Senate Standing Committee on Public Safety

All right, the Senate Committee on Public Safety is beginning. We are meeting in room 2200 in the 1021 O Street building. We have 13 bills on the calendar with three that are on Consent. SB 1005, AJR 8, and SB 1122. I also want to highlight that SB 922 by Senator Roth and SB 1160 by Senator Portantino are pulled from today's agenda. I would like to call roll.

[Roll Call].

Thank you.

So we have established quorum. We can start with our very first Bill by Senator Roth, SB 902. And just again to highlight to the public and folks, we will be having witnesses testify for two minutes at that lectern, both opposition and support. We will also ask the me toos to speak at that lectern. State your name, your organization, whether you support or oppose, and we like to move through this pretty quickly. Senator Roth, the floor is yours. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. Senate Bill 902 will add an automatic 10-year firearms prohibition to misdemeanor animal abuse convictions. As you know, California has led the country in ensuring that firearms do not fall into the hands of those who have demonstrated documented demonstrations of violent tendencies in an attempt to prevent future violence against others.

Given the numerous studies showing that animal abuse is a predictor of violence against humans, California needs to ensure that people with a documented history of animal abuse are prohibited from owning and possessing firearms for 10 years. There are currently 50 misdemeanor charges that, upon conviction, lead to a 10-year prohibition. These crimes are generally related to firearms, but also include stalking, endangering the health of a child, and endangering the health of an elder or dependent adult.

California has already recognized that endangerment of a child or elder is grounds for a firearm prohibition. And given the link between animal abuse and increased likelihood of interpersonal violence, intimate partner violence, it is appropriate that the state also institute a firearm prohibition for those convicted of animal abuse as well. Our office has been engaged with those in support and in opposition, and we have taken amendments to remove the felony for noncompliance with the firearms prohibition and also to limit the penalty to a misdemeanor.

I've also accepted the Committee amendments to limit the scope of this Bill to only misdemeanors charged under Penal Code 597(a), which is the more serious animal cruelty charge. I'd like to thank the Committee staff and the stakeholders who helped me improve this Bill. With me today to testify on behalf of the Bill is Riverside County Deputy District Attorney Megan Holtman.

Megan, you will have two minutes. Thank you.

Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. My name is Meg Holtman, and I'm a Deputy District Attorney in Riverside County. Countless studies have shown that there is a link between violence toward animals and violence toward humans. Unfortunately, statistically, those that commit acts of violence against animals are likely to go on to hurt people. It is a crime to abuse animals in the state of California.

Penal Code Section 597(a) applies to the most egregious forms of animal abuse. Those convicted under this section have taken affirmative steps toward harming an animal and have ultimately caused an injury. It does not apply to those who neglect an animal. In short, 597(a) encompasses just precisely the behavior that has been found to be a predictor for violence against people. Nationwide, gun violence is at an all time high.

Mass shootings are becoming all too common, and guns are becoming more prevalent in all kinds of crimes, including domestic violence. It is important that these potentially lethal weapons are not readily available to those who seek to hurt others. As the Senator indicated, California has long led the way in seeking to keep guns out of the hands of those with demonstrated violent tendencies. Felons are prohibited from possessing firearms.

However, under current law, an individual who hurts an animal and is convicted of a misdemeanor can lawfully access and possess a gun as soon as they're off probation. In California, misdemeanor probation is only one year. This means that an animal abuser can lawfully access a gun shortly after they are convicted and well before they've had the opportunity to meaningfully address their behavior.

The purpose of this Bill is to ensure that those who have acted to hurt animals are not able to lawfully acquire or possess a gun for 10 years. Ideally, this will allow ample time for reflection and to correct whatever it is that led to the violent conduct in the first place. SB 902 is a step toward safer communities. I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Do you have another witness?

No, Madam Chair.

Okay. Thank you. We would like to ask for those that support, and me toos, state your name your and that you support.

Hi. Nickolaus Sackett for Social Compassion in Legislation in strong support. Thanks.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Sosan Madanat, W Strategies here on behalf of Animal Legal Defense Fund. With the Committee amendments, we are now in support. Thank you.

Ivy Fitzpatrick, California District Attorneys Association, in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any other supporters? Seeing none. We'll move on to lead opposition witnesses. No opposition. All right, we'll move on to oppositions in the room. Seeing none. We'll move the commentary to Members of the Committee. Seeing no commentary. Senator, would you like to close?

Thank you for your patience, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Do we have a motion? Moved by Senator Bradford. Yes.

Motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations. [Roll Call].

That Bill is on a call. Thank you, Senator. You can now present your second Bill, SB 921.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This bill, it's an animal abuse bill. It seeks to ensure that those who affirmatively seek to cause harm to animals are held accountable, regardless of their relationship to the animal.

In other words, regardless of whether they own it or don't own it or have custody of it or don't, or the severity of the injury that they inflict, it closes an unintended loophole in our laws, as you will hear from the testimony from my local District Attorney's office.

It's difficult, often difficult, for prosecutors to charge animal abusers when the abuser does not own the animal. The issue of ownership applies, particularly in scenarios involving domestic violence. As you can imagine, domestic violence often involves violent partners kicking, punching, or otherwise attacking the pet of their significant other.

Though these attacks or traumatic injuries to the pet rarely reach the level of maiming, mutilating or torturing that is currently required to charge non owners with animal cruelty, this bill will change that by creating parity in the law to treat all malicious behavior toward animals equally.

Specifically, this bill adds that anyone who subjects a living animal to needless suffering may be charged for animal cruelty in the section that does not require ownership.

Penal Code section 597 A. My office has worked with countless stakeholders to ensure that this bill targets the right people. I have accepted the suggested Amendments proposed by the ACLU and public defenders.

It's my understanding that these Amendments will be amended into the bill before it is sent back to the Senate desk for referral to the next Committee. I'd like to thank the Committee staff and the stakeholders through this rather tortured process, all of whom helped me and helped my office improve this bill.

With me to once again testify on behalf of this particular bill is Riverside County Deputy District Attorney Megan Holtman.

Good morning again, Madam Chair and Members. Again, my name is Meg Holtman, and I'm a deputy district attorney in Riverside County. Animals are some of our society's most vulnerable victims. Because they cannot speak for themselves, they are helpless to protect themselves from abuse, and they rely on us to love and care for them.

They also rely on us to speak up on their behalf. Unfortunately, there are people out there who will choose to hurt them for one reason or another or for no reason at all.

Animal abuse is a crime in California, and it's generally divided into two categories, affirmative conduct intended to cause serious injury or criminal neglect of an animal. Understandably, there is a possessory interest that is required to be charged with neglect.

However, there is currently a loophole in the law that leaves prosecutors unable to seek justice if an individual inflicts suffering on an animal that does not belong to them, so long as that individual does not engage in conduct that amounts to maiming, mutilating, torturing or killing.

In other words, absent a really serious injury, there's not much we can really do to prosecute. In fact, it's actually currently legal to herd an animal that you don't own so long as the injury is not severe.

As the Senator noted, animal abuse occurs with some frequency in domestic violence situations. A domestic abuser may target their victim's pet by punching them, kicking them, et cetera.

But unless they break a bone or cause a really egregious injury, there's nothing legally that can be done to hold them accountable. Common sense says this was not what the Legislature intended when originally enacting penal code Section 597.

SB 921 seeks to close the existing loophole to provide protection for all animals. Regardless of your possessory interest. It'll ensure that justice can be achieved when our furry friends are subjected to needless suffering. So with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Do you have a second witness?

I do not.

All right, we will go on to. Me Too in support.

Nicholas Sackett for Social Compassion and Legislation, we are in support in theory of the bill, the intent of the bill, we have some issues with the exceptions, which we will be communicating with the author's office as this move forward. Thank you.

So Sin Madonna w strategies on behalf of Animal Legal Defense Fund, I'd like to follow up on the comments by my colleague at social compassion, and we've shared some concerns with the author's office and look forward to continuing to work with them. But we are supportive in concept. Thank you.

Thank you.

Ivy Fitzpatrick California DA's Association Support, thank you.

We have anybody else? Seeing none. We'll move on to lead opposition witnesses.

Lead opposition Becca Kramer, matter on behalf of ACLU California Action removing our opposition. Appreciate the author and his office's willingness to work with us to address our concerns.

Thank you.

Leslie Caldwell Houston California Public Defender's Office. We are an association. We are grateful to the Senator and staff for working with us. And we withdraw our opposition.

Thank you. We have anybody else in betweeners? Me Toos seeing none. We'll move the conversation back to Committee Members. Well, we have a motion. Senator, would you like to close?

At the appropriate time, respectfully ask for an aye vote. And I want to thank you and the Members for your patience.

Definitely. So, we have a motion by Senator Seyarto. Can we call a roll, call vote?

Motion is to pass as amended to Appropriations.

[Roll Call]

That bill's on call, and we can move on to SB 922, Senator Roth. That's pulled. Sorry. Let's make that notable.

I don't want that, Madam Chair.

I even announced it. Right. All right.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. Okay, we have. Senator Ashby. All right, do we have a motion for the consent items? Senator Bradford has moved our consent items 1005 and SB 1122. And AJR 8.

[Roll Call]

So, consents on call. All right. Senator Ashby, would you like to present SB 1035?

Yes. Thank you. Madam Chair. Good morning. Thanks for starting early so we could knock some of these out. It's really helpful to the rest of the day. I appreciate it.

I'm here to present SB 1035, which seeks to reform the structure of restitution payments. Restitution fines are paid to the victim's compensation board, which, you know, by individuals who are convicted of crimes. It's an attempt to hold them accountable for the financial losses that they've caused to their victims.

Restitution, in theory, aims to serve as a form of restorative justice by promoting forgiveness, resolution of damages, and accountability. However, restitution fines in actual practice have oftentimes failed to make any or all parties whole.

Victim restitution can easily exceed amounts in the tens of thousands of dollars, on top of which, they accrue interest from the Franchise Tax Board at up to a 10% rate. Currently, 80% of the people who owe restitution live in poverty and at a 10% interest rate, further exasperating an already dire situation.

SB 1035 seeks to reform the restitution process to ensure that victims are properly compensated by reducing the interest rates on restitution payments, allowing for increased flexibility by requiring restitution payments be paid before the administrative costs to the Franchise Tax Board, and implementing a sliding scale.

SB 1035 seeks to reform the structure of restitution payments by better ensuring victims are compensated in a timely manner and easing the burden for people who are trying to reintegrate back into their communities, help them pay off their debt, and move forward with productive lives.

Some of our support includes the Anti-Recidivism Coalition, their co-sponsor, California State Treasurer, who's here to speak to this today, the Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, Sister Warriors program, the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, California Public Defenders Association, and Secure Justice.

And Madam Chair, My two lead witnesses in support today are April from the Sister Warriors and our state treasurer, Fiona Ma.

Thank you. Again. Witnesses only have two minutes, so who's your first witness?

Let's start with our state treasurer.

So, Treasurer Fiona Ma. Welcome.

Thank you. Thank you very much to Senator Ashby and her staff and everybody who is supporting our bill. My last two bills signed by Governor Brown when I left the Legislature was to allow women convicted of life without parole a second chance at hearing their case under the battered women's syndrome.

So I have been active with this community and feel very strongly and co-sponsoring this initiative because this bill, because like Senator Ashby said, approximately 80% of Californians owing restitution are living in poverty and unable to pay their debt. This inability to pay off the restitution debt can also lead to higher cases of recidivism.

And so reducing these barriers to payments will help not only the victims make sure that more money gets into their pocket, but also help the formerly incarcerated to be able to have the opportunity to assimilate without having this huge debt looming over their heads for life. Unlike other debt, restitution has no statute of limitations and is not dischargeable in bankruptcy.

So consequently, this debt can follow these formerly incarcerated folks for life, which, you know, is very detrimental to them being able to assimilate and get back into mainstream society. So thank you for your support.

Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker, again two minutes.

Good morning, Chair and Committee, today I stand before you to discuss a matter of fairness and financial equity within our legal system, specifically the method by which we impose and collect restitution.

I ask you to consider the implementation of lower interest and an ability to pay style of garnishment as the most equitable approach to ensure justice is served without causing undue financial strain on individuals. Current garnishment practices often follow a one size, fit all approach, disregarding a debtor's actual ability to pay. This can lead to catastrophic outcomes where individuals are pushed into deeper financial distress, sometimes even resulting in poverty or homelessness.

Financial distress is a punitive cycle that benefits no one, not the creditor, not the state, and certainly not the individual and their families who are struggling to make ends meet. An ability to pay model, on other hand, assesses an individual's financial situation, including income, essential living and space, living expenses, and existing debts, before determining to a fair amount. Excuse me, I'm really nervous. That can be garnished.

This method ensures that restitution is paid in a manner that is proportionate to the individual's financial capability, thereby upholding the principle of justice while preventing further harm to those already facing financial challenges.

Adopting this model not only supports the financial stability of individuals, but also enhances the effectiveness of restitution collection. Studies and pilot programs in various jurisdictions have shown that when payments are set at reasonable levels, compliance increases.

People are more likely to pay what they owe when they feel the system treats them fairly, when the payments do not threaten their basic survival. Moreover, instituting an ability to pay garnishment and model aligns with broader societal values of compassion, equity, and rehabilitation.

It acknowledges that while individuals must be held accountable for their actions, the punishment should not extend to perpetuating a cycle of poverty. It supports the reintegration of individuals into society as productive contributing members rather than pushing them to the margins.

In conclusion, I urge you to consider the long term benefits of transitioning to an ability to pay model of garnishment. This approach not only ensures that restitution payments are made in fair and equitable manners, but also promote thank you. And I want to say my name is April Grayson.

I'm the policy manager for sister warriors, and I failed to mention that in the beginning. Thank you.

No, I appreciate it. Thank you so much. Do we have any Me Too in support? Again, state your name, your organization, and that you support the bill.

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

Esteban Nuñez on behalf of the Anti-Recidivism Coalition in strong support.

Barbara Chavez with the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in full support.

Colby Lenz with the California Coalition for Women Prisoners in support.

Gerone Maguid here on behalf of Legal Services for Prisoners with Children. Proud co-sponsor and full support. Thank you.

Elisa Biaria, with Survived and Punished with strong support.

All right, do we have any other support? Seeing none, we'll move on to lead opposition witnesses. Do we see any opposition? Lead opposition?

I don't see any other opposition.

All right, so you get two minutes if you need.

I won't take two minutes of your time. Good morning. Ivy Fitzpatrick, California DA's Association in opposition. Victim restitution in this state is both a constitutional and a statutory right.

Unfortunately, and I've seen this through my 25 years here, many offenders never pay victim restitution in full or really any at all. And the victims never realize those rights. With the cost of living always rising, especially in the last several years, and offenders failing to pay that restitution, if any, most not in full, ever.

Reducing the interest rate to 1% pretty much ensures that crime victims will never be made whole and those important constitutional and statutory rights will never be realized for them. So CDA respectfully asks for your no vote.

Thank you. Do we have any other opposition witnesses? Do we have any other Me Too in opposition? Seeing none, we can move the conversation to the Committee. Committee Members. Senator Seyarto.

So I have a question in your bill about incentivizing, because we talked about the 80% that might not be able to afford a 10% interest rate, but they talk about a sliding scale. What's the other 20%? And also on the other 80%, there's two questions in here.

The other 80%, how do they determine what their income really is? Because there's several ways of making income that a lot of people engage in and a lot of it's not reported. So how do they ensure that people have an incentive to pay the restitution, which is that large 10% versus a 1% that you would, you know, if you have a low interest rate on your house, you don't sell your house because now, because that money can be used for something else.

You gotta hire financial people will take the 1% interest and never ever pay because they can use that money for other stuff. So how do we continue to incentivize people to pay the restitution? Because at the end of the day, there's a reason they're paying restitution. Is that because they victimize somebody?

Sure. So just, there's a lot of questions wrapped up in your question. Let me see if I can address some of them. First of all, I want to be really clear.

This doesn't do anything about changing a person's obligation to pay restitution. It doesn't change that at all. It does prioritize of the restitution paid what gets paid first. In other words, we're going to pay the victims first before we pay the government. And the other thing that it does is just remove that 10% interest rate. I would not, I would argue that the 10% interest rate is not some incentive to pay, nor would a 1% interest rate be an incentive to pay.

People who are paying restitution because of incarceration are generally on some kind of probation or parole as well. Paying restitution is generally a part of that parole or probation, they have many reasons to pay their restitution in full way beyond an interest rate, which is in many ways not the biggest concern because as you can see, these are people who are fighting for their everyday existence. What a 10% interest rate does is make the restitution harder to pay.

More difficult to pay if instead of owing you a dollar, I owe you $1.10 and every month that goes up, it gets harder and harder for me to pay that debt to you. So this makes it easier for people who want to pay this restitution to be able to do that. As to the sliding scale that you asked about, it's exactly as it sounds.

It gives Franchise Tax Board the opportunity to work with each individual person on a sliding scale that takes into account what they're able to pay. Some people make more money during particular seasons, some people don't. Some people are in school, just like you would do with school loans, like we do with students.

It gives them an opportunity to have a sliding scale where they have an opportunity to individualize a plan that better gives them an opportunity to pay their restitution payments.

I would actually argue that the opposition's argument, the DA's argument, would be the best argument to support this bill, which is to say that you really want the victims to get the money, then take the 10% interest rate off of it and let them pay the money that they have to the victims. That's what this bill does.

Right? But when they're making installment payments or taking a long time to pay -

just they do that anyway. That's already the case.

Even the amount that victim loses their ability to take that money.

The victim loses nothing here. Victim has an opportunity to actually get money where they weren't getting it before because they get priority order. You know, in loans there's a priority order. Like when you get a lien, you want to know where am I on my lien? Am I second or third in order? This moves payment above interest rates.

So this is good for victims and good for people who are paying restitution. Make no mistake about that.

Well, maybe they should have something where the state or whoever the agency is. Franchise Tax Board holds that 10% or whatever it is.

And according to. And once that's paid, they can decide how much that victim can pay into for the interest rate because somehow we cannot. I don't want to disincentivize people paying the victim because the victim is the one who is -

Neither and I don't think this bill does that, but I do appreciate the concern.

Thank you, Senator Skinner?

Yes, I moved the bill and just appreciate the author bringing it. The reduction of the interest rate is going to benefit the ability to collect it, going to help our victim services, because right now, with the interest rate we charge, we're not even collecting these restitutions. So this is smart, not only for assisting the impact on the lower income person, but also guaranteeing that we can collect these funds. So with that, I move the bill.

Thank you, Senator. Would you like to close?

I urge an aye vote thank you very much for your time and patience.

Thank you. The bill has been moved by Senator Skinner. Can we call a roll call vote?

Motion is do pass to Rev. And tax.

[Roll Call]

That Bill is on call, Senator.

Thank you, Chairman.

All right, we have Senator Menjivar presenting SB 1069. And just for those that are joining us, I want to highlight again that witnesses speak at that lectern. You will be, you know, checked for about two minutes, and then also me toos. Senator, whenever you're ready.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning, Public Safety Committee.

I'm here to talk about what happens when an incarcerated individual gets sexually assaulted and the people that are supposed to bring down just determinations are the same people that are peers with the individual who causes that harm. Currently, if an incarcerated person is a victim of sexual misconduct by an employee, the Allegation Investigation Unit of California's Department of Corrections and Rehab, Office of Internal Affairs, is the sole entity leading the investigation's process of sexual misconduct allegations and complaints.

Following the investigation, wardens have the sole authority to review completed misconduct investigation reports and determine the disposition of the investigation, including findings and corrective or disciplinary action. This process essentially entrusts CDCR to oversee itself, acting as the judge, the jury, and the arbiter of punishment over its own employees. SB 1069 will work to protect incarcerated victims of sexual misconduct by staff of CDCR.

Decades of sexual misconduct, including recent events at the Central California Women's Facility and the California Institution for Women, have demonstrated that a new process for sexual misconduct cases and complaints is necessary. Recently, a January report from the Office of the Inspector General also found that CDCR has violated its own regulations by downgrading staff and misconduct complaints to routine grievances.

SB 1069 will create a meaningful pathway for victims of sexual misconduct by CDCR staff to report instances of sexual misconduct with assurance that multiple stakeholders, including one independent of CDCR will determine the outcomes in an investigation. Breaking it down, specifically, this Bill would do three things. It will require rig to monitor all sexual misconduct cases and complaints involving staff.

It will give OIG investigatory authority over sexual misconduct involving staff, and it will make the outcome of staff investigations decided as a shared responsibility between the warden and the OIG. If in some cases there is significant disagreement between the OIG and the warden, the Department of Justice will be notified and has the authority to make recommendations to CDCR. To that, Madam Chair, I'd like to now turn over to two witnesses to speak on the need for SB 1069.

Thank you. Can we have our first witness approach the lectern?

I'd like to welcome up Nikki Carroll, a directly impacted survivor.

And then you have a second witness as well?

Yes. Jenny Wong, an attorney at Justice First.

Perfect. Each of you will have two minutes.

Okay. Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. I am Nikki Carroll.

At the age of 17, I was sentenced to prison, and I served 20 years. Going to prison at 17, I was scared and naive, which made it easier for officers to take advantage of me. I was told that officers were supposed to help us. I met an officer who was nice to me, but he had ulterior motives. He groomed me and then began sexually assaulting me. After it became known, I was blamed for the abuse by staff, and nobody helped me.

They put me in front of a camera and interrogated me. It was all male staff, and I was never offered any mental health support. Whether I cooperated or not, I knew they would place me in administrative segregation. I was scared of retaliation, including when I went up for parole. I was scared of being shipped further from my family, which is what they eventually did. I didn't have any safe options. I felt helpless. And I wasn't the only victim treated like this.

In their eyes, they got rid of the problem, which was always us, and our abusers kept their jobs. I have no trust in CDCR's investigation process, and it doesn't make sense for wardens to have the final say because they will protect themselves. If a victim appeals to CDCR Sacramento, they check back in with the prison's investigative services unit. So it's a circular process with no oversight. Somehow it's become CDCR's policy to blame the victim. This is how they dehumanize us, that it's our fault, then we must have seduced them, that the officers are just weak and can't help it.

They keep abusing us and blaming us for the abuse because they know they'll get away with it. CDCR's investigation process is not only failing victims, but causing more harm. It's also silencing victims, which allows officers to sexually assault more people. And that's what happened in my case, allowing him to abuse so many more women. We need oversight and a reason to trust the victims, that victims will be protected. And I respectfully request your support for SB 1069.

Thank you. Thank you. You will also have two minutes.

Thank you. Good morning. My name is Jenny Huang. I'm a civil rights attorney with over 20 years of experience in prison sex abuse staff cases. I'm testifying in support of SB 1069 because it's what's needed to take exclusive authority away from prison wardens in deciding the findings and disciplinary response to staff sex abuse.

For decades, prisons have swept under the rug complaints of staff sex misconduct against their own prison staff, and prison wardens have participated in and authorized this practice. For example, in one case, a prison warden found a claim of sex misconduct to be unsubstantiated, despite handwritten letters from prison staff explicitly asking for sex favors that were validated by a handwriting expert.

In another case, a sergeant was accused of having intercourse up to three times per week with an incarcerated person, and the warden sustained six allegations of staff misconduct. However, after a year-long investigation, during which the sergeant was put on paid administrative leave, the warden allowed the sergeant to resign without any disciplinary action. SB 1069 remedies a remaining flaw of a departmental practice that allowed prisons to sweep under the rug any complaints of misconduct against the prison's own staff.

By taking away the exclusive authority from the warden to make findings and take disciplinary action against his or her own prison staff, this Bill removes the potential for bias by making it a shared decision between the warden and the OIG. This Bill also gives the OIG investigative authority over all sex misconduct complaints against staff.

With the recent exposure of rampant sexual abuse in California's prisons, the CDCR has demonstrated that it requires external oversight to ensure that the staff and investigation process is free of bias and that appropriate action is taken against prison staff who engage in sexual abuse. This Bill is a critical step in the right direction because it moves the OIG's role beyond mere monitoring, assessment, and reporting on CDCR's failures to one of independent investigation and recommendation in cases where intervention is warranted.

Thank you.

I respectfully ask for your Aye vote.

Thank you. Do we have any support me toos? Please state your name, your organization, and that you support it. We'd like to move through this pretty quickly. So if you guys can line up at that lectern, thank you.

April Grayson, Sister Warriors Freedom Coalition, proud co-sponsor of this Bill.

Erin Friday and I hope this Bill will also help women who are being sexually abused by men who think they are women.

I don't want that support.

Margie Lee, Samson Advisors, on behalf of Families Against Mandatory Minimums, otherwise known as FAM, in strong support.

Kenneth Hartman, Transformative Programming Works, and also for GRIP Training Institute. We're strongly in support of this Bill.

Leslie Caldwell, Houston for the California Public Defenders Association and for the San Francisco Public Defender's Office in support.

Good morning. Glenn Backes for Initiate Justice and Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Jeronimo Aguilar here, on behalf of Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, All of Us or None, in strong support. Thank you.

Kapri Walker, on behalf of the Anti-Recidivism Coalition, in support.

Barbara Chavez, on behalf of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, in strong support.

Colby Lenz, proud co-sponsor with the California Coalition for Women Prisoners for all cis women and all trans people. Thank you.

Doctor Lisa Biaria with Survived and Punished in strong support for all survivors.

Grace Glazer, on behalf of Valor U.S., proud co-sponsor and in support.

Peggy Delgado Fava, Bridge Network, strong support.

Thank you. Do we have any opposition witnesses? Seeing none. Do we have any opposition witnesses in this room that would just like to state that they're opposing? All right, we will bring the conversation back to Committee Members. Senator Skinner.

Thank you. Senator, I really appreciate your bringing this Bill. It's very needed.

The Legislative Women's Caucus visited one of our women's facilities, and it was the facility where one of the corrections officials had previously been charged by a DA with more than 90 counts of sexual assault on a minimum of 17 of the incarcerated individuals in that facility. And it had been going on for years. So it's unfortunate that this has continued and it's clear that we need a better system, and I really appreciate your bringing it forward, and I'm happy to move it.

Senator Seyarto.

All right. I too, want to thank you for bringing this Bill, because it does address one of the issues that we're having with some of our prisons, and frankly, the conditions that some of those prisons, some of our incarcerated individuals are being subjected to while they're in prison. But the work is not done. There is, I think, a lot more, as one of the witnesses has stated, we need to address some of these other issues besides this one.

And so I look forward to hoping, hoping that you will continue to work on this. I think you and I had a very short conversation on the Floor one day about this, and I said, hey, do some legislation. We'll be right there with you, because there is no reason to dehumanize people that are incarcerated. And so I appreciate you bringing the Bill and look forward to more that work on this, this issue with a couple of our prisons in particular. Thank you.

Senator. I just want to thank you for bringing this Bill forward. I personally have visited Chowchilla in the past, and I know that the Women's Caucus also visited it. Again, I do want to highlight that we do have a problem in our prisons, both male and female facilities. I just want to highlight that as much as possible.

And at the same, same time, I also want to ensure that the public understands that prison guards have a job, and anytime that they are taking advantage of somebody that they are responsible for, they are violating that trust, that safety component, and much more. And, frankly, for those that are hiding and denying and covering up for their colleagues or themselves and so forth, it's a complete dereliction of duty. And I really appreciate you bringing this forward.

I think that we obviously have a significant amount of work left to do, but I believe that Senator Skinner moved the Bill, and would you like to close?

Thank you, Madam Chair. You know, Senator Skinner, this legislation came out of that visit that we did a couple of months ago, and my creating that relationship with Sister Warriors and so many other entities that are looking to represent and bring to light the voices of individuals that sometimes are suppressed.

But this also reminded me of my time in the military, where it's about very similar kind of approaches, where people in uniform, we tend to protect our own. And in the military for decades, we had the issue where if a fellow sister of mine in uniform was sexually assaulted, it was our supervisors who would investigate. It was our commanding officers who would then have to decide if they wanted to reprimand their friend or not. And in most cases, they never did.

That same thing is what's happening here in our prisons, which is why it was personal to me, because we want to make sure that all uniformed officers, all uniformed personnel, aren't only there to protect their own peers. They're also there to do their job, like Madam Chair said. And I'd be remiss if I didn't mention that I do not agree with one of the comments that said, out of the support here, gender identity, being transgender has nothing to do. It's not correlated to sexual assault.

So, Senator Seyarto I agree with the first half of your comments, but I do not disagree with the second half. I don't think we need to do anything more. And in that space, there is no correlation with someone's identity and sexual assault. So with that, respectfully ask for an Aye vote.

Thank you. The Bill was moved by Senator Skinner. Can we get a roll call vote, please?

SB 1069. Motion is do pass to Appropriations. [Roll call].

Senator, that bill's on call. Thank you. Can we have Senator Min? Senator Min is going to be presenting SB 1242.

Senator, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Madam Chair, Committee Members, good morning to you all. As part of the Senate's safer California plan, SB 1242 would specify that for the crime of reckless arson, the fact that the offense was carried out within a merchant's premises in order to facilitate organized retail theft shall be a factor in aggravation at sentencing. We're all acutely aware of the fact that retail theft is growing and becoming increasingly sophisticated in communities across this state.

To facilitate organized retail theft, many have resorted to arson, setting fire as a distraction from the theft that is occurring while staff are distracted. This dangerous diversion endangers lives and disrupts business operations. Stores not only lose the stolen merchandise, but may suffer damage to their buildings and merchandise, sometimes having it closed for weeks to make repairs. To deter this crime, SB 1242 would impose higher penalties and crack down on the criminals who commit these heinous crimes.

Today, I have with me Rachel Michelin, President and CEO of the California Retailers Association, to testify and support.

Thank you. Good morning. Rachel Michelin, President and CEO of the California Retailers Association I'm here today in strong support of Senate Bill 1242. Let me share a few examples of why this legislation is needed. Last September in Southern California, a 40 year old woman was taken into custody in connection with a fire at a popular retailer, where she set fire to a baby clothes section of the store. According to the investigation, the fire was intentionally set to cover an attempt to steal.

The fire caused $500,000 in damage to the building and $1 million in damage to product. In June of 2023, here in Sacramento, while shoppers were in the store, a fire was set inside a retailer as a distraction while a carefully orchestrated team walked out with hundreds of dollars worth of merchandise. The fire forced the store to close for weeks due to damage and to restock the products. Arson within retail establishments poses a severe threat not only to property, but also to human life.

These establishments are not just buildings, they are hubs of economic activity where individuals earn their livelihoods and communities gather. When arson strikes, the consequences ripple far beyond the physical damage. The economic repercussions of arson within retail stores are significant. Small business owners who are the backbone of our economy, invest their time, resources and passion into their establishments. When these businesses fall victim to arson, it not only results in financial loss, but disrupts the local economy, leading to job losses and decline in community morale.

By enacting legislation to increase penalties for arson within retail stores, we send a clear message that such crimes will not be tolerated. Stronger penalties serve as a deterrent to potential offenders and help protect both property and human life. I urge your support of Senate Bill 1242. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Can we have our witnesses come up? If we have any. State your name, your organization that you support.

Sorry, short. Madam Chair Members. Julian Avors, on behalf of League of California Cities in strong support.

Thank you. Do we have any others? Seeing none, we'll move on to lead. Opposition. Seeing none. Do we have any opposition that would like to just state they're opposed? Seeing none, we'll move the conversation to Committee Members. Committee Members seeing none. Sorry, Senator Skinner.

I move the Bill.

Thank you. Senator, would you like to close?

It's a barn burner. Clearly. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. We have a motion by Senator Skinner. Can we call roll?

That Bill is on call, Senator. Thank you, Senator Gonzalez. Hidden in the back. Senator Gonzalez, you will be presenting SB 1253. The floor is yours.

SB 1242. Motion is due pass to appropriations. [Roll Call]

Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. And Members, I'd like to begin by accepting the Committee amendments to extend the 60 day grace period for firearms safety certificate renewal to 120 days.

And I'm here to present today SB 1253, which will make essential updates to the firearm safety certificate program to keep California communities safe. California has made great strides in recent decades to reduce gun violence. However, accidental and unintentional shootings continue to be a leading cause of firearm related incidents in the state, particularly for children, contributing to roughly 30% of all firearm related deaths and injuries from 2016 to 2022.

SB 1253 will close this loophole and increase firearm safety by requiring firearm owners to renew their safety certificate every five years, as opposed to a one time certificate at the point of sale, as required under current law. This will also ensure that firearm owners are up to date on firearm safety laws and best practices, including safe storage and handling. Testifying in support today, I have Rebecca Marcus on behalf of the Consumer Protection Policy Center at the University of San Diego School of Law.

I respectfully ask for an aye vote on SB 1253.

Thank you. And you have one witness, correct? Only one. Senator.

Yes.

Okay. You have two minutes. Right. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Rebecca Marcus representing the Consumer Protection Policy Center at the University of San Diego School of Law. CPPC is a nonprofit, nonpartisan academic center of research, teaching, learning and advocacy, and regulatory and public interest law.

From 2016 to 2021, there were close to 70,000 gunshot wound incidents that resulted in death or required urgent medical attention. 45% were the result of self harm, either an accident or an act of suicide. Of the 15% that were the result of intentional self harm, there was a 91% fatality rate. As the data shows, there are many ways in which California communities are impacted by gun violence. Not all legislative bills to combat gun violence should focus on targeting criminals or illegal firearms.

Strategic legislation should be used to help reduce the number of unnecessary deaths and injuries that impact our communities. FSCs or firearm safety certificates were established so every firearm owner could understand and follow firearm safety practices. The FSC test requires the applicant to be provided with information regarding responsible handling and securing the owner's firearm, proper transfer of a firearm, and suicide prevention. Current law requires a person to acquire this FSC before the purchase or reception of any firearm, with exceptions.

However, there is no requirement for a firearm owner to recertify that firearm safety certificate after its expiration. Further, there is no requirement for a person who brings the firearm outside the state from outside the state. As you know, this body passes numerous laws each year related to gun safety and violence prevention. We should make sure gun owners are educated on them. Additionally, those importing from out of state.

Thank you.

Okay. Thank you so much. We urgent an aye vote.

Definitely appreciate it. We'll move on to me too in support.

And I'd like to give a me too on behalf of Brady Campaign in Brady, California. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing any other me toos? All right, we'll move on to lead opposition witnesses, you will have two minutes.

Morning, Madam Chair and Members, Rick Travis, the Legislative Director for the California Rifle Pistol Association. SB 1253, seeks to take a long chain of hands on gun safety certificates and FSCs into what appears to be a license. One of the problems with that is law abiding citizens only had to get one of those if you were purchasing a firearm.

The fact is, there are millions of law abiding Californians who've never had to go through that process, and therefore, there's not really a mechanism to reach out to those people that when this goes into effect, they'll essentially become non law abiding firearms owners because our own Department of Justice doesn't even know how many firearms are in the state. Secondly, lawful gun owners who lawfully do have those certificates are often going through training over and over.

So it seems the issue isn't with the law abiding gun owner that's going to gun stores and going through training, but getting to those people who aren't. That's something that all of our organizations are working on. And yet we've had no one in this body come to us as a stakeholder and say, how do we improve that? The third issue that I see is we have migratory populations that the courts here in this country have now said are allowed to possess firearms.

How are we going to reach out to those migratory populations and advise them? Because we don't even know who they are and which ones that have it. So, respectfully, for all these reasons I don't see covered in this Bill, we ask for a no vote.

Thank you. Do we have a second? Yes, you have two minutes as you know.

I appreciate the two minutes. Madam Chair, Members of the Committee, Sam Paredes, representing Gun Owners of California. I'd like to point out a couple of things. California is 20% of everything in America. But even if we just take half of what California is representing, the number of guns in the State of California. You were talking about 50 million guns in the State of California.

Now, you are asking these lawful gun owners to, in essence, license the fact that they are exercising an enumerated constitutional right. Clearly, this affects their Second Amendment rights. Therefore, the Supreme Court says that you have to show a historical analog going to 1791 to show that there is some sort of relationship to this measure that is being passed. There is none. There are none. So on its basis, this becomes a license because you cannot legally own a gun unless you have this firearm safety certificate.

That's unconstitutional. According to the University of California, Davis, there are approximately 50 firearm deaths in the State of California because of accidents. Because of safety violations or negligence. Out of 50 million that. Well, again, according to the University of California, Davis, that constitutes 0.0012% of the legally owned guns out there that are used in an accident that leads to death. That is a very, very, very, very small percentage of people of guns that have been involved in one of these accidents.

This is an attempt to swat a mosquito with a nuclear bomb by requiring lawful citizens who are exercising their second Amendment rights and denying them the ability to do that by requiring them to have a license. And if they don't have this license, they can't exercise that right.

Time.

Thank you for your time. We are in strong opposition to this Bill. Thank you.

Appreciate it. We gave you a couple more seconds, just FYI. Yes. So do we have any other opposition? Please state your name, your organization that you oppose.

Greg Herner on behalf of the 10 chapters of Safari Club International and California opposition.

Hi, Madam Chair Members. Mark Henley with California Waterfowl. We have concerns about the bill's impact on licensed hunters who use handguns and so we are in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Lieutenant Julio De Leon. In opposition on behalf of Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco.

Good morning. Keeley Hopkins, State Director for the National Rifle Association. Here today, in opposition.

Alex Bosky of Gun Owners of California in strong opposition.

Beau King, Citrus Heights, California, strong opposition.

Debra King, Citrus Heights, strong opposition.

Elizabeth Rose May. I'm a two time violent crime survivor, a CCW holder, and I'm very concerned about this Bill.

Thank you. Do we have any others in the room? Seeing none, we'll move the conversation to Members of the Committee. Members, do we have any commentary? Seeing none. Senator Skinner.

Move the Bill.

Thank you. Senator, would you like to close?

Just want to thank you for the commentary, both on support and opposition, and respectfully asked for an aye vote.

Thank you. We have a motion by Senator Skinner. Can we get a roll call vote, please?

Senator, that bill's on call. We will move on to Senator Seyarto presenting SB 1219. All right, Senator, you have the floor.

SB 1253. Motion is due pass as amended to appropriations. [Roll Call]

Thank you, honorable Chair. I'm here to present SB 1219. This Bill makes the act of impeding traffic and loitering in a public place with the intent to direct or solicit prostitution. Forms of disorderly conduct. SB 1219 is meant to address the increase in human trafficking while shielding our most vulnerable. With me here today to present SB 1219 are. My lead witnesses are Opal Singleton and Marjorie Saylor.

Opal has years of experience dealing with human trafficking, and Marjorie is both a survivor of the sex traffic industry and human trafficking, who now advocates on behalf of victims and survivors.

You will have two minutes. Thank you.

Thank you. I want to share Desi's story with you. She was a beautiful Mexican American Trans woman who came to me seeking help while engaged in street prostitution. She wanted a way out and needed treatment for untreated HIV. Within her first two weeks in shelter, she was hospitalized three times after attempting suicide. She was struggling to accept her diagnosis, and every former support system had abandoned her.

Even with the temporary housing, she left the shelter and went back home to San Francisco. She called me to thank me for everything I'd done for her and said goodbye. Desi took her life that day. I am Marjorie Saylor, and I am also a survivor of the sex industry and human trafficking. I, too, nearly lost my life to the sex industry twice, long before my work began in the space as an advocate in 2014, I've assisted thousands of survivors across the US with emergency shelter.

Over the last 11 years, I've assisted. I have also a long history as a Program Director of another nonprofit and as an educator in my community. Before making my career change recently to the DA's office in San Diego, I have seen nothing short of the grim realities of who benefits the most from legislation that allows no protections against perpetrators of abuse and systems of prostitution. I've assisted over 2000 individuals here in California alone in the last 10 years.

Over 65% of them were from vulnerable black and brown communities. All reported abuse at the hands of buyers, including rape, rape combined with robbery, rape combined with beatings and robbery, stabbings, being thrown out of moving vehicles, being held hostage, and countless instances of strangulation and rape-style fantasies being played out. SB 357, in addition to increasing blatant physical abuse on the streets, also removed protections against perpetrators of abuse by decriminalizing the act of loitering for buyers as well as pimps.

Before SB 357, pimps were laid up at home on a couch while their 12, 13, 14, 15-year-old victims were walking the streets with bloody feet. Now, these pimps are liberated to standing on the street corners and keeping an even tighter grip on their victims without any repercussions. Pimps, buyers, and traffickers are the only ones who have benefited from SB 357.

Ma'am, time.

Thank you.

Thank you. Our next lead witness. You have two minutes.

Thank you. My name is Opal Singleton. I'm the President and CEO of Million Kids. We're an organization that for 15 years now, have been keeping kids safe from predators. SB 357 has had many unintended consequences. One of those is a massive increase in the amount of human trafficking activity taking place in California. This is a serious public safety issue, and we need to address it.

I have personally witnessed after SB 357 and have heard from many city leaders and mayors about how pimps, gangs, cartels are bringing van loads of girls in from Las Vegas and Phoenix and across the USA to conduct commercial sexual services in our communities. Many of our neighborhoods have lines of cars cruising up and down the streets, stopping in the middle of the road to negotiate a sexual transaction. In San Diego, LA, and Oakland, the neighborhoods are no longer safe for children, families, or elderly.

There are used condoms, needles, and cigarettes in yards and driveways and streets where there were once children that were playing. Two schools in the Oakland area have been forced to close because it is no longer safe for parents to walk their kids to school, drop them off. Parents have to call the police and ask for an escort to have their child brought from school through the line of sex sellers.

Parents are afraid to get out of their car to get their kids because of threats from pimps. I am especially concerned about the homeless. A homeless woman is a trafficked woman. A homeless teenager is a traffic teenager, regardless of gender or sexual orientation. I can't imagine that any of you have constituents that would have their 13 year old girl step out of their front room and be greeted by a pimp trying to get her in the life.

Or have your five-year-old granddaughter escorted from kindergarten through at line of sex workers just to get to the car.

Ma'am.

But it is happening.

Thank you.

I am asking to approve SB 1219.

Thank you. For those of you that would like to make a me-too comment, please state your name, your organization, and that you support, and again, limit your comments to that you support.

Erin Friday, Protect Kids California. Our duty. Support.

Thank you.

Helen Taylor with the anti-trafficking organization Exodus Cry. Standing with survivors in support.

Madison McQueen, also with Exodus Cry and San Francisco resident. Strong support.

Cynthia Cravens. Former candidate for California State Senate, District 11. Longtime Democrat, very much in support of this.

Yvette Corcoran. Longtime resident of San Francisco, mother, nurse. Very much in support of this Bill.

Holly Jackson. Former teenage runaway, in support.

Peggy Delgado Fava. Bridge Network, we provide services for C Sec victims. Thank you. Support.

Ivy Fitzpatrick, California GA's Association, Riverside County District Attorney's Office. In support.

Craig Burt with the California Family Council. In support.

Rochelle Conner, on behalf of Concerned Women for America. Strong support.

Good morning. Lieutenant Julio De Leon of Riverside County Sheriff's Office. In support.

Dillon Lesovsky. San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department. In support.

Hi, Randy Perry with Aaron Read & Associates on behalf of PORAC and the San Francisco Police Officer Association. In support.

Thank you. Do we have any other support witnesses? Or me-toos, I should say. Seeing none, can we move on to opposition lead witnesses? Each of you will have two minutes.

Thank you. Becca Cramer-Mowder on behalf of ACLU California Action. In respectful opposition. The coalition to abolish slavery and trafficking's client services data does not support the claim that SB 357 has increased rates of human trafficking or street-based sex work.

In fact, in LA County they have seen a decrease in hotline and emergency response calls since 2021. And to the extent that there may be an increase in street-based sex trade, many things could contribute to this potential rise, including rising housing costs, the reduction of COVID-related financial relief programs and shifting labor laws. Sex workers are often parents working to support their children and rates of survival sex work would be greatly reduced by addressing the housing crisis and building a stronger social safety network.

Arresting sex workers for loitering does not help anyone. It only hides people from view and makes all sex workers, including those who are trafficked, more vulnerable to violence and abuse. 1 recently conducted a statewide survey of practitioners who serve people with lived experience of human trafficking, sexual violence, and domestic violence.

And of their respondents, the overwhelming majority had seen clients who had been previously arrested or detained and reported that more than half of them reported that being arrested or detained had made survivors more vulnerable to victimization, and one third reported that their clients had been victimized by law enforcement. Additionally, laws aimed at criminalizing purchasers of sex create more dangerous working conditions for sex workers and people who are trafficked.

Similar laws in other countries have pushed sex workers to operate under riskier conditions with harmful implications for their health, including a decrease in condom use and increased drug and alcohol use, depression and suicidal thoughts and violence against sex workers. Results like these, including the harmful impact on victims of sex trafficking, have led Amnesty International to recommend that some of these laws in other countries be repealed. Increasing critical.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Two minutes.

Hi, my name is Fatima Malik Shabazz. Here on behalf of Decrim Sexwork California, we wrote SB 357. Admittedly, yes, there is a problem with sex trafficking. We know this. This Bill, however, is bad policy. This Bill does not help anyone. What it does is it increases the ability for sex workers to be harmed. Statistics show that there's not maybe two out of three, maybe four people who actually get helped or who are sex trafficked, and they get help when they are arrested.

Being arrested is a traumatic incident. It is violent. It is terrible to people. It puts them at help. It puts them at risk, in and out. Right? It makes this job, which is already a very, very dangerous job. It puts these people in more vulnerable positions. Bills like this are bad policy, and they kill people outright.

They kill people, you know, be they a person who is sex trafficked or just your average run-of-the-mill street worker who is just trying to take care of their families, pay bills just like everyone else in this room. You know, this Bill is bad policy. It kills people. The City of Los Angeles, Oakland. Statistics show that SB 357 did not increase street based sex work. It didn't. Right? If anything, it did. AB 205 did. But this Bill will not.

I guarantee you, it will not help anyone being sex trafficked. I really have a whole lot of empathy and sympathy for the people who go through that and there is a problem. It needs to be resolved, but this Bill is not the way to do it. This Bill is only going to get people hurt. It's only going to get people killed. That's going to be the bottom line to that. People will get hurt, people will get killed, and no one will be helped.

So thank you for your time.

Thank you. We will move on to opposition me toos. Please state your name, your organization, and that you oppose this Bill.

Good morning. Glenn Backus for Smart Justice California. In opposition.

Lesli Caldwell Houston, for the California Public Defenders Association and the San Francisco Public Defenders Office. In opposition.

Barbara Chavez with the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights. Strongly oppose.

Good morning. Tatiana Lewis with the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights. In strong opposition. Thank you.

Craig Pulsipher. On behalf of Equality California. In opposition. Also oppose SWAP LA. The Coalition to Abolish Slavery and Trafficking, Free Speech Coalition, and the Center on Reproductive Rights and Justice.

Kathy Mossberg on behalf of APLA Health and the San Francisco AIDS Foundation. Both opposed.

Symphoni Barbee on behalf of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California. In opposition.

Jeronimo Aguilar. On behalf of Legal Services for Prisoners or Children. All of us are in non-opposition. Thank you.

Charita Moore on behalf of California Attorneys for Criminal Justice. In opposition.

Thank you. Do we have any other opposition witnesses? Seeing none, we will move the conversation to Members of the Committee. Senator Wiener.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you, Senator, for your presentation today. Probably surprises no one. I'm not going to be supporting this Bill today. The author of SB 357, we introduced that Bill and advanced it, and the Legislature passed it for a very specific reason. This is not the loitering law that SB 357 repealed was not your typical criminal law, that if you do X, that is a crime and you are accountable for that crime.

This is literally one of the more pernicious kinds of criminal laws that if you're simply standing around dressed in a certain way, your hair is in a certain way, your makeup's in a certain way, if an officer subjectively thinks. That's someone who I think is engaging in sex work, they can arrest you. I find that kind of crime to be offensive, and that's why we repealed it. And I understand not everyone agrees with me, and I respect that. But that's my perspective.

I do want to, however, just say some of the, what's the word? Narrative around SB 357 is just blatantly false. And I say this as someone who has been around this and involved with it for a few years now. I will say that just to give you some examples even before.

Even before this law went into effect, there were police who were telling their communities, there's nothing we can do because of SB 357, before it was even in effect, while the loitering law was still on the books. That happened in my own city, where a particular captain at Mission Station, because we have some parts of the mission that are very impacted by street prostitution, and those neighbors should not have to deal with what they are often dealing with.

And the city has employed various strategies to address it. But it's been going on for decades. For decades. You can find chronicle articles from the 1990s talking about the problems with street prostitution in this part of the mission. And yet the captain announced to neighbors, it's because SB 357, which was not even in effect yet, because that's why this is happening. Even though it was happening in the 1990s, it was happening before the lording crime was created.

It was happening during the decades that that crime was on the books, and it continues. So it was also the case that San Francisco stopped enforcing that loitering law years ago. And yet you have police telling, misleading, frankly, this one captain, members of the public, that this law that we stopped enforcing years ago, that its repeal of the law, we didn't even enforce or utilize. That's why this is happening. It was made up.

We also saw a particularly outrageous example in the City of San Diego. After SB 357 was in effect. So the loitering law was off the books. The City of San Diego and the County of San Diego, the DA, the State, Federal, they did a big joint operation to address the despicable crime of human trafficking. They did a big operation. They arrested, I don't remember the exact number. It was like 40 or 50 traffickers.

They arrested. And they rescued, I believe, something like 15 or 20 young women who were being trafficked. They did all of that even though the loitering law had been repealed. They did a big celebratory press conference, as they should have, by arresting these human traffickers and rescuing these young women. And they celebrated this really important thing that they did. And then, I can't remember.

I think it was the Police Chief and maybe the DA too got up and said, by the way, SB 357 has handcuffed us and eliminated our ability to deal with human trafficking, as they were announcing the arrest of dozens of traffickers. So I understand there's a lot of politics around this issue, and we have a long-standing problem that has existed since the beginning of problem issue. Some people view it that way, some people don't.

An issue that has been around from the beginning of the human species, and people get frustrated by that. And there are people who abuse other people and should be held accountable, and people who are trafficking other people should be harshly punished. And there's always this desire. Let's find a scapegoat and let's blame the Legislature. Law enforcement has the tools that they need to arrest traffickers, to rescue trafficking victims, and to enforce the law.

You don't need a vague loitering law that leads to absolutely arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. So I don't support this Bill.

Thank you. Senator, seeing no other comments, would you like to close?

Human trafficking is modern day slavery. That's what it is. And I think we are all we've heard over and over about the ills of slavery. In 2020 alone, 300,000 victims of human trafficking were identified in the US. Women and girls were found to be particularly vulnerable. African American women are disproportionately at higher risk, with many women reporting sexual abuse, beatings, food and sleep deprivation, isolation from the outside world.

Research from the US State Department and a large body of scientific research has found a close connection between the prostitution and human trafficking. Studies have shown that the decriminalization of prostitution has not led to better safeguards for victims of human trafficking, and that recently there has been an explosion of underage population. And this is because of the confluence of our dynamics here in California today. We have a lot of people coming into our country, and a lot of them are underage people.

And those people are being exploited. They're not being exploited by the person down the street that decided that they were going to be a pimp. These are being exploited by very sophisticated criminal enterprises. What this law is supposed to do is reel back what we've seen as the. And I don't know if it's not unintentional consequences, but the consequences of the Bill from last year.

And I understand the intent of not bothering people that want to be engaged in this and that the people are making money. This Bill is to try to help victims. It's focused on the victims and the ability of our law enforcement community to be able to help get those victims out of the circumstances that they're in safely. And I mean safely. Because if we don't do that, if we don't allow them that safe exit from this world, they'll be trapped in it forever.

And the cycle that they are in will continue with their families. Folks, we can't stand by and watch the consequences of a Bill. And that's what, you know, for me, I'm all for when a Bill passes. Okay, let's see how it works. But this particular Bill, when you start seeing how it's working and what the negative effects are, you better darn well get out there ahead of it. Well, you're not ahead of it anymore, but get out there and do something.

You can't wait for longitudinal studies of five years to determine what kind of damage and how many people it got killed. You're talking about people getting killed. You're talking about kids getting exploited and ruining their lives for the rest of their lives. Those are the people that need to be helped out. This law has not enabled the law enforcement, in general, to be able to even help those people. So the people that actually study this have been out there. They've seen it.

They've actually walked those streets. They've seen the increase since this Bill passed. And that's why they are imploring us to do something. And so that's what we're trying to do, is we're trying to do something. Do something for the victims, the people that don't want to be trapped in that world, the people who don't want to be exploited anymore. And so that's what this Bill is focused on. That is what it's trying to do.

There are sections of this Bill that talk about the people that make the most money in this, the people at the top, just like the corporations. I hear about a lot of people complain. The corporation, the people at the top are making all the money and the poor people at the bottom don't get anything. This is no different. But here we're talking about people dying that don't want to be in this world. And we're not doing anything for them, because we're afraid of doing something.

We're afraid of inconveniencing the people that do want. And the last thing is being a pimp, being a john, and prostitution is currently illegal. Supporting the illegal activities and saying that we shouldn't be helping victims because those people will be inconvenienced is a horrible argument. So this Bill, I wish it would pass, but I know it's not going to. And the only person that's going to be able to make the motion is me. And so I'm going to do that.

I will make the motion for this Bill.

You can't, technically.

As the author and a Member of this Committee, when there's only two people here.

You can't make a motion on your own Bill.

Okay, then I would leave it up to my Board Members here to at least have the decency to have a motion on this Bill so we can take a vote and we can put it on the record.

All right, thank you. Any Members of the Committee who are here. All right. Seeing no motion.

Well, thank you very much. I appreciate the opportunity.

We have two Members out, so there is roll call that's still open. We can wait. We will move on to our next bill. Senator Wiener, SB 905. This is our final bill. The floor is yours.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Today I'm presenting Senate Bill 905, which closes the locked door loophole, a nonsensical barrier to holding auto burglars accountable. I want to start by thanking the Committee for working with us. Happy to accept the amendments that we've worked out with the Committee. These amendments were made in consultation with the Committee at my request, and they are as follows.

The first amendment combines two sections or two subsections in section one of the bill with the intent of ameliorating potential immigration consequences without impacting the substance of the bill at all. The second ensures a section does not preclude or prohibit prosecution under any other existing penal code statute. And I'm committed to continuing to work with advocates on this bill relating to other concerns that have been raised.

Under existing law, in order to prove the crime of auto burglary, the District Attorney must prove that an offender broke the window in order to gain entry. And they also must. I'm sorry, let me start that over again. Under existing law, in order to prove auto burglary, the District Attorney has to prove that the door was locked. This is ridiculous. Even if you have evidence that there was forcible entry, a prosecution can fail because, for example, someone doesn't remember that they locked the door.

Or you have a tourist with a rental car who's 3000 miles away and not coming back. So we need to close that loophole. It makes no sense. We also have included provisions in there, working in collaboration with the Governor and with our leadership, relating to the resale of items stolen from cars and making sure that we're tightening up that aspect of the law. With that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote. With me today to testify is Carl Nicita from the San Francisco Police Department.

Thank you. You have two minutes.

Carl Nicita, principal legislative liaison for the San Francisco Police Department. First, thanks to Senator Wiener for his support and work on this issue. As I'm sure you know, car break-ins are a persistent problem in San Francisco. Our city is making real progress to disrupt auto break-ins, thanks to the very hard work of the members of the San Francisco Police Department. But we need more tools to sustain this work. One challenge with auto break-ins is the locked door loophole.

As Senator Wiener just said, under current law, to secure a conviction when an auto burglar is arrested, one of the elements that prosecutors must prove is that the vehicle was locked. A victim's broken window by itself does not establish that the vehicle was locked. As a result, victims are often asked to testify in court that their vehicle was locked.

But when a victim is a tourist or a visitor, as is often the case in San Francisco, it can be very difficult to secure the testimony of a victim because they live elsewhere. Senate Bill 905, sponsored by San Francisco Mayor London Breed, closes this locked-door loophole. Closing the loophole will help prosecute the organized theft rings targeting San Francisco, especially in our tourist areas. More successful prosecutions of these cases will send a message that if you break into cars, you will be held accountable.

Again, thanks to Senator Wiener for his work on this issue. Thanks for your time this morning, and I respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any other witnesses in support?

Madam Chair and Members, Paul Yoder on behalf of Marin city and county, in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Max Perry, on behalf of the California Police Chief Association. Also in support.

Randy Perry, the better looking one, representing PORAC, the California Association of Highway Patrolmen, and San Francisco POA, in support.

Thank you.

Ethan Nagler. I'm with the City of Carlsbad. In support.

Ivy Fitzpatrick, California DA's Association and Riverside County District Attorney's office in support.

Julie Navores on behalf of the League of California Cities in support.

Ryan Elaine. On behalf of the California Retailers Association, in support.

Amelia Zamani, with the California Travel Association, in support.

Anthony Butler-Torres, with the California Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, in support.

Thank you. Seeing no other support witnesses, we'll move on to lead opposition. Seeing none. Okay, go ahead.

Okay, I guess we're tweeners. Leslie Caldwell Houston. For the California Public Defenders Association. We thank Senator Wiener and his staff for working with us so closely on this. We still have some issues, so we're not withdrawing opposition altogether, but we do. Thank you for working with us.

Thank you. Seeing no other opposition witnesses, we'll move on to Members of the Committee. Senator Seyarto moves the bill. Senator, would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Let's do a roll call.

SB 905 motion is due pass as amended to Appropriations. [Roll Call]

That bill is on call. We have two Members we are waiting for to lift the call. I appreciate everybody, and let's call our Members back to the room. Let's lift the call.

SB 902, the motion is due pass as amended to Appropriations, current vote is three to zero. Wiener?

[Roll Call] SB 921, the motion is due pass as amended to appropriations current vote 3-0. [Roll Call] Consent calendar. [Roll Call] SB 1035. Motion is due pass to Rev. and tax. Current vote is two to one. [Roll Call] Yeah. SB 1242, due pass to appropriations current vote, three to zero. [Roll Call] 1253 current or motion is due pass as amended to appropriations, current vote, two to one. [Roll Call]

[Roll Call]

SB 1219 is held in Committee. I want to make it very clear that as chair, I cannot make a motion on any Bill. And other than that, I believe that the Senate Public Safety is adjourned. Thank you.