, will tell you that any teenager selling themselves alone on the streets will get swooped up and pimped out nearly immediately. In the state of California, you have to be 18 to buy a lottery ticket, colleagues, 21 to purchase cigarettes because they're so detrimental to your health.

But somehow there are individuals who think that selling your body for sex at 16 years old is old enough and it should be okay. Regulating the tobacco industry but not commercial sexual exploitation of children seems rather troublesome to me. Buying a child for sex at any age should be treated as a serious crime that it is.

That's why I've introduced SB 1414, a bipartisan measure that's joint authored by Senator Caballero and Senator Rubio, which states that any individual who solicits, agrees to engage in, or engages in the act of commercial sex with a minor will face felony charges. Members, I want to remind you that we are not discussing statutory rape or romantic relationships. We're talking about commercial sexual exploitation of children.

And I hope we can all agree here today that repeatedly buying children for sex should be considered a felony in the state of California. A study by the Orange County Human Trafficking Task Force shows that in 2021 and 2022, two out of every five victims that were contacted were children at the time of the first point of contact. Many adults who are being trafficked now were bought as kids.

So if we consider two out of every five victims as a child, and they're being sold five to 10 times a day, the numbers for buyers start to add up very, very quickly. The Legislature clearly sent a message last year when we passed SB 14. We admitted that sex trafficking of children is a serious crime and that it's prevalent in the state of California and it deserves a serious punishment. We cannot address one side of the issue while ignoring the other.

It takes two criminals to commit a crime of human trafficking, a seller and a buyer. If we're focused on stopping sexual exploitation of children, we have to address both sides. Every Member of of this Committee that has discussed this bill multiple times with me, and for that I am so very grateful. I want to make it clear that I am willing to amend the bill to remove strict liability and sex registration for first time offenders. I've sent that in writing to the Committee.

However, I am not willing to amend the language so that this bill only covers ages 15 and under. I will not look these survivors in the face and tell them that their stories don't matter and they are not important enough for me to fight for because they were trafficked at only 16 and 17 years old.

The belief that somehow child sex trafficking victims are acting in a consensual manner perpetuates the misconception that young people of this age range are capable of fully understanding the consequences of their actions, especially in the context of exploitation. This disregards the fact that their brains are still developing, that they may not have the capacity to make informed decisions, especially when under the pressure of manipulation.

Brains that have endured trauma and those who are vulnerable to exploitation most likely have and are functioning in a survival state, not one that's focused in the deductive reasoning position. By framing the situation as consensual, it shifts the blame to the victim, which allows perpetrators to evade responsibility for their exploitation of the vulnerable youth that they want to go after. It fails to acknowledge the long term impact of exploitation of young people's lives.

Even if they initially appear to consent, the trauma and harm inflicted upon them will have lasting effects on their mental health, relationships, and future opportunities, as every survivor in this room can attest firsthand. Implying that older teens can consent to sex is just a cop out. It's your way of saying that we shouldn't be responsible for caring and protecting them. It's not their job to learn to survive in the situation that they're in.

It's our job to provide them safety and resources so that they have every opportunity to just be children. Let's stop failing our kids, colleagues, and show them that we see them. Additionally, considering that we are not discussing romantic relationships. We are only discussing commercial sex. There should be no limage on the age when it comes to this crime. It shouldn't matter if the buyer is 25 years older than the child or seven years older than the child.

Purchasing a child for sex is wrong at any age. Some of the most brutal sellers and buyers are young men in their early twenties. These brutality assailants, the brutality of these assailants have raped, beaten, strangled, threatened, kidnapped, and even killed their young victims. The stories of victims jumping out of moving cars and vehicles just to get away from their buyers.

One such story of a young woman, 16 years old, as a survivor, who was raped, urinated on, and left on the side of the highway by her buyer, was specifically vicious. There are many more stories like these, and the one thing they all have in common is that these young children, we have failed them. They deserved our protections, and then they deserve our protections now. And I'm not willing to leave them behind.

SB 1414 has received over 60 letters of support from human trafficking non profits, district attorneys, and community organizations, as well as national organizations like the National Center for Sexually Exploitation and Exodus Cry. In addition, my office has received over 2,000 individual letters of support from everyday Californians that want to see the buying of sex trafficking children classified as a felony, the buying of sex trafficked children, or the buying of children classified as a felony. I apologize for that error.

I'm honored to have with me today to testify Vanessa Russell with Love Never Fails, one of the sponsors of SB 1414. Love Never Fails fights every single day to end the horrendous practice of sex trafficking to protect survivors of this horrible crime. Additionally, to shine the light on this issue firsthand knowledge, my second witness is an incredible advocate with the Teen Sex Trafficking and a teen sex trafficking survivor, Sandy Esparza. Miss Russell.

You will be timed at two minutes. Thank you.

Thank you. My name is Vanessa Russell. I'm the founding Executive Director of Love Never Fails. We are a Bay Area nonprofit that houses children between the ages of 12 to 17 that have been impacted by human trafficking. We also provide job workforce development for those survivors and others, as well as mentoring and a variety of other services.

One of the things that we feel so strongly about is to provide love and honor for the courage that they have to go on after experiencing the horrific pain of exploitation. Love Never Fails was founded 13 years ago after my 15 year old dance student was raped in Hayward and sold for a year.

During that time, she, like other commercially sexually exploited children, was under the control of several pimps who took all her money and beat her while she had to sleep with and or sell sex to and or be raped by nine to 21 men brutally daily for $50 to $80 each.

These buyers, usually men of affluence in education who should know better, took no issue in using a vulnerable Afro-Latina girl for their own sexual gratification, taking no concern for her long term psychological, physical, and emotional pain. As one buyer stated, I see girls like a cup of coffee. I drink them up and throw them away.

I stand here advocating for that child and declaring that we have failed to make them safe, to provide them safe alternatives to homelessness and economic hardship, and send a strong message to the purchasers that California's children are not for sale. In fact, our children are precious, valued, and loved, and will no longer be someone's platform for getting rich, someone's sexual dumping ground, or someone's thrown away coffee cup. I urge you to stand up for commercially sexually exploited children and put buyers on notice to stop buying our kids and vote yes on Prop 1414 on SB 1414.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker. Again, you will be timed at two minutes.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning, Chair, Members. My name is Sandy Esparza. I'm an advocate for child victims of trafficking in California, a former foster youth, and a survivor of child trafficking. At 14, I was first sold to men and purchased for sex throughout my teen years. I was lured, tricked, threatened, and forced to use drugs. And at no point or at any age did I choose to be there. I had nowhere to go. I was terrified and I needed help that never came.

Recently, I sat with a 17 year old victim contemplating suicide after she received a positive HIV diagnosis transferred to her by a sex buyer. She was groomed and purchased for sex since she was 14 and asked me if anyone had ever paid for what they did to me. I shared that I never saw justice. She responded, and I quote, "Dang, miss. The game hasn't changed." It hasn't changed, which tells us that something has to change. For her, it was HIV. For me, it was cervical cancer.

For others, a list of lifelong residual trauma at the hands of sex buyers. The opposition would argue that in most states, the age of consent is 16 years old and that it's misguided to require harsher penalties for an activity that would be legal in 80% of the country. But they are wrong because consent implies choice. And I know as a lived experience expert that for the majority of 15 to 17 year olds, they cannot consent because there is no choice.

They are forced or coerced into this life. And if they could leave, they would. Perhaps the justice ship has sailed for me. I'm okay with that. I'm not here for me. I'm here for them, for the children still out there being bought and sold, feeling afraid and forgotten. Aren't they worthy of protection? Don't their lives and futures matter? Didn't mine? I urge you to consider the child and ask you respectfully for your aye vote on this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. We're going to move on to me too in support. Please state your name, your organization, and that you support. Please line up now. This part is usually pretty quickly.

Brooke Ortiz, a counseling psychology student at William Jessup University, and I support SB 1414.

Alicia Trask with Hop Sacramento, a nonprofit organization, and we strongly support this.

Clifton Wilson, on behalf of the County Board of Supervisors of Kern and Tulare, in support. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Eric O'Donnell, on behalf of the City of Stanton and Orange County, in support.

Hannah Diaz, survivor advocate, Love Never Fails, in support.

Marjorie Saylor, survivor of systems of prostitution and sex trafficking, in support. Thank you.

Bridge Network Executive Director. We provide services for C sect and transition age youth. We strongly support.

Yvette Corcoran, mother of teenagers, here in support.

Joseph Comb, director of public policy at Family Policy Alliance, and we're proud to support.

Shane Harris, the president and founder of the People's Association of Justice Advocates out of San Diego County. Strongly urge your support.

Nicholas S. Sanchez, current director of legislative affairs for Allen Hancock College's Associated Student Body Government in Santa Maria. Also the founder and current president of A Blue Campaign Club in Santa Maria, California, as well. And I wanted to be here to voice my support for SB 1414.

Diego Garcia Mendoza, I'm also a student at Allen Hancock College in Santa Maria, also part of the ABC campaign, and I fully support SB 1414.

My name is Gamliel Munoz, and I'm also part of ABC, and I'm the vice president, and I fully support SB 1414.

Peter Jenner here for Love Never Fails. Urge you to strongly support.

Greg Burt, vice president of the California Family Council in strong support. Thanks.

Molly Sheehan with the California Catholic Conference in strong support. Thank you.

Amna Siddiqui, from Love Never Fails, where we restore, educate, and protect survivors of human trafficking.

Hello. My name is Carly Selwoodl. I'm a mentor and peer mentor for Iris Youth, and I fully support this bill.

My name is Emily Campbell from Santa Maria. I'm with Lighthouse Baptist Church, and I support this bill.

Brock Campbell, on behalf of Lighthouse Baptist Church in Santa Maria and support this bill.

Mendeza Leachman from Oakland and Love Never Fails, a survivor. I support.

Sandy Carpio, Love Never Fails, outreach manager. I support.

Crystal Mays with Love Never Fails, and I support SB 1414.

Felicia Medrano, with Love Never Fails, I support SB 1414.

Ashley Faison, founder of Diamond Collective and survivor. I strongly support.

Hello, with Love Never Fails. I support.

Brena Sheehy, representing PERC Advocacy, in support.

Dr. Stephanie Powell, National Center on Sexual Exploitation. We strongly support.

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

Sharice Estelle from Little Country Church as well as a foster parent over 35 years. I support it.

Calling Britain, California Leaders Network, in strong support. Thank you.

Rochelle Connor, Concerned Women for America, strong support.

Morning. Paula Caddy, reentry coordinator for Ebenezer Outreach Ministry, a prison ministry in Vacaville, and a survivor. I strongly support 1414.

Kathy Martinez, family nurse practitioner for three pregnancy centers in Northern California. I strongly support.

Elda Corleto, with Love Never Fails. I strongly support.

Karina Powers, chair of the Republican National Hispanic Assembly. I strongly support.

I'm Emma Powers. I'm 14 years old and I strongly support.

Jenna Mckay, sex trafficking survivor, and I support.

Mitzi Sanchez with Love Never Fails, and I strongly support.

Janet Jett with Love Never Fails, and I strongly support.

Brianna Moseley, survivor of child sex trafficking, and I strongly support.

Roderick Gray, Liberty Church, Fairfield, California. I strongly support.

Caylee Kozak, namesake behind Caylee Law, and I strongly support.

Jewel Baraka, survivor of trafficking in prostitution and hardcore porn, and working as an advocate with Journey Out Los Angeles. I strongly support.

Helen Taylor, vice president of the national anti-trafficking organization Exodus Cry, standing with survivors in strong support.

Megan Berger, with Redemption House, the Bay Area former foster youth, and survivor of sexual abuse and human trafficking. I strongly support.

Elizabeth Quiros, survivor of human trafficking and co-founder of Redemption House of the Bay Area. And I support.

Heather Boyce, survivor advocate with Love Never Fails. And I strongly support.

Dr. Doug Bennett, founding executive director, on behalf of Magdalene Hope, Restoration Ranch Women's Shelter, Rescue Grounds Coffee Company, and People for the Abolishment of Trafficking Humans. I'm a former sex buyer. I've been fighting human trafficking for 15 years. Passing this bill will help end sex trafficking. I urge you for an aye vote. Thank you.

Hello. My name is Christy Von Wahlberg. I'm a resident of Orange County and a former childhood sex abuse victim. But I am a survivor here, standing today with Shannon and her team. This bill is necessary to switch the tides. Thank you. I support. Sorry. Thank you.

Hi. Denise Aguilar, Freedom Angels, in full support.

Hi, Tara Thornton, Freedom Angels in full support.

Pastor Brandon Campbell with the California Baptist for Biblical Values, Northern California director in support.

Christine Campbell, just a concerned parent in strong support.

Thank you. Seeing we have no other support witnesses, and I want to thank everybody, including especially the survivors, for showing up, I will move on to lead opposition. Opposition, you will be timed at two minutes.

Natasha Minsker, Smart Justice California, we oppose this bill unless it is amended to address the very serious and important problem that Senator Grove and the advocates have brought forward of older adults soliciting sex from children. Unfortunately, the bill as drafted is much broader, and it threatens to have unintended but devastating consequences for teens and young adults. First, the bill is drafted is not limited to older adults soliciting children.

It's not limited to adults soliciting at all, but applies even if the person soliciting is 16 or 17. Second, the bill applies even if the person solicited is just a day away from their 18th birthday and has no requirement for an age difference between the two individuals. This is a significant departure from the laws of almost every other state in this area.

As a consequence, the words of a stupid 17 year old who makes a dumb mistake and offers anything of value to another 17 year old for any kind of sex act is a felony under this bill, and if one of them is 18 by just a few months, then they're facing up to four years in state prison. Keep in mind that this offense is committed through words alone, if any actual sex is involved, there are many other felony statutes that apply.

But words alone could lead to an 18 year old facing four years in state prison. It is not enough to, say trust law enforcement to enforce these laws fairly because we have seen from experience that a hammer like this will be used unfairly and it will be used to target the LGBT community in particular.

We urge the Committee to act on this important issue and to ensure that there are appropriate consequences for older adults who solicit children for sex. Nothing more and nothing less.

Thank you. You will also have two minutes.

Thank you. Leslie Caldwell Houston for the California Public Defenders Association. I'd like to thank the author for accepting the amendments, and I think it's a great step forward, but we're not all the way there. Youth brain development is critical in part here because of the focus on such young people, and we know that through the science that a youth brain is not really even fully developed if by 25. It would be unfortunate and wrong to force those young people to prison and to sex registry.

It should be noted that while the age of consent in California is 18, in at least 30 states ranging from Pennsylvania to Ohio, Alabama to Washington, the age of consent is 16 years old. Several more states have set the age of consent at 17. Make no mistake, prosecutors have the full ability and access to existing laws to use against people who sexually abuse minors and send them, those people, to prison for decades.

The bill is still flawed and we continue to urge your no vote until we can address the issues raised both by the Public Defenders Association and by my colleague who just spoke.

Thank you. We are going to move on to opposition me twos again. State your name, that you oppose, and and what organization you belong with.

Norma, Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, in opposition.

Glenn Backes, father of two, Ella Baker Center, in opposition.

Roxanna Gonzalez, survivor of sexual assault with IJ Action strongly oppose.

Danica Rodarmel. I'm on behalf of Initiate Justice, Californians for Safety, and Justice at the Pacific Juvenile Defender Center in respectful opposition unless amended.

Thank you.

Yolanda Navaretti, for initiate Justice Action and Felony Murder Elimination Project. Also sexual abuse survivor and in opposition.

Emily Harris with the Ella Baker Center and California United for Responsible Budget in opposition.

Hema Quetzal, in behalf of Uncommon Law and SF Public Defender's Office. We oppose.

Here on behalf of Legal Services for Prisoners with Children. We have an opposed unless amended position. Thank you.

Alicia Mendoza on behalf of ACLU California Action in opposition.

Thank you. Do we have any other opposition? Seeing none, we're going to turn back the conversation to Members of the Committee. Senator Seyarto.

I'll start off. You know, a lot of this. Thank you, Senator Grove, for this bill and your efforts over the last few years to address what is a growing problem. It's not shrinking. It's growing. And our lack of addressing it has made it worse. And so I think your bill today, I think it's a message that it's time to stop making excuses for people that are making bad decisions, whatever their brain development is. It's not hard. If you are less than 18 years old, that's a minor.

And if you are over 18 years old and you are paying somebody to have sex, then it is incumbent upon you to ensure that that person is not under 18. I don't care if you ask for their ID or whatever, but it should be illegal. And it gets more atrocious as these sex, because that's what they are. They're sex offenders eventually.

These older individuals who prey on these young kids and until we make serious consequences for that, it is going to continue and it's going to get worse. I will be supporting your bill. In fact, I will make the motion to support this bill. And again, I applaud the efforts that you're doing. It makes as much sense as SB 14, and that was a ridiculously uphill climb to get there.

This goes hand in hand with trying to attack this problem, and I think you're doing a great job doing it. So with that, I will end my comments and I will make the motion when it's appropriate.

Thank you. I appreciate it. Senator Wiener. No. Do we have any other Members? Senator Bradford.

All right, I'm going to thank Senator Grove for continuing to fight on this issue and so many more that deal with our young folks being exploited. And last year, you know, I authored Ebony Alert, and I know the importance of doing all we can to combat human trafficking, trafficking especially what are minors. I was supportive of Senator Grove's bill last year, SB 14, and was the co-author of that measure as well.

I have had numerous conversations with the Senator about this bill, as have my staff, and I appreciate your willingness to address my concerns. Existing law makes solicitation of a minor a misdemeanor, punishable by as few as two days in jail. I generally been concerned about enhancing penalties and creating new felonies, especially about their consequences on communities of color. However, I believe a higher penalty for this crime, one that involves the exploitation of vulnerable children, is appropriate.

This bill would require the person convicted to register for 10 years as a sex offender. I've expressed my concerns regarding this, and I appreciate the Senator has been amenable to apply in this only for repeat offenders, if I'm correct.

Correct.

And we recently heard a bill in this Committee that dealt with sex offender registry and minors. And although concerns was raised about the implications of that bill, this measure is specifically focused on individuals who are deliberately engaged in the sexual trafficking of minors. My biggest concern about the bill in print has been the fact that the individual need not have known that the victim was a minor.

The requirement that the person knew or reasonably should have known the victim was a minor is inappropriate, is appropriate for these increased penalties. I appreciate the author for understanding my perspective and agreeing to make those changes to the bill. I will be supporting of the bill with the commitment from the author to make those changes. I know the bill has a long ways to go, and I would encourage the author to continue working not only with this Committee, but with the following committees with this bill.

Thank you.

May I reply, Madam Chair?

Go ahead.

Thank you, Senator Bradford. I got a lot of your data from Ebony Alert on the bill that you put forward, because it was very good data on sexual exploitation, specifically of those of individuals and young women of color. And I thank you for your support. I thank you for working with my office and your staff working with my office.

I did offer the amendments to the Committee in writing that I would take the strict liability out and I would also address the issue and the concern that you had. I think the Chair is going to address that now, if I'm correct, because they did not accept the suggested amendments that I asked or that I agreed and you and I had talked about. So just to make the record clear.

But I thank you for your courage and your support and your conversation that you've had with me over the last several months over this piece of legislation, and again to be the hero of Ebony Alert. I track it on social media, and every time it says add hashtag Ebony Alert, I get an alert. And your bill is very much working to protect those in this industry. So thank you.

I do wish the Committee would accept the two amendments that I offered to accept without the exception of the others that have concern. I have a technical witness here for the actual. I'm a high school dropout in the wave of continuation kid. And sometimes I wonder how I even managed to get in this building. So I have a technical attorney who can go up against the other two attorneys just spoke that's a witness for the actual technical legal expertise.

Tyson McCoy, supervising district deputy district attorney from Santa Barbara County. But in my layman's term, I highly doubt that seniors in high school are going to be the targets of law enforcement going after buying children for sex. And I even offered an amendment that said, you know, if you're 18 years old and you're with your classmate and you're going to engage in this, that, you know, we could amend that language that would make people feel more comfortable about that situation.

Our intent is not 18 year olds. I highly doubt that law enforcement will pursue 18 years old or the evil buyers that we're going after. And I did actually submit language that was given to us that would supersede any questions, according to the law. That was also declined by the Committee from my understanding, based on the communications that I've had. But can I ask Tyson to comment on the technical question?

Not at this time. I think that there's another Senator that would like to comment. Senator Skinner.

Senator Grove, like my colleague, I appreciate your deep commitment to this and your care about the exploitation of our children and the work that you've been doing. And as our colleague, you know, I supported the bill last year, and I have also done similar work in trying to further protect our kids from sex trafficking and exploitation.

The issue I have with the way the bill is constructed now is it reflects some of the comments that we've heard and even those, some of the folks who opposed are even survivors. Let me step back for a minute. So, and I totally appreciate, and it is why I supported in past legislation removing the criminality, we used to consider a minor who was sold for sex. We used to consider the minor the criminal, which was completely inappropriate. And I supported the legislation to change that.

And I will note that we had many DAs, many of the same DAs who support this, who completely opposed that and who said, no, we must keep the minors criminals because that's the only way we're going to stop this, you know, with that sort of way to get. And I was like, no, we have to stop the market. We have to stop the, you know, we have to get into cutting that.

Now, of course, that is not easy to do because I think, as all of us know, selling sex has been within human cultures for millennia. Not to say that I don't support us doing everything we can to try, but the problem with how it's constructed now is it is not designed solely and only to get those persons who are being sex trafficked. Additionally, it goes after individuals who have not. Who, again, it's verbal. They haven't actually engaged in anyway.

It's, it's, you could have sting operations where, you know, it's just a very difficult area of law to get into. But certainly where we have, for example, 10 year age differences and perpetrators who have committed an offense more than once, then it's clear they know what they're doing. And such penalties as the kind of penalties you have recommended are appropriate.

But how it's constructed now for my taste, and I think as my understanding of what the Committee's offered goes too far, so I would be comfortable and would support your bill if it had the amendments that the Committee has been asking for, and those amendments are. Got to get my glasses, are the removal of the strict liability. That's the knowledge part.

The making the penalties and mandatory registration apply only to adult perpetrators for minor victims under 16, making it a wobbler on the first offense and a straight felony on the second offense in county jail. And me personally, I would like the 10 year age difference there. But I know the Committee is offered what I just described. I can live with that. And then finally, the mandatory registration, if the minor was under 16 and the perpetrator or defendant was more, had the 10 years difference.

So for repeat offender. So those are the amendments I would like to see, and I don't know if it's appropriate. Well, would you take those amendments that the Committee has offered?

So before I answer that, I answered it when I was having a conversation. I'd like my technical witness to come up and explain to you why that doesn't work in the real world. And I appreciate your comments, and I know you weren't here when I started the conversation, but this Committee has engaged with me in conversation, including the Chair, including my colleague from San Francisco. I think we were texting till 11 and I finally was like, I have to go to sleep.

But who has engaged in the conversation to try to solve this problem. Again, my colleague, Mr. Bradford, who wrote the Ebony Alert. I can tell you that when you talked about sting operations and you mentioned that, and you mentioned the individuals who purchased children for sex and your amendment that you're requesting, I wrote as fast as I could. I apologize. But when you talked about the amendments for the wobbler on the first offense and the second offense, the bottom line.

The second fence is not a wobbler.

Or the second fence is not a wobbler.

My understanding is the Committee, if I'm correct, has provided those in writing to you what the amendments that they were hoping.

Yes, ma'am. And I will confess that I do have those right in front of me and I could read them if I could borrow your glasses, which I failed to bring to this Hearing. Mine. So that's why I'm kind of just summarizing this. And so, just to say that, you know, we did accept the strict liability amendment. We understood that we had conversations with other people and we understood why that was important.

The other amendment that we did accept was the not the first time sex registration. We'll give everybody an opportunity to say, yeah, you know, I thought she was 18, but she wasn't and or whatever. Right, but they do it again, then they're a repeat offender and they should go to prison. I can't accept the amendment that says jail time and jails are overcrowded, prisons are closing down because there's not enough people in there. And anybody in my mind that is purchasing someone for sex should go to prison. It shouldn't be two days in jail or time in jail. It should be prison. We're only asking for two years for these repeat, repeat offenders.

The felony jail that is not a wobbler, is a minimum year. So I just want to make sure to put on the record, we're not talking about two days, just.

Currently, it's two days.

Yes, but the amendment that is, the amendment that the Chair and the Committee has offered is not two days.

Exactly.

Let's put that on the record. Let's not have any confusion.

I'm trying not to have confusion. I'm asking for two years. I did accept some of the Committee's amendments. I can't accept the others. I'd like my technical witness, the supervising deputy district attorney from Santa Barbara County, to explain why that won't work.

That will not be necessary. We are not granting that privilege. Senator Wiener.

Wow.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And I appreciate the conversations that the author and I have been able to have. I appreciate that last year with SB 14, we were able to come to a resolution with the author and passed that bill unanimously out of this Committee. And that gave it the high energy to pass the Senate unanimously. It had some turbulence in the Assembly, but ultimately passed the Assembly and was signing the law essentially unanimously. And that all started in this Committee because we kept. I'm sorry. What's going on?

It's all right.

Oh, sorry. That all started in this Committee because we kept an open mind on the issue, worked with you, and we were able to come to a resolution, and I think we've all gone into this. We could have easily just said no to this bill, because, as I'll explain, this bill is incredibly over-broad, in my opinion, and we could have just said no, but we, in good faith, and I think, on both sides, have tried to work through this. As my colleague from.

Go ahead.

Sorry. As my colleague from Berkeley articulated, this bill goes well beyond human trafficking, and I think human trafficking, we should be throwing the book at people. This bill will sweep in a lot of people who are not trafficking. This bill will send people to state prison, put people in the sex offender registry, which is basically, effectively, in many ways, the end of their life for people, whether or not they're engaged in human trafficking. And again, even if there's no physical contact whatsoever. And so I think the amendments that Senator Skinner has articulated are reasonable, and I'm supportive of the bill with those amendments.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay. Senator Skinner, again.

Sorry. Thank you.

I would hope, Senator Grove, that the amendments would be acceptable to you, because I think that as the Chair has expressed, you've had, all I know, had a lot of interactions, and as my colleague from San Francisco, who you indicated text, you were texting until 11:00 p.m. last night, is that for some of us, even what the Committee is offering is somewhat beyond the comfort zone. But we do, like you, want to do whatever we can to basically whack at this market, this demand.

It's the demand side that these increased penalties are trying to get at. So. And yet we also, as a, you know, person that's been on this Committee from the day I got into the Senate, whenever we are crafting legislation, we are trying to balance for unintended consequences. So I, again, I think this, what the Committee has offered is very substantial and well beyond some of our comfort zone. And I would hope that you could appreciate that.

But if you are, I guess I am willing to make a motion to adopt the amendments as the Committee has offered. So I move that we adopt the amendments as the Committee has offered.

Thank you.

With a clear description. Are you forcing these amendments on me, Madam Chair?

Most likely, yes. Yes. Prior to that, I would like the Senator to close. We have a motion to amend. Take the amendments. Roll call.

[Roll Call]

The amendments are adopted. And if you would like to close.

Well, I could say that's a first. But that happened to me in the Assembly when I first got here to have forced amendments on an author's Bill. I'm on record declining those amendments. I'm on record accepting two of the amendments that you have set. I appreciate my colleague from Berkeley's comments about being out of a comfort zone. You talk about being out of a comfort zone. You have a Committee force amendments on you in front of survivors that are standing here advocating for this Bill.

To water this down, to say that 16, 17-year-olds don't matter, that them being. And it's not just about human trafficking. And I think that's the disconnect. I believe that human trafficking is anything that is forcing someone to do something against their will. This buyer situation is a random person driving down the road, seeing a kid that looks like they're 12 or 13 and say, hey, $50 for this. That's the guy I want to go after.

I can tell you that. Brianna Moseley, since we're totally out of decorum here, Brianna, stand up for me, please. Where are you at? Brianna Moseley told a story this morning and I've heard her story before. Her and her sister were both trafficked. Her mother looks desperately for her daughters in this dark underworld. She put posters up all over. My 15-year-old daughter is missing. The buyers would see these posters and come seek her out and say, are you really 15?

I want you because you are 15 or 16, according to her. So 15 was her sister and 16 was she was. So there are people out there that are purposely doing this and to say that Brianna doesn't matter or her sister who was killed or died because of this horrific, heinous crime. To say they don't matter is completely unacceptable. And I want you to know that I fully object.

I don't have a rule or anything on this that you have legal expertise on the dais and you have legal expertise that came and testified in opposition and that, Madam Chair, you refused to allow my legal expert to talk to you about the opposite side.

Senator, you had two witnesses that you could have brought in. You also had a large coalition. We've been working with you. I would like you to stick to the close.

Absolutely. You had two witnesses and your legal support on the dais. Let's just be real. Okay? So my legal expert that is here, standing here, has the opposite of what, if you would hear, could convey the reason why those amendments are not accepted. And I realize that you're looking at your Committee consultant, but I want you to know that I think that forcing the amendments on me and this Bill is completely unacceptable. I would also like to close with this.

As I was standing here today, I got a text from John Perez, the former California State Assembly Speaker, and he said the public offender is ridiculous. She says what she says is not fully developed until 25 and opposes protecting them. So she advocates, according to Mister Perez, that she wants to protect children that are not fully developed in their brains until 25, but then against protecting them under this piece of legislation.

I thank the former speaker for sending me that text, because I did not know that he had apparently worked with her on that legislation. I'm going to leave it at that.

Thank you, Senator.

We need a new one because it was amended.

All right. Do we have a motion on the amended Bill?

Can you state the amendments for the record as well? Don't just point to a piece of paper, please.

They have been stated, but she has already read them on record. Senator, would you like to make a motion?

I will move the Bill as amended, and the amendments are the ones that I stated, which are the amendments that were submitted in writing by the Committee to the author.

Roll call.

[Roll call]

That bill's on call.

I could do the motions on the ones that haven't been.

So let's call for a motion on a file item number one, SB 894.

So moved. Oh, no. Withdraw that motion. Apologies. Withdraw that motion.

No move.

SB 894.

Can you say which one?

Needs a motion correct?

Yeah, but nobody, everybody was.

Yes. Okay, that has no motion. That Bill will be held in Committee. Yeah. Fails for a lack of motion.

You can lift the call. 989.

Let's lift the call.

SB 989, Ashby. Motion was do pass as amended, to Judiciary Committee. [Roll call]

That Bill will be on call.

1011, Jones. Motion is do pass to Appropriations. Current vote is one to two. [Roll call]

That bill's on.

Madam Chair, Senator Jones would like reconsideration on that Bill.

Senator Jones will be granted reconsideration. That bill's still on call, though, just FYI.

1133, Becker. Motion was do pass as amended to Appropriations. Needs a motion.

So moved.

Motion by Skinner. [Roll call]

She presented. We need a motion on that. Yeah. Yes.

Okay, I will move item number nine, SB 1484.

Yes.

Motion is do pass to the Floor. [Roll call]

Bill's on call.

Do you need a motion on consent calendar?

We need a motion on consent. Oh, no.

We need a motion on 1317, Wahab.

Okay, I will move item number 12, SB 1317.

Motion is do pass as amended to the Floor. [Roll call]

That is on call. And then roll call incentives on roll call as well.

It's currently two to zero. [Roll call]

Consent is on call as well. We're going to move on to file.

Can I just say one thing?

Yes, go ahead.

I know this is a little bit out of order, but on one Bill, since it was on call and I was not here for the presentation, I apologize for that, for SB 1011. As I've expressed to the authors of that Bill, cities currently have the ability to enact these restrictions on encampments in public and to manage public spaces. The reason why I don't support that Bill is we do not need a statewide law to do it.

Cities should be able to exercise their own flexibility on that which they currently do. Thank you for that courtesy, Madam Chair.

Definitely. So we are going to move on to SB 1256. Senator Glazer has been waiting patiently. I appreciate your patience. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. So, contrary to the Bill you just heard, the Bill that's in front of you does not propose any new penalties in the area of solicitation of a minor or of another adult in regard to prostitution. The Bill is crafted to only deal with a very narrow issue, and that's the taking of DNA from someone who has been convicted. Who has been convicted of illegally paying for sex with a minor or with another adult.

I want to thank the Committee staff for their analysis. Thorough analysis. It just has one small error in it.

That the analysis indicates that a Bill similar to this failed in this Committee and the actual opposite occurred. A Bill such as what's before you today. Actually, this is even more narrow. Did pass this Committee seven to zero on January 9, 2018 supported by Senator Skinner, Senator Wiener, Senator Bradford, I thank you all for that support. Four years ago, five years ago.

As I said, the Bill before you would simply require people convicted of illegally paying for sex or engaging in prostitution with a minor to provide DNA samples for law enforcement identification analysis. Research shows that DNA samples collected for both violent and nonviolent crimes has uses in investigating other crimes, including sexual crimes like prostitution and human trafficking. I want to read you these statistics that I shared from the last hearing where I presented this Bill. A study was done on homicides in Oakland.

Oakland Police Department homicide section contracted with the Urban Strategies Council to look at the issues that they had with unsolved homicides in Oakland, and here's what they found. The vast majority of Oakland's unsolved homicides also involved victims who were or suspected to be engaged in prostitution activity. Of the nearly 200 unsolved homicides in Oakland, 85% of those cases involved a victim being a prostitute. 85% of those 200 homicides involved a prostitute.

It's very powerful evidence that taking DNA from someone who's been convicted of a crime, a sex crime against a minor, can aid in trying to solve murders. And I'm sure beyond that. Today I'm joined by Jonathan Feldman with the Police Chiefs Association, one of the main supporters of the Bill. And I would, if the Committee would allow his testimony today.