Senate Standing Committee on Public Safety

Since this is our first meeting of the year, all witnesses will be at that mic presenting. You will be timed at two minutes. Every single me too will also be presenting at that mic, and we will not be having telephone testimony or any me too's on the telephone as well. So just giving you guys all a heads up as to how this year will go. Senator Min, SB 965, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Committee Members and staff. SB 965 would require the California Department of Justice to provide annual reports to the California Legislature about its inspections of firearms and ammunition dealers. These inspections are critical to identifying where actions, inactions, or other failures are occurring to keep our communities safe from gun violence and to hold federally licensed firearm dealers responsible for remedying problems or in cases of egregious violations, to allow for the revocation of licenses.

The annual reports required in this Bill from the California Department of Justice would provide information on DOJ staffing levels for conducting inspections, the number of inspections and re inspections conducted, violations identified and penalties assessed, the number of firearms used in crimes that were traced back to the dealer, along with the percentage of all firearms sales that these traced firearms represented in the same time period and the number of lost or stolen firearms and amount of lost or stolen ammunition reported or discovered in the prior year.

California has worked to develop a strong system of gun dealer standards and oversight, including gun dealer inspections. However, there's little information, as we know about the inspections conducted by the state. As the Justice Brandeis once said, sunlight is the best disinfectant. This Bill would provide more transparency, closing the information gap, and allowing us to better understand the frequency, outcome, and implications of the inspections conducted today. With us, I have Rebecca Marcus, advocate for the Brady campaign, to testify in support of SB 965. That is correct.

Good morning, chair and Members. Rebecca Marcus, representing the Brady campaign in strong support of SB 965. Guns do not simply appear on America's streets out of nowhere. Appropriate conduct by federally licensed firearms dealers, or FFLs and their employees are critical to keeping guns out of the disproportionately impacted communities. In fact, FFLs play a critical role in preventing the proliferation of legal guns across the nation, yet they operate with minimal federal oversight.

California has stepped in to fill some gaps regarding oversight, including by requiring that the DOJ inspect FFLs and authorizing inspections of ammunition dealers. These inspections are a key way to identify where these actions, inactions, or other failures are occurring and to ensure that FFLs are held responsible for remedying their issues. Held to account or where necessary, because of egregious violation, their licenses are revoked. This Bill will complement the existing framework by requiring the DOJ to provide annual reports concerning its inspections.

This type of reporting and transparency is key to preventing gun violence before it happens. We urge you to support this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Any. Me, too.

Madam Chair. Erin Niemela, on behalf of Giffords and also speaking today on behalf of Everytown, in support.

Good morning. My name is Kim Manfredi. I'm a volunteer with Moms Demand Action. I'm from Roseville, California, and I'm in support of this Bill.

Thank you.

Yara Jidal. Volunteer with Moms Demand Action from Sacramento. I'm in support of this Bill.

Hi, Julie Chapman. Volunteer with Moms Demand Action in support of this Bill.

Good morning. Jillian King, volunteer with Moms Demand Action in support of this Bill.

Thank you. Seeing no other too's for support, do we have any toos for lead? Opposition witnesses? Seeing no opposition witnesses. Can we have any opposition metoos? Seeing none, we will move to the Committee. Seeing none. Senator, would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for your aye vote

Thank you. We'll get a motion once we have quorum. Thank you, Senator. All right, since we have our next Senator. Speaking on behalf of Senator Skinner, SB 899 will be presented by Senator Blakespear. You want both of them? Okay. It's all right. We are having Senate Bill 899 presented by both Senator Skinner and Senator Blakespear. Great glass. Senators, if you guys would like to step to the lectern. No, right, there's. Lets call quorum.

Let's call quorum. [Roll Call] Thank you.

Good morning. Pleased to present SB 899 in 2014, after the very horrific mass shooting at Isla Vista, I introduced the Bill, I believe was AB 1014. I will apologize if I'm forgetting the number. However, that Bill was the US's first, what we now call red flag law. It was then referred to as a gun violence restraining order.

So California has now had this ability for any of us, you, me, teacher, a person in a workplace, parent, if there is someone close to them or in their workplace or on their school site that is making a credible threat of violence toward themselves or others, they can get either petition to court or go to their law enforcement and get an emergency, what they call gun violence restraining order, to temporarily take weapons out of the hands, firearms out of the hands of those who are threatening this violence.

Now, it's a great law, but when we look at the data and the statistics, it has not been utilized as much in California. And what we hear from law enforcement and from the courts is that it's hard to retrieve the weapons and so the firearms. And so what this Bill is doing, and now I've given you the background on the gun violence restraining order. However, we also have similar type of orders on domestic violence circumstances and other circumstances.

And what this Bill does is makes the process easier. So when the court issues, whether it's a domestic violence restraining order that has a forfeiture of firearms related to it, or a gun violence restraining order, or the other civil orders that do this, they can order the person for whom the order is issued to immediately relinquish those firearms.

In other words, trying to take that step out where law enforcement then has to actively go out and find the person and then try to retrieve these firearms so they can order them to immediately relinquish. And then if the person does not, there are fines and other consequences. So that's really the purpose of 899, to improve the effectiveness of our various civil orders to remove firearms. And with that, I will turn to my great co author, Senator Blakespear.

Thank you, Senator Skinner, and thank you, chair and colleagues. My name is Senator Catherine Blakespear, and I am pleased to be here today to just say a few words in support as well. I am pleased to be a joint author of SB 899 alongside Senator Skinner, because I'm confident that this Bill will save lives. Although California has the best gun safety laws in the nation, we still have areas where we need to improve.

Mostly, we need to address implementation gaps, and this is places where existing laws aren't working quite as well as they should. One of the most glaring implementation gaps is the enforcement of existing firearm prohibitions. According to the California Department of Justice, which just released new numbers yesterday, just over 23,000 Californians remain armed despite being prohibited from having guns by law. 23,000. Over 3,100 people are armed despite being subject to a restraining order or a protective order.

These are people who are harassing others who have been deemed dangerous, or a threat to themselves or to others, or threats to our schools, workplaces, and society as a whole. These are people that our system forbids from having firearms, but then we don't actually make sure that they follow the law. So, fortunately, we have a proven solution.

Two years ago, Senator Eggman passed or introduced, and it was passed, SB 320, and that authorizes courts to follow up on domestic violence restraining orders to ensure that people actually follow the law and turn in their guns. And this is working in the context of the domestic violence restraining orders. We see it working in Orange County, which is one of the counties that I represent today. Orange County's success, which our expert will elaborate upon in a moment, is something to aspire towards throughout the state.

So what SB 899 does is it applies the same proven concept that has worked for domestic violence restraining orders to all of the other firearm, prohibiting restraining orders that we have across the state. So this Bill will save lives. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote when we get to that point. Thank you.

Do we have any lead witnesses? All right, you have two minutes.

Thank you. Good morning. I'm Julia Weber. I am an attorney consultant, speaking today on behalf of Giffords, the sponsor of SB 899. I've spent my career working on violence prevention, including 17 years with the judicial branch, the Judicial Council of California. And I know that passing these laws, these life saving laws, it's critical. And we're lucky in California that we have a lot of tools in our toolkit.

And I have a copy here of a chart I'd love to share with the Committee that goes through the various civil restraining orders that are firearm prohibiting, including, of course, the domestic violence restraining order, which the Senators have mentioned. And Giffords was also the sponsor of SB 320. And, of course, in gun violence prevention, we don't always have a lot of good news to share. But today, I'm very pleased that we have two particularly good pieces of news to share with you.

The first, as Senator Blakespere alluded to, is that Orange County Superior Court, which was the recipient of part of the $40 million in the one time state budget allocation to support implementation of these firearm relinquishment laws, just reported that out of 77 domestic violence restraining order cases where there were firearms involved, they retrieved 246 firearms during a seven month period involving those 77 cases. That's a significant number of firearms that were turned over.

And, as they said, by doing two things, providing information to the people who became prohibited, and then following up with a review hearing so that prevented entry into the armed prohibited person system and unnecessary use of resources to further seek those firearms, as well as protecting the parties named in those restraining orders. And the second piece of good news is that we know from research that when we implement these firearm relinquishment procedures, we see a 16% reduction in domestic violence related homicides.

So lives are actually saved. We know these policies make a difference, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote, at the appropriate time, to support implementation and application of those policies across all of our firearm civil prohibiting remedies in California, as well as the criminal protective order. Thank you.

Thank you. Can we have our me toos come up? Give it to the sergeant, please. Thank you. Thank you. Me, too.

Julie Chapman, a volunteer with Moms Demand Action in support of this legislation.

Jillian King, a volunteer with Moms Demand Action in support of this Bill.

Yara Jidal, volunteer with Moms Demand Action. Support.

Kim Manfredi, in support. Volunteer with Moms Demand Action.

Jamie Minor, in addition to Giffords, expressing our support on behalf of our colleagues from Everytown for Gun Safety. Thanks.

Rebecca Marcus, on behalf of Brady Campaign in support.

All right, do we have lead opposition witnesses seeing none. We'll move to me to opposition seeing none. Committee Members. Okay, we have a motion by Senator Bradford. Senators, would you like to close?

I think we've had a good presentation. I ask for an aye vote

Thank you. Motion by Senator Bradford. Let's call vote.

[Roll Call]

Can we also get a motion on SB 965 by Senator Min. Moved by Senator Bradford. Let's call for a vote.

SB 965 motion is do pas to Appropriations. [Roll Call]

That bills on call as well. We will go next with Senator Menjivar. SB 987. And do you have witnesses?

I do, Madam Chair.

All right, I want to make it very clear. The witnesses will be testifying at that podium right there, and they will be timed at two minutes. And, Senator, whenever you're ready.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Hello, Public Safety Committee. This is my first time in this Committee since I started as a Senator, so I hope it goes well. I'm here to talk to you about SB 987. Pre my predecessors, our predecessors a couple of years ago, started moving towards a non punitive approach. Cares first, gels last for anything related to our justice system. In fact, a lot of movement has happened when it comes to reentry services, pretrial services and so forth.

Now, this Bill is looking to inch closer to a carefirst model. It would expand the definition of criminal justice agencies to include pretrial release departments. I want to be very clear. This Bill is permissive. Existing law only allows pretrial work to be completed by probation departments, the courts, or other existing criminal justice agencies.

Excluding agencies like in the area that I represent, LA County's Justice Care and Opportunities Department, JCOD pre-child service programs like JCOD are used in the early stages of the criminal case process, offering the court alternatives by improving the breadth and quality of information about defendants and providing services to address their needs.

This information can include their housing and employment situation, family relationships and other community ties, all important to know and understand the client's circumstances that have led to their charges. We want to make sure we're preventing recidivism. This information also helps to identify their needs to prevent them.

Like I mentioned re-entering, once a person's need have been identified, an independent pretrial agency can provide and link clients to services including housing, substance disorder treatment, and others. It helps them navigate the process. However, because of existing law, independent pretrial agencies are unable to access criminal history information from federal, state, and local agencies to implement an all-inclusive independent pretrial operation.

SB 987 will allow an independent agency to establish an independent pretrial division capable of offering a wide array of client services along with traditional pretrial services in the state right now. Should this Bill pass in X months, only two counties would be able to move forward with this. Should they choose.

LA County and Santa Clara County already have county designated pretrial services. This Bill does not give the ability for counties to choose if they want to do a pretrial agencies. This has nothing to do with that. They can already decide that on their own. This Bill simply allows, should a county have a pretrial agency, allow them to have access to the full information to provide pretrial agencies.

SB 97 is sponsored by the county that I represent, LA County Board of Supervisors, since they have this agency ready to go and here with me today in support of this vote and testify. Ma'am, I'm sure if we can move to my witnesses is Judge Songhai Armstead, Director of the Los Angeles County Justice Care and Opportunities Department, and then I'll introduce my second witness after.

Thank you, judge. You have two minutes.

Okay. Thank you. Hello and thank you, Madam Chair and Members of the Public Safety Committee for letting me be here today. And a special thank you to Senator Menjivar for authoring SB 987. I'm retired Judge Songhai Armstead. I'm the current Director of LA County's brand new Justice Care and Opportunities Department, which is the county's effort to unify services for all of the vulnerable justice impacted communities. We currently provide services voluntarily for pretrial services. We provide services for diversion, re-entry.

Also support a number of nonprofit and community based organizations that help with reducing recidivism and keeping our community safe. I'm here today to speak in favor of SB 987, a Bill which has the support of Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors as well as our probation chief.

The Bill is important because this Bill expands the definition of criminal justice agencies to include independent pretrial departments, allowing an independent agency like our Department, JCOD, to offer a wide array of client services along with the traditional aspects of pretrial operations. Further, this Bill also ensures that information gathered during pretrial investigations remains confidential, with certain specified exceptions to promote candid conversations and improve treatment outcomes. I would also like to briefly address some concerns provided in the Bill analysis.

First, the concern of potential abuse of DLJ criminal databases. We currently have within our Department three of the managers that came from probation, that worked, the supervisor that ran probation within, the supervisor that ran pre trial services within probation for a number of years now works for us.

He sits on a number of national and local committees, and he would work with DLJ to make sure we have all of our security protocols in place, as well as another Chief Deputy from probation also is in there, and two other managers as well. Second, I'd like to reiterate that the Bill is solely permissive in adding an independent pretrial agency such as JCOD as other judge time. Okay, thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Asking for an aye vote definitely, Madam Chair.

My second witness is from the Amity Foundation, Darby Kernan.

Hi, everyone, I'm Darby Kernan. I'm standing in today for Amity Foundation's CEO, Doug Bond, who is out sick. Amity Foundation is currently one of the nonprofits that is working as a pretrial provider in Los Angeles County and working with the judge. Amity is an amazing organization that's dedicated to the inclusion and rehabilitation of people marginalized by addiction, trauma, criminality, incarceration, and homelessness.

Amity strives to improve health and promote environmental, social, and economic justice, which includes working with both individuals and their families currently doing this work in Los Angeles. The providers and the county are making great progress. But like Senator Menjivar said, this Bill will help with sharing information. So one of the most important aspects of 987 is it will reduce the impact that these individuals are facing during pretrial.

And it's helping these folks when they are really at this crossroads of falling back into criminalization or turning the page and really taking on the new challenges in their life to kind of change their path. The Bill effectively creates more space to reduce unnecessary pretrial detention, easing the burden on jails and reducing overcrowding. Promotes fairness and equity in the system. Allows agencies to provide support and supervision to ensure that individuals can remain in the community safely.

This helps foster engagement and communication and collaboration amongst law enforcement agencies and other agencies. Assisting in the pretrial services as a provider on the ground, anytime that communication lines are open, it benefits everyone involved. We ask for your support today. Thank you.

Thank you. Can we move on to toos? State your name, your organization, and that you support the Bill or oppose the Bill.

Good morning. Alice Michael, on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association, in support. Thank you

Good morning. Simelia Rogers, on behalf of Ella Baker Center for Human Rights from Richmond, California, in support.

Emily Harris Ella Baker, Center for Human Rights, Oakland, California, in strong support.

Good morning. Anthony DI Martino, Government Affairs Director, Californians for Safety and Justice in strong support.

John Skoglund with the County of Los Angeles, sponsor of AB 987 and in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any lead opposition witnesses? Thank you. State your name, your organization, and you have two minutes.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. Matthew Siverling, on behalf of the Los Angeles Probation Officers Union, AFSCME Local 685. With all due respect, our Members respectfully disagree and oppose SB 987, which directly targets and undermines and potentially would eliminate the critical role of our LA County Pretrial Services division, as well as the job of potentially hundreds of other county probation Department employees across the state.

SB 987 would provide new county pretrial staff formed in a recently created new agency within LA County with the ability to access criminal records and databases currently only accessible to criminal justice agencies such as the probation Department, where this important work has historically and is currently being done. The La County Pretrial Services Division trains, employs, and utilizes the skills of nearly 300 budgeted employees throughout the entire criminal justice process.

These 300 public servants has developed a high level of expertise with the role of risk assessments in the criminal justice system, as well as providing recommendations and reports to the court. These probation professionals are best suited for successful pretrial services that protect public safety while mitigating disruptions to positive community engagement for Low risk offenders. And most importantly, they live in and come from the communities they serve. This is not a job, it is a calling.

In the words of the California Supreme Court, the goal of pretrial work is to balance the right of pretrial liberty with the state's interest in protecting the public. Such a balance requires a reasoned inquiry, careful consideration of the individual arrestees circumstances, and fair procedures. This is what our folks strive to do. LA County averages 243 bookings per day, over 7000 per month, or nearly 90,000 per year.

Of these, 40% of them are serious and violent offenses such as murder, rape, assault with a deadly weapon, witness intimidation, domestic violence, and other serious and violent felonies that qualify as bail eligible. Our folks have the expertise, experience and understanding to thread the needle on these issues, achieve a balanced public safety between the accused and the community on these complex issues, and successfully perform this important task.

Lastly, and most importantly, local 685 is not aware of a justification or need for the massive shift in approach proposed by this Bill. Our program is effective, successful, and praised by the courts. The correct, most qualified and most appropriate professionals to perform this role in the criminal justice system already exists on our county probation departments, and it's the pretrial services union. For these reasons, we urge a no vote on SB 987. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any opposition? Metoos? Seeing none. Bringing the conversation back to the Committee Members. Committee Members, do you have any comments?

Madam Chair, am I allowed to respond.

After we have questions? Senator Skinner.

I'd like to hear the author's response to that.

All right, thank you, Senator.

Thank you so much. Senator Skinner. LA probation states that they have 300 budgeted employees. But in fact, because La probation is struggling with staffing issues, they've had to move around employees. So in the Prechower agencies right now, they have approximately, I believe, 80 to 90 employees. Only out of their 300 budgeted employees, because they've had to move to their juvenile halls to staff the understaffing issues that they're having there. And additionally, these JCOD jobs, as it pertains to LA County, are county employees as well.

So we can't assume that they're not from the area. That's like saying that every single probation officer for LA County lives in LA County. You can't assume that this is to supplement and help. In fact, JCOD has made it clear that they wouldn't take certain jobs that probation is already doing. Like, for example, JCOD has stated that they would not be working in multiple probations. Pretrial services mentioned in their opposition letter, such as the civil name change and the electronic monitoring.

This would actually supplement probation's ability to fully Fund and provide services to those going through pretrial services and the notion that this is going to take away jobs statewide. Like I mentioned, only two counties right now have pretrial agencies. This is not to say that other counties could come up with another one, but right now, if 987 passes would only impact two.

Thank you. Senator, can I ask you a follow up question? Based on the comments that they stated that they do have employees from the Department, roughly 300, obviously debatable. Is it fair to say that these people could potentially be absorbed in this new Department as well?

Well, you heard from my support that there is a previous probation officer who was a manager and is now working under JCOD, but I'd like to also turn to the previous judge on further answering that question, if you would allow. Manager.

Yes. Thank you for this opportunity to respond to the question. So the pretrial services staff within probation, none of them are sworn officers. So they're either non sworn civilian personnel or they're people who are sworn who are now working for whatever reason, are working as non sworn personnel. They are free to move within the county. They wouldn't be losing their jobs the way the county is. We're already working with employee relations. They'd be able to go with other places within probation.

There was a letter sent out last year that they could voluntarily move because of the things that the Senators already stated. They need a lot of help with civilian workers on the juvenile side. Those who wanted to go have already moved over and they would be allowed to apply within positions within our department as well.

It would be considered an internal transfer? Potentially, yes. And these individuals who are dedicated to this particular arena would be able to work in an arena that actually helps the population that you guys are, if.

They so choose and if they are in alignment. So I'm not going to say that everyone will necessarily have it, but if that is what they're committed to, we are committed to serving the population and link them to appropriate services. And if they are in align with that purpose, then yes, that would be true.

Is there any potential for job cuts there?

No.

All right.

There's a shortage of jobs. We don't have enough people.

Thank you. We'll ask for a close.

Thank you so much for the discussion here. You've heard that this is looking to supplement what probation officers are doing right now. There is not enough to meet the needs of our youth, especially with the closure of DJJ and a lot of our youth being transferred over to the county, especially. And I'd like to speak only to LA County right now. Since opposition is coming from La County probation. We are struggling in La County to meet the needs of our youth there.

In fact, there have been plenty of headlines seen regarding the mismanagement and treatment of our youth in LA County. Now, I know pretrial Services is not just for our youth. This will help an array of age groups. But as you heard when I mentioned earlier that they're moving a lot of employees around to handle what is going on in our juvenile section. So I want to make sure that where we're addressing an injustice in our juvenile section, that we're not creating another injustice in our pretrial services.

So I want to supplement that. 987 is not going to take any jobs. It's going to further build up our ability to address these services. Only two counties have this in the State of California. If there is a nonprofit that does pretrial services, they would not be covered under 987. This is only designated by county-specific organizations, just like JCOD. With that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Do I have a motion? Move the Bill. Thank you. Senator Skinner moves the Bill. Can we call for a vote?

SB 987 motion is do pass to Appropriations. [Roll Call]

That bill's on call. Thank you, Senator. Now I will be presenting. Senator Skinner will be cheering for me. You may present. Thank you. Good morning. So SB 982 simply eliminates the January 1, 2026 sunset to sustain the crime of organized theft.

This bill is part of the Senate Caucus package, a safer California plan, and Governor Newsom's retail theft package. Despite the likelihood of underreported retail theft, especially low-value theft, data shows a 29% jump in reported retail theft from 2019 to 2022. Aside from big retailers, many small businesses are suffering the consequences of organized retail theft, and oftentimes do not have the same resources to be protected themselves. In California, nearly half of small businesses are owned by racial and ethnic minority groups.

When retailers are affected by these crimes, they typically make up those losses by raising prices, reducing hours, or closing their stores, ultimately impacting other consumers, but also impacting their small business, their family, and the community. SB 982 will ensure organized theft remains a crime to give prosecutors and law enforcement the effective tools they need to combat organized theft. With me today, testifying in support is Margaret Gladstein on behalf of the California Retailers Association.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members. Margaret Gladstein with Capital Advocacy here on behalf of the California Retailers Association. We are in strong support of SB 982. We appreciate the authors introducing this Bill to remove the sunset. This law has been instrumental in stopping many organized retail theft rings, and those rings often use their ill-gotten gains to then human traffic and commit other crimes.

In fact, just this morning, the governor announced that the CHP had made some arrest using this law stopping an organized ring in Oakland. These crimes are perpetuated by sophisticated criminals who have different people working for them. But this law is used to prosecute the people behind the people if you will. I would like to take a moment to address some of the information that was repeated in the analysis. That was from a letter from people opposing the bill.

California laws currently are not harsher than those in Texas or South Carolina. In fact, in those states, after multiple offenses, criminals can go to prison. And that's simply not true here in California. But to focus on this bill today, we support the bill. We support removing the sunset, and we're very grateful for the author of bringing this forward. We ask for an aye vote.

Is there any other main witnesses or these now me toos?

I hadn't planned to be here today. I was here to help Senator Skinner, but her bill got out while I was in the line. I was in San Francisco on Sunday with the SO, who everyone knows was a chief counsel to Public Safety Committee. Because her dog has health issues, she had to get specialized cream out of Walgreens and Diamond Heights in San Francisco. We actually were she was in the store when one of these things happened. Let me tell you, this is not funny. This is not a joke.

This is very frightening. And I'm surprised that not more people have been killed because of this behavior. And this is the least we can do in terms of dealing with this problem. There are probably additional steps in terms of training some other things, but this as a minimum is required. Thank you.

Thank you. Now we have toos.

Kim Stone, Stone Advocacy, on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association, in support.

Good morning. Jonathan Feldman on behalf of the California Police Chiefs Association, in support.

Good morning. Lieutenant Julio De Leon from the Riverside County Sheriff's Office, in support.

Good morning, Madam Chair and members Ryan Sherman with the Riverside Sheriff's Association, the California Narcotic Officers Association, in support, and the police officer associations of Arcadia, Burbank, Claremont, Corona, Culver City, Fullerton, Murietta, Newport Beach, Novato, Palos Verdes, Pomona, Riverside, Santa Ana, Ppland, California Reserve Peace Officers Association, the Deputy Sheriff's Associations of Monterey and Placer Counties. All in support.

Thank you. Thank you. Any other in support? All right, we'll now go to opposition. Do we have any opposition present? Who wants to testify? All right, seeing none, I'm the only one on the dais. So let me say, Senator, I appreciate the removing the sunset or extending the sunset. This bill established the attorney general's task force on organized retail theft. And it, you know, too often. Let's step back. Not too often.

We know that using law enforcement primarily to arrest what we might call shoplifters who don't have the ability to unload these goods themselves or is really not going to make a dent in this situation that we're facing, that what we have now is, in effect, criminal gangs who are paying individuals and to do this retail theft.

And then they are either using online marketplaces to sell these goods, or there was a situation recently, a couple years ago, where they found a location in Hayward where literally these gangs were filling shipping containers with these goods, these stolen goods, and then shipping them to overseas. So until we really get at these criminal gangs and which we have been doing, there's been good work on this. That's how we're going to really put an end to it. And so we need to continue the law and get rid of the sunset. So wanted to make those comments, and otherwise, I will ask you for your close.

Thank you. SB 982 is a bipartisan effort that will keep our community safe by making sure law enforcement can respond to the crime of organized theft. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Great. So we need a motion. All right, we have a motion. Let's call the roll.

[Roll Call]

All right. We'll put that bill on call until we have our other members. And I will hand the gavel back.

Senator Wiener, can we have you present? SB 912.

Thank you, Madam Chair, apologies for making you wait. Madam Chair, members, thank you for hearing the bill today. SB 912 will prohibit law enforcement agencies from using the results of a calorimetric field drug test, which is a test that has high inaccuracy rates and was never intended to be a definitive drug test. Will prohibit use of that as probable cause for arrest, as a basis to charge or to convict. The bill does not ban calorimetric tests. It simply for simple drug possession arrests.

It will not allow that to be the basis of the arrest, prosecution, or conviction. Various departments, including CHP, have already stopped using these tests, often for officer safety reasons. These tests are not in any way essential, and they result in false positives, causing people to plead guilty or otherwise be convicted, even if a confirmatory test has never been done. To be clear, these tests were never intended to be definitive drug tests. They need a confirmatory test.

And we have police departments that are not performing those confirmatory tests, and so people are often pleading guilty. This bill only applies to drug possession, not other crimes. There was a lot of very, very dramatic statements in the opposition about all sorts of different crimes, and COVID and pregnancy tests that have absolutely nothing to do with this bill.

This is about a situation where an officer pulls someone over, they see some sort of powder in the car, they perform one of these tests that have high inaccuracy rate, and it comes back positive and it ends up being sugar or something like that. And the person has now been arrested, taken into custody. Maybe there are kids at home, maybe they're now missing work, and sometimes they are pleading guilty just to be done with it based on one of these inaccurate tests.

So it is time for California to lead and to move away from, again, not banning these tests, but saying you can no longer rely on them as the reason why you are arresting, charging, or convicting someone of simple misdemeanor drug possession. I respectfully ask for an aye vote. And with me today to testify is Grey Gardner, senior policy counsel for Drug Policy Alliance, and Des Walsh, the director and CEO of the Roadside Drug Test Innocence Alliance.

Thank you. You have two minutes.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the committee. My name is Grey Gardner. I'm a senior policy counsel for the Drug Policy Alliance, the nation's leading organization working to end the war on drugs and advance policies grounded in health, equity, and human rights. DPA is a proud co-sponsor of SB 912, which is a sensible legal reform measure that will improve the integrity of the criminal legal system.

This bill limits the use of colorimetric drug tests in establishing probable cause for arrest or as the basis for a simple drug possession charge, and would give individuals the right to request a confirmatory test. A colorimetric field test, as defined in the bill, is a field test drug kit that consists of color test reagents for the preliminary identification of controlled substances. This definition does not apply to other testing kits or other field tests. Drug offenses are the leading basis for arrest in the US.

It's estimated that over a million arrests are for possession alone. Black Americans are particularly impacted by these erroneous drug arrests, accounting for over a third of all arrests. Despite representing just 12% of the adult population. Black Americans are arrested at rate three times higher than their white individuals based on these tests. A report recently released by the Quattrone Center at the University of Pennsylvania estimates that at least 4000 arrests every year in California involve individuals not possessing controlled substances who are falsely implicated by these tests.

Field tests are unreliable because they're only capable of identifying the elemental chemical compounds of a substance. These tests have resulted in false positives for items such as powdered milk, lidocaine, folic acid, vitamins, bird feces, even human remains. The problem of false positives has been well-known for many years, well over a decade. San Francisco, Santa Barbara, Tracy Police departments, and King's, Madeira, Siskiyou County Sheriffs no longer use these colorimetric field tests.

CHP protocols also states that the departmental personnel shall not perform presumptive field tests solely to confirm the presence of suspected narcotics. Although all these agencies indicate they discontinued the use of these tests primarily for officer safety, it's important to note that the drug enforcement operations have not been hindered in any way. This is the first of its kind policy in the US that would improve the integrity of California's criminal justice system.

And it follows recommendations identified in a year 2000 report by the Department of Justice indicating that all substances tested should be subjected to a more definitive examination by qualified scientists in a properly equipped crime lab. Wrongful arrests are a needless tragedy for individuals impacted their families and communities. In addition, they do an enormous service.

It's been two minutes. Thank you.

Thank you. Please support this bill.

Next speaker, two minutes.

Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Des Walsh and I'm the founder of the Roadside Drug Test Innocence lines and proud to be a co-sponsor of this bill. I became involved in this issue several years ago when I read a report that in Texas, over 200 people had pled guilty to drug possession based on colorimetric field drug test results When subsequent laboratory tests determined that there was no drug present and that those 200 people were innocent.

To many of us, it would seem impossible to understand why hundreds of innocent people would plead guilty until you hear the stories of why they did. A perfect example is Amy Albrighton. At the time of her arrest, Amy was a 43-year-old single mom of a disabled child and a rental apartment manager. She was pulled over one afternoon for a lane change violation.

During her traffic stop, an officer spotted a white crumb on the floor of her car, which tested positive on a colorimetric field drug test for cocaine. Her public defender told her that a conviction cocaine carried a sentence of up to two years, but that the prosecutor was offering her a 45-day plea deal of which she would most likely serve only half. She told him she was innocent, but he was unconvinced. The police had found cocaine in her car.

The colorimetric field drug test confirmed it. Amy had a job she needed and her child to take care of. She knew the colorimetric test was wrong, but she could not risk two years in jail. So in despair, she agreed to the plea deal. At her arraignment that morning, she managed to stop crying just long enough to tell the judge that she was guilty. Sadly, Amy's case is not unusual.

Colorimetric field drug tests have an unjustified level of scientific credibility that results in thousands of wrongful convictions in California each year. Yet they are inherently inaccurate because they test only for chemical compounds of a narcotic that are also found in other common substances. And that's why. Sugar. Sugar.

It's been two minutes. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Can we have me toos, name, organization?

Phil Melendez with Smart Justice California, and also for Initiate Justice, in support.

Alice Michel, on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association, in support.

Duke Cooney with ACLU California Action, in support. Thank you.

Jasmin Harris with the California Innocence Coalition and Roadside Drug Test Innocence Alliance, in strong support.

Anthony Di Martino, with Californians for Safety and Justice, in support.

Simelia Rogers with the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights from Richmond, California, strong support.

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

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

Alicia Benavides, on behalf of San Francisco Public Defenders, in strong support.

All right, do we have any lead opposition witnesses? You will have two minutes.

Thank you, Madam Chair, members. Ryan Sherman with the California Narcotic Officers Association and also on behalf of the other peace officer associations previously listed. We're all in strong opposition to SB 912, which prohibits law enforcement agencies from making arrests on the basis of the colorimetric drug test, class of test that nearly all but a handful of jurisdictions use in the field to assess whether a substance purports to contain an illegal compound.

The Quattron Center report that was just referenced found that all drugs submitted for testing to the California Department of Justice laboratories resulted in a false positive rate of just 2.4%. Now, 2.4%. That's not, I don't think, excessive. However, it's not perfect. And colorimetric tests can be used, however, to immediately exonerate a person suspected a possession of a controlled substance.

Manufacturers who create these products indicate that the presumptive identification is generally recognized within our legal system as a component of probable cause, not the exclusive ability to establish probable cause. There's no drug identification system presently in use which completely eliminates the occurrence of false positives and false negatives. A forensic laboratory is required to qualitative and quantitatively identify the unknown substance. Color metric tests are presumptive tests only and provide just one component in developing probable cause for arrest.

When officer detains, a person discovers a suspected controlled substance, multiple factors are used for the development of probable cause for an arrest. Those factors include the appearance of the suspected substance, packaging of the substance, self-admission of possession, and if the subject exhibits objective symptoms of being under the influence, et cetera. Without colorimetric tests, let me skip. While some departments have moved away from the test, they didn't do so based on the reliability, but due to the risk, as was mentioned, of exposing office time.

Time.

Thank you. We respectfully request a no vote.

Thank you. Two minutes.

Good morning. My name is Julio De Leon, lieutenant with the Riverside Sheriff's Office, representing Sheriff Chad Bianco in opposition. If this bill passes, it will do two things. Number one, it'll take a tool away, a valuable tool away from law enforcement that helps exonerate innocent people. And number two, it'll force us to purchase extremely expensive equipment, testing equipment, to help us identify or rule out substances that are not illegal.

We have been slowly transitioning to what's called a TruNarc test, which is a handheld machine that has a laser, and it was able to test substances out in the field. However, the cheapest of those machines is $32,000. We did purchase about 15 of those about two years ago for safety reasons, not because the colorimetric tests were unreliable, but we did purchase some of those, and we outfitted our larger task forces, our larger narcotics teams, and some of our busiest stations.

With one of those, however, we can afford to purchase more of these, we would need at least 30 more to completely outfit all of our station facilities with one of these machines. And even if we did buy these, it would not fill the void that only colorimetric tests can fill. These machines are not practical to be taken out in the field and subject to harsh elements of our desert communities.

We provide most of our services to desert communities in Coachella Valley, which is very hot during the summer, these machines are very susceptible to damage and loss. These machines that we do have out in the field, we keep them at the stations because it is a relatively cooler place to keep those stations and to prevent those damages. Colorimetric tests, on the other hand, $5 each. If one of those gets damaged, we take a $5 hit.

But it also allows all of our deputies to have one of those tests out in the field for us to use. Much has been said about law enforcement using tests inappropriately to develop probable cause. I am a narcotic expert. I've testified dozens of times in court as a narcotics expert. We do not use these tests to develop probable cause. We do that through our investigation. Our investigation determines we look at several factors that were already mentioned, and then we use that test.

Thank you. Can we get support me toos? I mean, opposition me toos.

Kim Stone, Stone Advocacy on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association, in respectful opposition.

Thank you. Do we have any others? Seeing none. Any members of the committee would like to speak. Senator Seyarto.

All right, so one of my issues with this is we are taking a tool away from law enforcement, and we've done a lot of that recently. The spectrometer, we heard testimony that it's unreliable, but it's 98% reliable. Not the spectrometer. I'm sorry. The colorimetric testing. And what this does is allow somebody in the field to quickly test and analyze. Let's just say my mother-in-law calls and says, hey, I need flour, but I can't go.

So I take some out of the gold medal bag and put it in my ziploc bag and throw it on my thing. I'm zipping over to her house, and they get pulled over and they look at that bag and they say, what's in the bag? I tell them flour. If they want to test it, I'm going to say, go ahead, because it's flour. The only way that tests positive for cocaine through colorimetric testing is if it's been contaminated with cocaine.

And when I hear this story about there was a speck on the floor, well, what was the spec? It doesn't mean it wasn't cocaine. It just means there was a speck on the floor. She could have had a passenger or something like that that had some and left this residue. And then her defense is, I was unaware that that and they would have a tough time proving that.

So I'm not quite sure why we're taking away a tool that officers have, because if they don't have this tool, then they're going to have to develop their probable cause through their intuition and their training to spot people and packages that look like that. And so that seems less reliable than doing a 98% reliable test that will be confirmed with a spectrometer once they get in. So I'm not quite sure why this needs to go offline prior to the development.

And the CHP is field testing a lot of those things right now, they're just very expensive. And it was the testing that the laser testing that the representative was referring to. So why are we trying to take something offline right now that will exonerate people who are carrying a bag of flour or a bag of sugar versus somebody who has drugs on them and needs to be removed from the street? Because that drug is going somewhere.

All right, Senator, would you like to respond?

Sure. Because thousands of people are getting arrested even though they don't have drugs. That's why. Because these tests were never intended to be in any way definitive, and yet they are being used as a definitive tool, not just set as arrest, but for having people plead guilty. Plead guilty when there was never a confirmatory test. And so that's why we need to do this again. We're not banning these tests.

You can still do it as an initial screen and then do a confirmatory test, but you can't just rely on this. And I don't agree that it's not the case that the flour or whatever would only test positive. It was contaminated. That's not the case. There are examples of the following substances testing falsely positive. Cotton candy, powdered milk, sugar, lidocaine, folic acid, bird feces, and even a loved one's ashes. So this is not about being it's contaminated. This is never intended to be a definitive test, and yet it is being used as one in the criminal justice system.

I would doubt very much that an officer would test the remains, human remains of somebody. So I don't know how they come to that conclusion. I'm not done. Thank you, Chair. I appreciate that. We want to take this and exonerate those thousands of people. In order for there to be thousands, that means there has to be at least 50,000 people that get arrested for this, because that's the 98%.

That's not been the case in the various departments and states that have gotten rid of this, including red states.

So I think a better approach would be to require departments if they're not doing it, and they're developing a case to ensure that that gets tested with a spectrometer or better in a lab, to ensure that that's what it is required. Because you're saying some of them are choosing not to, and that's why we have to do this.

That's what the bill does. It requires a confirmatory test.

It says they can't use it for probable cause for arrest.

Right.

They can't do that confirmatory test outside in the public. Those things cost $50,000. You'd have to put one in every patrol car, and that's beyond the reach of what taxpayers wish to pay. So there is a process that they can go through. The very few people, the 2% that do get caught or there's a false positive will be quickly rectified when they get down to the police station and they run it through the spectrometer and go, hey, you know what? This spectrometer says different, you're out of here.

Unless they're held overnight and their kids are at home and they miss work and get fired, or unless they plead guilty, which many of them do, based solely on that calorimetric inaccurate test. So there are real ramifications here.

Yeah.

Thank you.

I understand. Thank you.

All right, so moving on, do we have any other comments from members? Seeing none. Senator, would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Can I get a motion? Moved by Senator Bradford.

[Roll Call]

That bill is out four to one. I'd like to lift the call.

Roll Call

That Bill is out five to zero. Thank you. A Public Safety Committee hearing is adjourned.