Assembly Standing Committee on Public Safety

Good morning. We will call this committee hearing to order. We will establish a quorum first. Please call the roll.

McCarty. Here. Alanis. Present. Lackey. Nguyen. Here. Reyes. Ting. Here. Wilson. Zbur. Here.

Okay. Quorum present. We do have a consent calendar with five items proposed on the consent calendar. Looking for a motion on the consent calendar. Mr. Zbur moves. Assembly Member Nguyen seconds. Please call the roll.

On the consent calendar. McCarty. Aye. Alanis. Aye. Lackey. Nguyen. Aye. Reyes. Ting. Aye. Wilson. Zbur. Aye.

Consent calendar is adopted. We have one item pulled from the calendar today. That's AB 1896 by Dixon. Pulled by the author. Okay, thank you. We're going to proceed with Assembly Member Flora with the first item.

All right. Good morning, Chair, members. Want to just thank the staff for their hard work and the Chair on this bill. But today I'm presenting AB 1892. Current law does not allow courts to issue an order authorizing the interception of electronic communications if the judge finds that there is probable cause to believe an individual is committing a child sex exploitation. When law enforcement executes a search warrant, a child predator becomes aware of other crimes being committed by other individuals via electronic communications.

They are unable to use the same process for child exploitation. AB 1892 would allow child pornography, exploitation, and related crimes to the list of eligible crimes for authorizing the interception of electronic communication of child predators if the judge finds or believes there is probable cause. And respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. You have witnesses?

No witnesses.

You're the star witness. Okay. Do we have anybody here to testify in support?

Mr. Patterson would like to say some words.

Excellent. Well done. I'm not sure if that helps you or hurts you, but-

That's a fair point.

Yes.

Don't want to break this, Mr. Chair. Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. Cory Salzillo, on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association, in support.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support? Seeing none. Any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Questions or comments from committee members? Mr. Alanis.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to thank the author for bringing this bill forward to us. And if I'm not already a co-author, please make me a co-author, and I move the bill.

No further questions. We have a motion and a second by Assembly Member Nguyen. You wish to close?

Just respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Okay. Thank you. Please call the roll.

On AB 1892 by Assembly Member Flora the motion is do pass, as amended, to the Appropriations Committee. McCarty. Aye. Alanis. Aye. Lackey. Nguyen. Aye. Reyes. Ting. Wilson. Zbur. Aye. Measure is on call at this point.

Measure is on call. Next author, Mr. Patterson. Mr. Rodriguez.

He's requesting to be three.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members, thank you for giving me the opportunity to present AB 1809, which would make an incarcerated person convicted of first-degree murder of a peace officer ineligible for a reduced sentence under the general resentencing statute. Before I begin, I would like to thank you, Mr. Chair, and your staff for working with my team and me on a compromise to address some of the concerns raised by the opposition.

Item number 2, 1809. Mr. Rodriguez, please begin.

That being said, I would like to accept the Committee's amendments, which would still allow an incarcerated person to be eligible for recall and resentencing if there is evidence their constitutional rights were violated in the proceedings related to the conviction, or if there is evidence that undermines the integrity of the underlying conviction. Law enforcement officers have one of the most dangerous, demanding and difficult jobs in this nation. They risk their personal safety to serve and protect the public daily.

According to the FBI, felony murders of law enforcement officers reached a 20 year high when 73 officers across the United States were killed in the line of duty in 2021. Last year, California lost seven law enforcement officers in the line of duty. Four of those deaths were due to gunfire from the suspect. Their tragic deaths are unacceptable. Existing law already prohibits incarcerated persons convicted of first degree murder from other forms of release, such as compassionate release or medical parole.

Compassionate release allows the court to recall an incarcerated person sentenced if that individual is permanently medically incapacitated and has a serious illness with an end of life trajectory. Medical parole allows the board of parole hearings to parole incarcerated individuals who are permanently incapacitated by a medical condition to a licensed healthcare facility that may serve their medical and housing needs.

Unlike compassionate release, incarcerated persons who are medically paroled remain under the supervision and conditions of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and return to the CDCR facility once their health improves. So, while existing law makes offenders who are frail and arguably less likely to commit a crime ineligible for these two forms of relief, an offender could still be eligible for reduced sentence under the general resentencing statute.

This bill would close a loophole to state law, which already recognizes that murdering a peace officer is no ordinary crime and that offenders should not benefit from certain forms of relief. With that, I will turn it over to my witness in support, Cindy De Silva of the California Department of District Attorneys Association.

Good morning, distinguished Members. It's good to be back again this year. Yes, I'm Cindy De Silva. I'm a deputy district attorney in San Joaquin county, and I'm here to register support on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association. In recent years, for various reasons, we have seen a bit of departure, at least from the perspective of the officers in terms of our elected bodies lending them their support.

We've unfortunately witnessed lots of officers leave the various departments, San Francisco in particular, very highly trained, highly qualified and well educated officers actually leaving the department for various reasons, not the least of which is feeling that they're not supported by the laws. Recently, just in last week's election, San Francisco in particular voted to roll back some of those rules in order to give more protection and a bit more freedom to the officers in order to protect their citizens.

And Assembly Member Rodriguez's Bill here, 1809, represents just a small sliver of giving them a little bit more support, a little bit of a return to them feeling like they are supported and valued. I know that when I was a little girl, I would, with my parents, ride around the various freeways and see freeways named after officers. With all due respect, some of those names were more in line with other people's generations than mine.

However, these days the names I'm seeing are frequent and they're everywhere. And they're names that I recognized from the news of just a few months before. So we're seeing lots of officers being murdered. And it's great that we recognize their names on the side of the road, but far more better if we can offer their families the emotional support of knowing that the sentences for their perpetrators are more solid and not something that's going to be subject to continuous applications for reduction.

Now we can have good, heartfelt policy debates on whether or not the death penalty or something like that is appropriate for these most heinous of crimes against our citizenry. But this is not even that. This is just offering some peace and quiet for the family members, as well as those peace officers now who know that they do face this potentially in their future. So even with these amendments, we are happy to support this measure. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support, please line up. Name, affiliation, and position only.

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

Mr. Chair, members. Cory Salzillo, on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association, in support.

Morning, Mr. Chairman Members. Andres Ramirez, on behalf of the mayor of the City of Turlock, in support.

Thank you. Opposition, please come forward.

Okay, I'll remain in the audience.

Wherever you'd like. You have five minutes in combination, however, you'd like to divvy it up.

All right, terrific. I'll start us off. My name is Rachel Stober, and I'm a case and mitigation specialist with the Freedom Project, which is a holistic legal team out of the San Francisco Public Defender's Office that focuses specifically on post-conviction representation.

This Legislature has passed several laws in recent years to allow for a second look at certain sentences after a significant period of time has passed to consider whether or not additional incarceration has actually become counterproductive given a person's demonstrated rehabilitation and the cost of incarceration, both fiscal and human.

As a practitioner, I can attest that the few that are deemed appropriate for discretionary resentencing are the folks who have served decades of incarceration, who've done exceptional amounts of programming, who've shown personal respect for all people, for rules, for laws, and are the people who've crafted detailed reentry plans that identify housing, services, employment, and community support. Any restriction on system-initiated resentencing is absolutely contradictory to its purpose.

As it's designed in the first place for the very rare instance where the system itself sees that a sentence has become unjust. Under existing law, the only way that an individual can even be reconsidered for resentencing is if a judge, a prosecutor, or CDCR initiates the process. So this means that the only way any resentencing can be initiated is if it has already been thoroughly examined by law enforcement or the judiciary, and these are the very people that we trust as our public safety experts.

Once initiated, resentencing will only happen if a judge agrees, and a judge can only decide on a petition after the victim or next of kin has had the opportunity to be heard. In fact, most system-initiated resentencing petitions proceed because a victim or the victim's family are actually there in agreement or have explicitly decided to defer to the courts. Last, resentencing doesn't necessarily mean release in the most serious cases.

It's actually more likely to mean an early attorney at the parole board or modifying a sentence from the death penalty to life without the possibility of parole. In conclusion, true justice here means each case is considered on its merits. System-initiated resentencing is a unique tool that we need to ensure that we can address unforeseeable individual circumstances and sentences that themselves have become harmful.

My name is, yes, Thanh Tran, policy consultant with the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, and we respectfully oppose this Bill. Cases need to continue to be reviewed on their individual merit. When the Legislature carves out groups, it undermines the central tenet of justice, individualized justice and jurisprudence. And being a formerly incarcerated person who spent 10 years incarcerated, I can tell you how opportunities like 1172 created and transformed a better California prison system.

And I can tell you how categorical exemptions like this one continues to undermine the progress that we are making. I remember being on a violent level three prison yard, and there was no programs. There was lifers. There was nothing but people with life sentences, and they truly believed the only way they were leaving prison was in a pine box. And so, yes, there was drugs on the yard, there was violence on the yard. But something weird happened in 2014.

In 2014, I saw a lifer get released from prison, and you had to be there to understand what hope does to a prison yard. Gang members began to leave their gangs. They started up self-help programs. I saw white supremacists start taking programs with people of color and then leave their bigoted ideologies because they were so moved by the transformative power of hope on a prison yard. And I also seen the flip side of when categorical exemptions has harmed our population on the inside.

I've seen one of our leaders, our incarcerated leaders, crumble, spiral and fall, when his case was categorically exempted and excluded from being resentenced. He went from a robust leader on the inside, encouraging others to rehabilitate, take programs and change themselves to become a shell of a human being because all hope was stripped from him. And when that hope was stripped from him, that was stripped from us on the inside. People on the inside was stripped of a leader that we desperately needed.

And I'll close by saying that I was resentenced through 1172. That means that I had to get my case reviewed for two years before finally they brought it in front of a judge to be reviewed again. And then finally, I was released. Today, I'm a father of two beautiful children. I'm a small business owner who pays taxes and I'm a proud advocate. But that's possible because of opportunities like 1172. So I encourage you to please do not pass this bill, even with those exemptions. So thank you.

Thank you. Please line up for your support statements. Thank you.

Danica Rodarmel, on behalf of Initiate Justice, in opposition.

Opposition statements.

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

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

Melanie Kim, San Francisco public Defender's office in opposition and on behalf of the following organizations, in opposition. Californians United for a Responsible Budget, Communities United for Restorative Justice and UnCommon Law.

Barbara Chavez, on behalf of Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, oppose.

Good morning. My name is Haley Little. I oppose this bill, representing Standing Up for Racial Justice, Bay Area and Californians United for a Responsible Budget. Thank you.

Eric Henderson, on behalf of ACLU California Action in opposition.

Okay, that's it. Questions or comments from Committee Members? Mr. Lackey?

Yeah. Thank you. First of all, I would like to say to the author that I would like to be a co-author on this particular measure. It's different when you have people that you've worked with that actually fall into this category as a victim. And I think we're very quick to ghost victims in our public policy.

And reconsideration is reasonable in many cases, but in this situation, the victim status gets no reconsideration. They're gone. Their families no longer get the association of their family member. And it was a willful act, a willful act that stole them. And I think that when we consider justice, please try to remember that lady justice has two sides, not just one. And the imbalance in our consideration often goes to the side of forgiveness.

And I'm not saying that forgiveness is not called for, but the way that forgiveness is offered matters. And in this particular issue, when a court comes at a decision after a long, painful trial, that decision should stand with this kind of finality to the victim. And I strongly ask you to at least think about the victims when you consider this proposal, because it's very tragic and it's very real, and their consequence never gets to be reconsidered. Thank you.

So the thing that I am struggling with is the fact that this doesn't give a judge, or even more than one judge, an ability to reconsider, even when justice demands it. And so the question that I have is, what's the problem we're trying to fix? How many times have we actually had a reconsideration occur where it was clearly an error? Because perhaps, you had a lenient judge that wasn't taking into account the risk to society and to the victims. How often is this occurring?

I'd actually like the author and actually the folks that are opposing this to answer that if possible.

I think with that said, right now, currently, there's only one individual incarcerated. Currently, right now, as of November 30, 2023 only one individual is currently incarcerated for first-degree murder of a peace officer. So that should tell you the population we're looking at only one currently right now. So all I want to do is I choose this legislation to close the loophole that align with state existing laws.

So a very small percentage of folks this would affect. And really that hasn't been an issue yet. But I just wanted to put something on the books now in case it were to come up in a future date that there is existing law that kind of closes that loophole.

I think the thing that's hard is obviously, I do believe that when peace officers put their lives on the line, that it's a risk that is different.

On the other hand, just very concerned about the precedent this sets because I think generally we should be relying on judges to make decisions about what's in the best interest of achieving justice. And this is running counter to that. And I don't sort of see how the it's just running counter to that.

And I don't sort of see that there's a huge problem here that we're trying to fix, and it's setting a precedent that I think opens this up for a lot of other cases that are going to be difficult. So I just got to say I'm really struggling with this.

And I hope with that said, that was part of the reason why I accept the Committee's recommendations, which says the amendments will still allow an incarcerated person to be eligible for recall and resentencing if there is evidence that their constitutional rights were violated in the proceedings related to their conviction. So hopefully, that would be a little bit more comforting to folks that may be struggling. There's still, that option is available out there if it comes forward, right, that there is issues with that particular case.

Can I add something? I would just add that discretionary system initiated resentencing is the last resort. There are already mechanisms or vehicles for people to be resentenced if there was new evidence or it was deemed unconstitutional. And so this is for people who wouldn't fall under that umbrella. And there's no evidence that this law is being abused or has been abused. So I think exactly what you said of this is solving a problem that doesn't exist would be our argument.

She wants to answer one of my prior questions, if that's okay, Mr. Chair.

Mica Doctoroff, on behalf of ACLU California Action, I just wanted to speak to two things very quickly. One, just with respect to what the author just stated, this would actually apply to more than one person. There are more than one person in incarcerated currently who this would apply to including people who have been convicted under the felony murder statute. And then just reiterating what my colleague said, the decisions to resentence somebody come after a very, very lengthy process.

So to your question as to whether this has been applied erroneously, there's a tremendous amount of consideration that go into these cases. And as my colleague said, the victim's family members are often very involved. There is a lot of work being done around home planning and considering the person's entire record while incarcerated. So these are not decisions that are reached lightly. And so I think for that reason, there is a lot of assurance that these decisions are being made with a lot of consideration.

Briefly, I think you wanted to address this, and we need to move on.

Yes. Thank you. The Assembly members comments are well taken. I would point out that there's always the option of a pardon by the Governor in the event that it didn't fall into one of the other existing categories for a recall or resentence or something like that. And those things do happen. And I would just dovetail off of what Assemblymember Lackey said about the finality. When you keep getting calls every year that it's back on calendar for something, these people can never rest.

Thank you. Further questions or comments from Committee Members. Mr. Alanis and then Mr. Ting.

So one of the big, huge problems that was brought up that has not been addressed is the deterrence of killing law enforcement. It used to be death penalty. Death penalty has been taken off that table. I know you mentioned earlier that death penalty can be dropped down to life without parole, but that's the way it is in California now, and that's something that we're not talking about.

So this bill does just help a little bit with that deterrence. I have a friend of mine who was a mayor in my district in Turlock, actually, they came up for support. 19 years ago, she was a cop in Richmond, and somebody took aim over her mark patrol car with an AK-47. And thankfully the trigger, it didn't work when they pulled it, annd that person was given 32 years and was just released last year doing only 19 years.

As you guys may know, I was a former law enforcement officer. I retired in July. I have a son who's a deputy as well. And I have many friends who are also in law enforcement. It's really hard to recruit young officers right now, especially knowing that basically the laws or the government don't have their back, that if they do lose their lives in the line of duty that it doesn't matter so much. Taking a life of an officer is a very heinous crime.

To take a peacekeeper's life is huge. And I think this bill just shows just a little bit of the gratitude and respect I think law enforcement officers need to receive for this. And we were talked about undermining, and we're talking about hope, and I get that for those incarcerated. But when they take those sentences, they know that that's their sentence and that's what they're getting for the crime that they received. And those sentences don't just come easy like was mentioned here.

These trials go for a long time, and they don't just come up with these arbitrary years of time they have to do in prison. So to undermine, I think we're undermining the victims and their families. I've had well over 10 of my friends whose names over there on that wall across the street and their family's justice was knowing that the person that did it got that time in prison and kept the public safe from that person. And letting them out earlier, again, just undermines that.

So to the author, thank you for bringing this. I would like to co-author this and I would move the bill.

Thank you. And first, I mean, I think as a committee, we all stand in wanting to support our peace officers. We think absolutely. I agree with my colleague from Modesto. This is absolutely a heinous crime. Having said that, going back to my colleague from LA's comments or questions, I think there's a mischaracterization of this as a loophole.

So again, the resentencing process is carried out only by law enforcement, right. It's by CDCR, it's by the prosecutors, and it is by the judges. So I am curious know for the proponents why in particular you're singling out this one particular crime. There's many other horrible things that are done out there to really forbid a second look from, again, the very people who are involved in that particular prosecution or that incarceration.

Mr. Rodriguez, or your witness, would you like to answer?

I believe it's an author-sponsored bill. So I would hate to speak for the Assembly Member.

Really, it's just one way to address this issue moving forward, because if we don't have anything in statute now, say something happens down the line five years from now or something, this now becomes an issue and somebody is released from prison when they were convicted of first-degree murder of a peace officer.

And just trying to take an approach at it now versus having something come up in the future that we should have really looked at this in the years in the past, and really, once again, it probably only affect a very small population of incarcerated individuals. And once again, it's a murder of a peace officer doing their job right. That's all we're looking at. We're not talking about any other types of cases other than when you take someone's life.

That's to protect our lives and the safety of the state.

And without speaking for the Assembly Member, I would say in terms of why the author has chosen this, I think we in criminal justice have realized that there's a definite perception that the pendulum swung too far. We are trying to solve our role in that by taking measured measures, if you will. And this is one of those smaller measures that doesn't add a new crime, it doesn't add extra time, it doesn't change it to the death penalty.

It just takes one little aspect where police officers are feeling incredibly vulnerable and are leaving the departments and sometimes leaving the state. I know from personal experience that this would be a newspaper headline that would let them know your Legislature cares about you, and so I'd submit.

Thank you. Further questions? None. Mr. Rodriguez, you'd like to close?

Once again, I want to thank everybody, the committee and the Chairman, for all the work you've done and I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Have a motion. A second, Mr. Lackey, Mr. Alanis. Please call the roll.

On AB 1809 by Assemblymember Rodriguez. The motion is do pass as amended. McCarty, aye. Alanis? Alanis, aye. Lackey? Lackey, aye. Nguyen? Nguyen aye. Reyes? Reyes, aye. Ting? Ting, aye. Wilson? Zbur? Zbur, aye.

Measure passes. Next author, Mr. Patterson.

Have one measure here today, Mr. Patterson. Please proceed.

Yes. Thank you very much. Morning, Mr. Chair and members, I'm pleased to present AB 2035. Also want to note, shall this bill be amended in the future, Mr. Alanis will be added as a joint author. I want to be very clear what my bill does because it's pretty simple, actually. It doesn't prevent the state from continuing to release sexually violent predators. And I know there are different opinions on that, but this bill does not do that. They can continue to find suitable housing for these offenders.

All AB 2035 does is define what qualified housing is when it comes to sexually violent predators. In short, it effectively bans the placement of SVPs in hotels. It's as simple as that. Why do we need this? For two reasons. One, a very poor track record of success with 75% of transient releases being rehospitalized or revoked.

And two, because this is what the state's experts say. From California's Sex Offender Management Board in their January 2023 report to the initial High Risk Sex Offender and SVP Task Force in 2006, they all say transient releases do not work. Placing SVPs in hotels is a huge failure. This is what the data says. It doesn't work for the public, and it doesn't work for the offender either. It's lose-lose.

If we want SVPs to be successfully and properly reintegrated into society, California ought to set them up for success. Transient release is not it. The analysis points out strict monitoring. I believe it, but the bad news is these individuals are going back to the hospital. Because according to the California Sex Offender Management Board's 2023 report, which is right here, 75% of transient participants were rehospitalized or revoked, quote-unquote, "due to serious violations." Who is that good for? Let me quote from them.

"Transient SVP conditional placements are inconsistent with evidence-based, best practice guidelines and should be avoided. Sex Offender Management Board includes public defenders, law enforcement, city official appointments by the speaker and governor, et cetera." These are their words, not mine. But it isn't possible to properly monitor in a hotel. Let me explain. In a hotel or high-density setting, GPS can't pick up the floor in which the SVP is located. Just look at your iPhone's 'Find My Friend' app.

If we were tracking each other, we can see we're all located in this building, but we can't see what floor we're on. I'll defer to my witnesses to elaborate, but the one thing that struck me was this. In the case for the SVP being released into my community, the SVP stated to the judge that if the legislature wanted to prohibit SVPs from being released on transient status, the legislature would prohibit it.

In 2006, I actually worked as a legislative staffer for the co-chairman of the High Risk Sex Offender and Sexually Violent Offender Task Force. This bipartisan task force, which included members from both parties, members of various administrative agencies, including Department of State hospitals, CDCR, law enforcement, victims, probation, local government, and also representatives of the offenders themselves--they put in to report the following line: "Because the SVP had no place to live, this was, in essence, a homeless release.

Homeless releases cause an unacceptable and unnecessary risk to the public because the individual cannot be properly supervised and many of the terms and conditions of release cannot be enforced, such as GPS monitoring, curfews, and associations with other felons. The task force believes that the release of any SVP without a home into the community creates an unacceptably high risk to the public and the SVP."

In short, AB 2035 is a continuation of a recommendation from the body that created a lot of the law surrounding SVP releases with the primary purpose of keeping everyone safe. With me, I have the mayor of the fine City of Roseville, Bruce Houdesheldt, and also District Attorney Morgan Gire from Placer County.

Good morning, Chair McCarty and members of the committee. I'm Bruce Houdesheldt, the mayor of the City of Roseville, a thriving, full-service city of 158,000 just 30 miles east of here. And I'm pleased to be here this morning in support of Assembly Bill 2035. As Member Patterson has detailed, this is bill with very limited but critically important purpose.

Based on the situation Roseville experienced recently with the proposed release of a sexually violent predator in the community, we believe the change in this bill is critically important to ensure clarity to the community, to the courts, to the State Department of Hospitals, law enforcement, and equally the individual regarding what is allowed as an appropriate living environment and the location of that environment.

Specifically, the bill would prohibit the State Department of Hospitals from placing a person who's been conditionally released in the community if the person does not have housing that's a qualified dwelling unit. Earlier, the State Housing--Department of Hospitals proposed to release a transient into our community in a parked RV or motor vehicle, which is a violation of our municipal code. Furthermore, our municipal code makes it illegal to camp on public property, even if within a trailer, motorhome, RV, or motor vehicle.

Public property includes streets, parks, city easements, creek beds, and open spaces. Subsequently, the proposed release of this individual automatically violated the city's municipal code if he were placed within the city limits. Ultimately, the issues created a great deal of uncertainty and, as you can imagine, a great deal of consternation in our community. If, on the other hand, there was clarity, as proposed by AB 2035, regarding a dwelling for the proposed violent predator in the future, it would diminish some of that uncertainty.

Never all of it, but some of it for sure. This is not to say this would eliminate the concerns that it can create. However, having greater clarity will ensure that all parties who are impacted have the proposed action--who are impacted by the proposed action--will have a profound understanding of the plan and potential outcome. Furthermore, greater clarity will ensure that a plan is being developed for the release of a sexually violent predator.

The plan will be properly defined to ensure it doesn't conflict with a local jurisdiction's municipal code or with the residency restrictions of the penal code. In closing, the placement of a sexually violent predator is a highly charged situation that, more times than not, will create concerns for communities whenever and wherever they happen. The elimination of the ambiguity and uncertainty is beneficial to all of those involved in the process. It certainly would have been beneficial to the situation our city encountered. Subsequently, the City of Roseville respectfully asks for your strong support of AB 2035.

Thank you. Next witness.

Thank you. Good morning. My name is Morgan Gire. I'm the District Attorney for Placer County. I'll be brief. I think most of the concerns have been already addressed. I will just add that AB 2035 does not seek to prevent the release of sexually violent predators, but to ensure their success by providing them secure and stable housing.

Liberty, the Department of State Health--State Hospitals, as well as the judges in these proceedings, have all echoed the same thing: that the transient housing is not what was designed under the SVP law. The only measure of success is to keep them out of the state hospital and to keep our community safe. And transient housing, either in trailers or motels, simply doesn't do that.

The failure rate reflects that, and AB 2035 seeks to provide that secure and stable housing to both guarantee public safety as well as setting our SVPs up for success, rather than a simple return back to the state hospital. With that, I just ask for your support. Thank you.

Thank you. Witnesses, please line up on the side and state your position.

Mr. Chair and members. Cory Salzillo, on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association, in support.

Cindy DeSilva, on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association, in support.

Stephanie Herrera, on behalf of the ENR Project and the BTS Commission, in support.

Witnesses in opposition, please come forward.

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

I think you should go first.

Okay. Good morning, Chair and Members. Danica Rodarmel, testifying on behalf of Root & Rebound, but also in my personal capacity as the daughter of a survivor of a violent crime. The man who raped my mom in 1981 is currently civilly committed as a sexually violent predator at Koalina State Hospital. Completely agree with so many things that have been said here around needing to have suitable placements for people if they are conditionally released.

I just am not understanding how further limiting available housing for people actually solves that problem. And based on watching this effort unfold over the last couple of years, it seems to me as though many resources that have been devoted to changing state law to prevent a couple of people from being placed in the community could have been spent on actually trying to create or find or secure appropriate housing for a person who is conditionally released, which I think, according to the analysis, is like 20 people.

The truth is, when somebody is civilly committed, their ability to ever be released from that is very low. I have talked to the attorneys that represent the man who harmed my mother about this, and they think it's very unlikely that that will ever happen for him.

But if it does, I can also guarantee you that my mother and many people like her would be much more comfortable knowing that that person had a stable and secure place to live and a community that was devoted to making sure that they were able to do well upon release and actually felt connected to people, and as though they had support in not falling back into harmful behavior.

When we pass policies like this that create effectively social pariahs, what incentive is there to try to live a different kind of a life? When people are hopeless, there is just really no reason to try to do well and be a part of your community. It sends a strong message that we just want to erase people. That's not the society that we are living in. We don't get to do that.

So I oppose this being the solution and encourage those who are the proponents of this to devote the time and energy spent on passing this Bill to actually finding a suitable placement for the person who was conditionally released. Thank you.

Thank you.

Margot George, on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association. AB 2035 is designed to make it even harder to place individuals who have been found by a court to be safe under supervision for release into the community. And you could not keep someone in jail for two years past their release date. You could not keep someone in jail or prison for two years past their release date. The person whose situation is the genesis of this Bill was ordered released two years ago.

They did a housing search in Placer County, could not find housing, and tried to release the person to Amador county. That provoked such an uproar that that was rescinded and they've been trying to place the person in Placer County. The same sex offender management board report that the author is quoting from, had a number of recommendations to try to make this situation better. Because as noted in that report, it was a 1922 report, this law was enacted in 1996.

1000 people have been committed, only 54 have ever been released and part of that is because there is an inability to find housing. Two years ago, the Legislature passed SB 1034 in an effort to bring together all of the stakeholders. Law enforcement, the DAs, everyone, the defense counsel, and have a collaborative process to find housing. Unfortunately, that has not been forthcoming. Instead, what has happened is all too often law enforcement and the prosecution have sought to block or reject various housing.

So another recommendation besides asking for collaboration was to regulate community notification. All too often, the required statutory community notification is used as an opportunity by law enforcement to incite fear in the community. All too often, prosecution offices and law enforcement offices have prominently placed on their Facebook pages information about the impending release of a person who has been deemed safe to be released into the community under supervision.

That has resulted in this particular case of landlords who had said that they were willing to provide housing, being then revoking their offers. It resulted in the county Board of Supervisors objecting to any placement and pressuring law enforcement and the prosecution to prevent placement in the county.

We're asking that the collaborative process, and this is what SB 1034 that was passed by the Legislature just two years ago asked, is that an agency of the county, Health and Human Services, Probation, people who regularly work with parole, help find housing for people who have been deemed safe to release in the community and that this process actually be given a chance to work.

You have to wrap it up. Thank you.

Okay. Rather than further narrowing this, because if the US Supreme Court has said that if people are being held when they're no longer dangerous, then the whole commitment scheme becomes unconstitutional.

Thank you.

So we respectfully ask for your no vote.

Thank you. Furthers in opposition. Please line up. State your position.

Good morning. Chair and Members Hedoni Morgilad here on behalf of Legal Services for Prisoners With Children, representing all of us or none, in opposition. Thank you.

Good morning. Barbara Chavez on behalf of Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in full opposition.

Eric Henderson on behalf of ACLU California Action and Initiate Justice, in opposition.

Melanie Kim, San Francisco Public Defender's Office, in opposition.

Haley Little we're showing up for Racial Justice Bay Area and California's United for a Responsible Budget, in strong opposition.

Sharita Moore with California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, in opposition.

Alicia Montero, California's United for Responsible Budget, in strong opposition.

Thank you. Seeing no other witnesses, questions or comments from Committee Members. Assembly Member Nguyen

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for bringing this forward. I just have a few questions and clarifications. So as was stated earlier, these individuals, and the way I read it and the way I understand it, these individuals have served their time and they are conditionally released, deemed safe to be released. They have to go somewhere. And if we're saying that they're not allowed to be released and we're holding them in, that defeats the purpose of them being released out there in the community.

So I'm not quite understanding exactly where you're thinking that we would put them or where we would hold them when they have, in fact, served their sentencings and their terms and they've received resources and services and whatnot, and they continue to have the counseling. I understand what you're saying. I do. And I've worked with many ex offenders, or, I'm sorry, many that were formerly incarcerated in my past life and my job for decades. And the one thing they need is housing.

And if we don't provide that for them, then it defeats the purpose of helping them get back into the community, again. What I don't understand is that if they are deemed safe to be released into the community and they've done their time, I guess I don't understand exactly where you think they should go or where we should put them when there is a shortage of housing all across the state. And I want to thank the witnesses for being here.

But you've got the Mayor of Roseroy and you've got the DA from Placer County. It seems like it's really, you know, you're talking about your district here. This is all over the place, right. And we need to make sure that, as was said earlier, we collaborate and we partner in this and we try to figure this out. So I'm not sure if one, you can address some of the things that was said earlier, but also answer some of the questions here.

Well, thank you very much. And yeah, I would let the District Attorney respond, but I do want to say something. This legislation does not prevent the release of individuals. I think maybe people in this room have a different perspective on whether or not some of these releases should happen, but there have been constitutional rulings and things like that that say they aren't entitled. But just to clarify, these individuals are not entirely deemed ready to be released. They're on conditional release with supervision.

Putting them in a hotel, the data actually says it does not work. I agree we need to find suitable housing for them, and these hotels do not provide that suitable housing with 75% of them being revoked or rehospitalized. So we're actually giving them conditions in which not only are they unsafe to the public, but they're being rehospitalized because they're put in a situation that's not good for them. So I want to turn to the District Attorney.

I was going to make two points, and Assembly Member Patterson made the first one. They are released and deemed safe by virtue of the assumption that they will adhere to the conditions that they are given. And stable housing is the most important of those conditions. It's harder to take advantage of services and continue your treatment when your housing is unstable. When you're in a hotel or you're in a trailer that has to be moved around over and over.

Most of the time, those are in rural areas that don't comply with GPS requirements because the service is bad. Things like logistics that affect it. So when that housing is unstable, they are no longer considered safe. And that's why so many ultimately violate the terms. The second point, I will take a little bit of exception with my public defender colleague. We are very collaborative in this process that is also occurring. 1034 requires us to have robust participation with all of our stakeholders.

We collaborate with our public defender who is representing the sexually violent predator. And this is statewide. We are trying to find housing, but it doesn't work when they are in non secure, unstable housing, like hotel rooms. They violate at an inordinate rate and it just doesn't work. And then they don't get to take advantage of the services that will one day enable them to be able to be unsupervised and productive members of society, as well as ensuring that our community is safe.

So it's the stability of the housing that is the foundation of that decision to render them safe, assuming they comply with the rest of the conditions.

Thank you.

Sorry. What is the answer? I mean, if you're coming up with this, what are you suggesting? That they stay where they're. I mean, they're conditionally released and now we're holding them back, I guess?

Just a couple years ago, it's been referenced already, there was legislation to put together a housing Committee within the communities. And by the way, I want to say I take exception to how this process works because the Department of State Hospitals, zooms in from Sacramento, California for these housing Committee meetings. They should go to where the people are.

So I have a concern with that process and we've been looking at that a lot because if you really want collaboration in the process, they should collaborate. I put a lot of thought into that, but a lot of the recommendations in the report that I had referenced and has been referenced other times, we've actually done a lot of them. And so we have this issue. Look, I've been involved in this now.

I think this is my 18th year that I've seen these sort of things from 2006 to now. Every single time an SVP is released, all 54 of those, I guess that's the number. And by the way, the number is ticking up in a major way in the coming years. There's always opposition, there's built in opposition.

But if we're going to allow the Department of State Hospitals and Liberty Healthcare to release into a housing that's not working, I mean, that's actually what the data says, then that's going to be the easy out for a lot of these. It's being proposed more and more. It was one person, I think, in 2013, and now there are several more of these being released.

So, I mean, if there are other suggestions on how we find suitable housing, I do have a big concern with if they couldn't find suitable housing in Placer County, right where there are land and things like that, we cannot incentivize them to find where we know, the data says they're going to go back to the hospital, that doesn't make sense to me.

So if the Department of State Hospital said, hey, this is how we're going to supervise them, in a hotel room and make sure we can tell where they're at and do those things, but that's not what's happening. Three quarters of them are failing and being sent back.

Can I respond briefly to your, briefly your question about what to do? The answer is Liberty and the Department of State Hospitals has to do more to collaborate with the stakeholders in each county. We have suggested properties. We've asked what their metrics are to try and determine suitable properties and we hit a wall. They haven't been transparent on what they do to find properties and we send suggestions that end up going nowhere.

So the problem is Liberty needs to work harder to find appropriate housing for these people. We're willing and are trying to help, but we can't help as much as we can because of a lack of transparency on the part of Liberty and the Department of State Hospitals.

Thank you. We have further questions now. We have questions from Assembly Members Zbur. Next, Alanice, and Wilson. Oh, I thought you said no. Okay, sorry. We'll go back on the list. We had Reyes, Zbur, Alanice, Wilson.

I'm popular today.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to comment on following up with my colleague from Sacramento. In order to be released, both the Director and the Court must determine that the individual is not a danger to others and will transition the individual to a conditional release for at least one year. In the author's statement, it says, I believe that the state has an obligation to find a lawful and suitable placement that does not jeopardize the safety of the public.

My first question is, is there also a budget request associated with this to find suitable placement?

There's existing literally tens of millions of dollars that go to Fund these placements.

Okay.

I don't know the exact number of what that is, but.

There isn't a budget request associated with this right now.

Correct.

Okay. The comment was that only the 1000 committed, only 54 have been released.

That's correct. That's from the same report that the Member was quoting earlier, the California Sex Offender Management Board. There are a number of individuals that are in the pipeline. I forget the number, but they have some of the same issues that they are facing obstacles finding housing for them statewide. And so this legislation would further impede that effort. And it's only after multiple attempts and multiple rejections that people are being released transient to the community.

I think there's in the analysis, Karsai is one case, but it's rare. And it has been only after the judge has been unable to approve any other housing because of objections from the community.

Thank you. The Sexually Violent Predator Act, according to our analysis, was designed to accomplish the dual goals of protecting the public by confining violent sexual predators likely to reoffend and providing treatment to those offenders. Knowing that it's both the court and the Director that recommend the release, then what we're saying is that the goal of this particular act is met once the Director and the court say they're ready for conditional release. Am I following this correctly?

There is a decision made and that they are ready for release? That's correct.

Then I have some concerns, I think, along the lines of my colleague from Sacramento. But one is sometimes, from what I have read, they're unable to find housing because the community doesn't want them there. The other is an issue of poverty. They can't afford to find housing. And I'm concerned about that aspect of it.

But the other question that is asked is, are we denying, looking at the 14th amendment of the constitution, are we denying equal protection for somebody who has served the sentence as required by the law, they're now eligible for a conditional release. Are we denying them equal protection? And also, are we denying that equal protection, denying them life and liberty without due process? Because all we're saying is you didn't get housing, you don't get released without there being due process.

What did the state do to help them find the housing? And as I read earlier from your author's statement that you do believe it is a state's obligation to find lawful and suitable placement. So trying to find that balance, I also am having issues with what we do at this point. Are we saying you won't be released? And are we taking their liberty away without due process?

Well, thanks. I appreciate that. I didn't expect total discussion on constitutional law today, but I expected the question to come up. One thing I want to say is that in terms of a point you brought up and the ability to pay for the housing, the state pays a lot of money for the housing. And so that really wouldn't be a concern.

But I always go back to what my District Attorney said is which in this housing Committee, they are engaged in a process where they've offered locations. And so obviously, I think the details of what those homes, look, that's closed session situation, right? So I don't know exactly, and he probably can't disclose exactly what happened in that particular process or why the state did it. But that's what the process does for a lot of the concerns that might be raised by the community.

But by law, they are required to work with the state to help find suitable housing, and that's what they're doing in this case. So with 54 people being released, at least 12 of them have been released on transient status. That's almost a quarter. And so we're not talking actually small numbers, we're talking a significant portion. And out of that quarter, 75% of them are being rehospitalized.

So 75% of 12, is that what you're saying?

Correct. But there are a lot more on the, I think there were 40 something I can't remember, but there are a lot more currently in that process. And if a quarter of those go out and then 75% go back to be rehospitalized, I actually think, yes, of course. I think we can look at and say, hey, look, I'm very concerned, obviously, about creating more victims. That's concern.

But also it's in all of our interests that this individual does not, in his or her best interest that they don't get rehospitalized and that we find suitable housing. And the data is saying this is not suitable. And I'm open to suggestions on finding more suitable housing. But I feel like we're giving the Department of State Hospitals an easy outlet if they're giving 25%, when you have a District Attorney right here who's saying we're offering locations, but we're still going to recommend transient release.

So that's the concern that I have. We're recommending places and they're still saying do transient release.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Zbur, Mr. Alanis, Mr. Wilson.

So, I have sort of two questions that sort of cut in different directions you know ,to me, the folks that are being released, they're not being unconditionally released. They're being released if they are able to participate in both supervision and treatment. So to me, that's sort of the core issue. So when we're talking about transient release, what does that look like? Are people being released to no housing at all, or are they being released to some kind of transitional housing?

Yeah, it's largely been hotels, but there have been instances in which they have a trailer and they're moving it around or they're moving them to hotels and trailers and it's been kind of a mishmash of what's going on. And if you're moving around a trailer and then going to hotel, maybe back to another trailer again, I mean, it's suitable housing.

Yeah, I think from my perspective, the issue should really be, this is about protecting the public. And the key issue is whether or not someone can be released and still engage in supervision and treatment. And I think the problem that I have with the Bill is that you're assuming that certain categories of housing are automatically unsuitable.

And when I look at my area, a lot of the housing that is being used for folks that are unhoused now would fall into the categories of which you are categorically prohibiting across the State of California. So I would be sympathetic to this Bill if it was something along the lines of we're not going to release people from where they are now to become unhoused.

And we had more criterion that the judge had to consider about whether or not the, where they're being released allows them to be supervised and treated. If that was the focus of this, I would be fully supportive of it. But what the Bill seems like is that because you're worried that in some circumstances where they're being released, you can't supervise and treat adequately, you're just eliminating whole categories of housing, which makes it, to me, harder to house these people that are coming out.

So on the one hand, I agree with you that I don't think it's unconstitutional to hold someone if you can't move them into a situation where they can be supervised and treated. But on the other hand, I also don't think that eliminating whole categories of potential housing without a case by case analysis by someone is the appropriate way to go. I don't know if you want to respond to that or if any of you want to respond.

I will want to respond, but looks like she has something to say.

Thank you. Yeah. I wanted to point out that I think there's a lot of community based organizations that are providing reentry housing and supportive services to people across the state currently. And oftentimes, those are kind of like supportive housing group homes, where there may be multiple people living in a community together, which provides a lot of support for folks. And this Bill would make it so that people couldn't go into a reentry house like that.

I would just add that requiring a single structure that is only for a single family would, in fact, rule out a lot of housing in every urban area.

Real quick. The Department of State Hospitals is not going to be releasing people to group homes already. That's not going to happen.

Maybe that's the problem.

Did we get to both your questions, Mr. Zbur? Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Next, Mr. Alanis.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I agree with you on that. We can have them all in one building, I think that would make it easier for the supervisor as well to have them all under one roof. But I think most of my questions were already answered by some of my colleagues. Thank you for asking those. I think the biggest problem that we had with part of it is the sentencing.

Can you give us a little bit more insight, even for myself, when they are being deemed to be released under supervision, how much time of their actual sentence is still left is one of my big questions on that as well. If we know that?

Do you want me to respond? I think the DA.

I was just trying to answer. They've completed their sentence at that point, regardless, whatever their sentence is, minus whatever credits they get, they have completed their sentence. So within six months of their release from the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. They're evaluated under the Department of State Hospital.

Okay. I think it's where we're going with that. Right. Okay. And earlier we were talking about money. Do we have a fixed amount of money that's given per household or can you guys give us an idea on that? A lot of money could be different for other people.

Yeah, I'm sure the District Attorney has examples, but the ones that I've seen throughout the state are way above market rate.

$4000-$5000 a month?

$8000, I think.

Yeah. We recently secured tentative housing for one of our sexually violent predators at a $7,000 a month rate just to keep the property secure. So Liberty has literally said money isn't an object to try and secure the housing. The problem is the housing that they're finding is inadequate.

I don't see how we're being good stewards of money by doing that. Go back to the one building where everybody's in. No further questions.

So I want to say one thing real quick. Sorry, Mr. Is it okay? Let's loop on. Okay.

You can go back to your close. Okay, sure. Perfect. Ms. Wilson.

Thank you. First of all, to my colleagues, I've appreciated the questions that you've asked so far. Some of them were in my own mind as I was reviewing this Bill. And so thank you for asking those questions and the robust discussion that occurred because of them. I think what's very apparent is that we all agree that sexually violent predators on conditional release can still pose a danger even though they're deemed safe. There still could be an issue, which is why they're at times rehospitilazed.

I have two follow up questions that I didn't. One was a follow up and one, both are follow up. I'm sorry. From the discussion that happened before, and one is to Mr. DA, you noted that there's not appropriate housing. You used the phrasing appropriate housing. And I wondered, is there appropriate housing in Placer county that you see at all?

And then you noted that potentially during a closed session, I guess conversation that you offered housing and it was rejected, noting that you can't explain why it was rejected. Could you talk a little bit more about what you believe is appropriate housing for a sexually violent someone who has been deemed a sexually violent predator?

Certainly. And I think appropriate housing is something that allows the sexually violent predator to engage in all of the services, the treatment options, the supervision, all of the things that the decision to release are based on, that someone engages in the process to rehabilitate and not reoffend, something that guarantees that, it's very difficult to do that in a hotel room.

Just by the very nature of the motels and hotels that Liberty has suggested over the years to place these people in usually have triggers and sort of temptations that are luring people to fail. They don't allow for the kind of environment that will allow someone to focus on the treatment regimen that they need to. And that's why some sort of fixed residence, and that's why we've encouraged Liberty to look at all of the property owners who have properties for rent to secure those.

Because we've seen in the data that when people are released to those motels, they fail. They fail more than they don't.

And they fail because you noted that it's the difference between something that's fixed versus temporary. Is that the primary reason that they can't receive the supervision and take the treatments and stuff, because they're in a temporary location versus a fixed location?

I think that's a large factor. The fact that people aren't in a particular place long enough so when you're moving someone around, it makes it much more difficult to stay within the bounds of your treatment and follow through.

If you're in a place where there are lots of people who are coming and going at all times, sometimes hourly or daily, that might affect your ability to follow through with your treatment. Those become obstacles and we find that those who are in those environments fail more than they don't. And I wish we had the opportunities that was discussed earlier in group homes and supportive services, but unfortunately, those have not been pursued by Liberty and the Department of State Hospitals as appropriate housing.

We haven't had a chance to evaluate those. If they were presented, we could vet them, but in the meantime, we simply get the response that we want to put them in a hotel instead. And that allows, as Assembly Member Patterson said earlier, it allows Liberty sort of off the hook to say, we're just going to go with a hotel instead of working harder to find something that might be more appropriate for their trip.

And how many have been released in Placer County?

In Placer county, over the last. We've had a handful over the last 10 years.

Is a handful five? Because I have five fingers.

We have one currently pending. We had one, 2 years ago, and then we had one a few years before that. Three in the last, probably five to seven years. We have, I think, about 30 pending release in the Department of State Hospitals right now.

30 for Placer County alone?

No. 30 statewide.

Okay, I just want to be clear. Because I was asking your expertise. Well, I'm not going to speak to your expertise, but you are the official in Placer County, so I was speaking to Placer County. So in Placer County, in the last 10 years, you've had approximately three individuals be released at various times, not all at the same time, and that you expect within the 30 remaining there is someone who is going to be released to Placer County?

I expect there to be not only someone from Placer county, but also not included in those numbers are the amount of times that our county is contacted to receive one. If housing can't be located, as was mentioned earlier, for Amador County, oftentimes. Right. If counties exhaust their efforts, they try and place in other counties. And we have been both the receiving county and as was mentioned earlier, at one point the idea was to place our particular person in another county.

So there's sort of cross county issues as well.

To summarize, your testimony in response to my question, is that the primary focus is the temporary nature of the housing and the fact that not only is it temporary for the individual, there are others coming and going, that it's a temporary nature. So temporary nature on both sides is the issue that you're finding. Thank you. Assembly Member, you noted that 75% of the 12 were rehospitalized. So nine were rehospitalized. Were they all rehospitalized specifically as it related to the temporary nature?

Do you have that detail of why they were the reasons for rehospilization?

I haven't gone to the individual basis like that but they did say in the report that they were all serious violations.

Okay, but you don't know if those serious violations were specifically related to them in their housing situation?

I did not look at that, correct.

And of the nine that were re-hospitalized, were any of the three that were noted that lived in Placer County where you represent?

We haven't had a transient release before or have we?

Not a transient release, no. People who have been re-hospitalized after released.

Have all been transient released, so you're drawing the correlation between the two. And just so I'm specifically clear, I know I said two, this is the last one, just in general, your Bill proposes that the 10ft is necessary to stop temporary housing. But the 10ft includes not just temporary housing, it also includes permanent housing. So it doesn't make a distinction of temporary housing, which the testimony that you gave in the opening and then the testimony just from the DAO of Placer County talks about the temporary nature.

So your 10ft can be permanent housing that's within 10ft as well, right? Does it draw that distinction that I'm not seeing?

Sure. What the language says is 10ft from another dwelling intended for inhabited inhabitation, basically people to live. So it could be an apartment, but these are for, again, sexually violent predators. You're correct. They would not be able to live in an apartment as well. But it doesn't necessarily restrict, as a side note, the group home situation, because that would be a dwelling on that facility.

So we are talking about where there's one individual in a facility that might be living next door to you or I in an apartment, right.

Which there's lots of people living next to us that we might not like, that might not be identified.

I got a lot of those too, next door to me.

I will say as a person who, just as a side note, based on your comment of people living next door, as a person who has been the subject of abuse as a child on several occasions by different people, none of them were identified as sexually violent predators.

So we do have to be careful recognizing that there are people who are living in our communities, apartments, hotels, who are not identified and who don't have treatment or resources or any of that nature, who are actually predators, true predators. And so I just want to note that they actually have services around them, that the amount of people that abuse people, the amount of people that abuse children are never, ever included in the criminal justice system.

And there are more people that abuse and not caught than people who have been caught. And so we are talking about 54 individuals who, they need stable housing to ensure that they're not rehospitalized. And I absolutely support stable housing. It's how we get there, though.

And so I really am concerned about the 10ft requirement and reducing the need for them to get stability, recognizing we cannot hold them forever if they've gone through, if they've got a conditional release, which they're allowed to, and the people are making decisions that allowed them to. As well as the fact that appropriate housing, if it is rejected, it's the people who are making those same decisions that are rejecting what someone might qualify appropriate housing.

But I just want to make note that when we're talking about people living in a community, there are so many people who do harm, who do harm, who are never within our system. Thank you, Chair, for the opportunity to continue.

Thank you. I know we have to move on. Mr. Zbur has a brief question. Maybe you can answer the question in your close potentially.

You just gave me 10 more minutes to talk. In your close we can hopefully do this.

I think Assembly Member Wilson already sort of asked the question. I mean, the problem I have with the Bill is this 10ft and the fact that it would seem to exclude housing options for these people that could actually be intended to provide greater supervision and treatment for them.

So it seems like we've got blanket rules in the Bill that run that could be counterproductive to the focus of what the release should be, which is whether or not they can participate in treatment and supervision. That's all I say. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have a motion? Motion. Second motion. A second. I'll let you close in a second, but I think you're raising an issue but there's imperfect solutions here. And the rigid remedy with the apartments, I'm thinking, what if you're a dense area? It's going to be nothing. In Sacramento, we're all going to go to Roseville, where there's more land and distance. And so I hear what you're after, but I'm not quite convinced right now. But I'll give you the chance in your close to wow us. Mr. Patterson.

Hey, it's coming. It's coming. So please know this is an issue I'd be happy to continue to work on, by the way. But one thing I do want to say is just in terms of how ridiculous and I think, first of all, I want to acknowledge your point, Assembly Member Wilson. I mean, there are predators out there and sexually violent predators.

It's unbelievable to say, but those are very, very bad individuals ruled by this state. And that's why we need to give them the services to make sure they don't do it again. This individual in Placer County, I really didn't want to make it about individuals, but this is how crazy things are happening at the Department of State Hospitals that I think needs to be put on record.

This individual was already re-hospitalized, was already re-hospitalized many years ago, and they're still recommending giving this individual a placement that is proven, that's not working. It's not working right here. So maybe we need another solution to help guide them in that. But the fact that they're willing to put a person who already reoffended back onto housing that doesn't work is totally unacceptable in my opinion. So anyways, I'll just leave that with my closing remarks. And I look forward to 8-0 vote, it sounds like.

Okay, we have a motion the second. Please call the roll.

On AB 2035 by Assemblymember Joe Patterson. The motion is due passed to the Appropriations Committee. McCarty? Not voting. McCarty, Not voting. Alanis? Aye. Alanis, aye. Lackey? Aye. Lackey, aye. Wynn? Wynn, not voting. Reyes? Reyes, Not voting. Ting? Ting, not voting. Wilson? Not voting. Wilson, not voting. Zbur? Zbur, not voting.

Thank you, two. Nothing passes. Are you asking for reconsideration? zero, yes. Please give me reconsideration, sir. Thank you. There's no objection. By. With unanimous consent, we will grant reconsideration. Thank you, everybody. Okay, who is next? You guys decide amongst yourself. Mr. Jackson's coming forward. You go. Okay. Please proceed, Mr. Jackson.

Thank you very much.

Mr. Chair. I'm pleased to present AB 1877. AB 1877. I would first like to thank the chair and for his consideration on this Bill as it is proposed to be amended. I also appreciate the hard work of your staff in helping us to get to this point in the process. When I first presented this Bill, you uncover a lot of other complexities that begin to arise. But I'm happy that we have begun to work through those.

AB 1877 is about ensuring that our youth can thrive and that there will not be, and that their childhood behavior will not pose barriers to being self sufficient. This Bill is truly about fair and restorative justice. The well being of our youth is instrumental to a thriving state, and that includes aiding them in sealing nonfellowony criminal records to ensure a blank slate and enabling them to thrive when entering adulthood. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Any witnesses in support? You have five minutes.

Raul Arroyo-Mendoza from the Pacific Juvenile Defender Center in support of Assembly Bill 1877. Is there anybody who wants to give testimony or we can do the Metoos. All right. Anybody else with me too want to in support? Please come on up to Mike.

Good morning, Members. Danielle Sanchez, on behalf the Chief Probation Officers of California. I just want to acknowledge that we are currently reviewing the amendments in the analysis. And so we do not have a position at this time. But I do just want to note that we have worked earnestly on these issues over the many years to make sure that we are able to remove barriers for youth.

But there are very important mechanics and processes around how this takes place that we are actively engaging with the author's office on. So just wanted to note that. And we look forward to more conversations.

Thank you. I gave you the five minutes for that one.

Marco George, on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association in support. Thank you.

Danica Rodarmel, on behalf of Initiate Justice, Law Defense and Root and Rebound in support.

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

Jim Lindburg, Friends Committee on Legislation of California, in support.

Jeronimo Aguilar here. On behalf of Legal Services for Prisoners with Children. All of us are in strong support. Thank you.

Eric Henderson. On behalf of ACLU, California action in support.

Thank you. Anybody else for support? All right, anyone for opposition? Please come up to the table. Going once, going twice. All right, seeing none, we'll go to Committee. Committee. Any questions? Got to move the Bill. Any other questions by the Committee? Okay, Mr. Jackson, you may close. That's how I roll. Okay, please take a roll.

[Roll Call]

The measure is on call. Just waiting for him to come back. That's how you roll. Thank you. Who's next? Double support.

We'll go AB 2021 Assemblymember Bauer Kahan. It's all yours.

Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. And Members, I want to start by thanking Committee staff for their hard work in finding a path forward on this Bill and your assistance in drafting the amendments. I'll be accepting the Committee's proposed amendments today.

And this Bill really came out of a conversation I was having with a bunch of teens in my own community about the rampant rise of now not just vaping in our schools, but also Zins, which are pouches of tobacco that they're using in their lip and that disintegrate. And unlike chew, they don't have to spit. So they can be using these tobacco pouches in the classroom with no one noticing them.

And as I was having this conversation with the teens, I said, how are they getting this? And none of them seemed to know. And so as I dove into what is happening in our backyard, I read the reports that the rise in tobacco usage for those under 18 is incredibly on the rise. And when we looked at the penalties that are currently being assessed to those selling tobacco to our youth, it was incredibly ow.

And as someone who used to do regulatory law and criminal law, I knew that you cannot make penalties. The cost of doing business is incredibly lucrative business. And if it's just the cost of doing business, they're going to sell tobacco to our kids, harming them, costing them their health and safety. And so this Bill really gets at ensuring that our kids are safe in our communities and that people are not selling them illegal tobacco.

With me today in support are Cindy De Silva, a narcotics prosecutor from San Joaquin County DA's office, and Tami Dillon, a local principal for Liberty High Continuation High School. Thank you so much.

Five minutes.

Thank you. Good morning again, everybody. So I am a narcotics prosecutor, and part of what I do is every week, multiple times a week, in fact, that's how I met Ms. Dillon. I get to go around to our local schools and talk to them about the dangers of fentanyl elementary school all the way through college. And it's been amazing learning from these kids.

But it's even more amazing talking to the educators, because they are telling me that kids as young as third grade are now smoking and vaping on campus. And I so much appreciate you allowing us to come and participate in government. And I have my nieces here, third and fifth grade, who are watching us all participate.

And it's just amazing to me to think that somebody as young as third grade that looks that tiny is being preyed upon by these businesses that are selling and not really caring who they sell to. The equity impact of something like that is incredible. The younger we start smoking, the younger we start engaging these activities, the less healthy obviously we will be. I think the measure increasing the fines is appropriate given the level of inflation we've had.

I love the statement about we can't have penalties being the cost of doing business. As a narcotics prosecutor, I agree with that very much. But we've got some amazing on the ground information from Ms. Dillon A. Continuation High School principal and I'd love to hear from her as well.

Good morning, Members and chair. My name is Tami Dillon and I've been a public educator in public schools for this is my 40th year, 30 years as a school site administrator. This year, principal of Liberty Continuation High School. And I will say in all my years, addiction is at an all time high with our youth. Yesterday, I surveyed my fellow administrators because I didn't want to just come from my own viewpoint, which has very strong viewpoints as far as vaping in schools and what a high rate that is, and all my administrators, without a doubt, I had emails back that said fighting and gangs are no longer the big issue. It's all vaping.

We have 15 to 20 kids congregating in bathrooms that are vaping in bathrooms in some of the schools that have highly sensitive fire alarms. Last year, first semester, Lodi High School had 40 fire alarms go off just in the first semester, in one day, four times, which means you have to evacuate the whole school. So this is not only affecting kids who are vapors, but kids who are non vapors, which that is actually a small number these days. That affects state testing, AP testing.

When any of those kinds of things happen during a testing controlled process, you have to submit irregularities. It becomes a big deal. So my middle school principal colleagues have also said that probably double to triple the suspensions this year on vaping for students who are 12 and 13. My middle school principal at Millswood said I've had 30 suspensions so far this year. Normally it's never been more than about 10, so it's really growing with the younger kids I know at the high schools, it's rampant.

And kids that do want to use the bathroom don't even go because it's so filled with kids who are vaping. And of course, it's a place where kids can have privacy. You can't really supervise that too well when they're going in there in their private stalls. And I just see it as a growing problem. Kids, it's so accessible.

In fact, yesterday I emailed a friend to say I would be missing a meeting this morning, and I told her what I was doing and she said, oh, wow. She said, that's great. She says, you know what? Little did I know I was following my daughter on her locator and I thought she was at Spice and Rice getting food, and she was next door at Get Lit and she was easily able to buy vapes there.

She said, I had no idea it was so accessible and free for kids to purchase. So right now, there's just a slap on the hand for anybody that sells to these young people. And it really needs to be something that's a bigger deal. I remember 15 years ago when ABC, which is Alcoholic Beverage Control, was targeting liquor stores and starting to do stings. And once that became a community known thing, those liquor sales really dropped for the young people. We don't see that too much in schools, alcohol anymore. It's all the vaping. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have anyone else in the room in support? Please come up to the mic. Name and Association.

Good morning, Members. Joe Saenz on behalf of the County Health Executives Association, CHIAC, representing local health departments in support.

Thank you. Anyone else? Okay, do we have anyone for opposition? Anyone? Opposition, please come up to the table. Only once. Got a move in a second. And any questions from Committee? Mr. Lackey?

Yeah. I think this is an important Bill that deserves support. However, I would ask you to consider including Zen pouches. It's not articulated here. They are very big amongst the young people, and I think they're every bit as addictive and problematic. So I would just ask that you consider including them before it gets to the floor.

Absolutely. My reading is that it is, but we'll double-check because I agree.

So thank you, Mr. Lackey. I just had a follow up to the letter of opposition where it talked about the small business and violation of card. Did you resolve that or seeking to resolve that issue in terms of businesses after the fact, who might be selling to an adult and then that person is selling the kids? I think they were still liable, as I understood it or no.

So if the store itself sells to an adult, the store will not be liable for the.

So it's only if they directly is the seller. Awesome. Thank you.

Any other questions? All right, just want to say thank you for bringing this Bill. Students, thank you for also coming to see how this process works. So thank you for attending this. We spend a lot of time cutting the supply with other big drugs, and we don't always think about tobacco products or nicotine and stuff like that. So thank you for looking out for our students and our youth and our future leaders.

Back in the day, almost 30 years ago, I used to be one of those decoy buyers that would come in and buy that. I mean, that's how long ago I started my career doing that kind of stuff. And they start to hand the product over to you and you hand them the money and you're like, this person is going to get a ticket or get busted in a little bit, but that's all part of it. And yes, sales did go down when that happened. So deterrence is a big thing in every little aspect we can get it in. So thank you for doing that, and you may close.

Respectfully ask for your aye vote thank you.

All right, we'll take the roll on.

[Roll Call]

First, happy birthday. Mr. Lackey. Thank you. Mr. Chair and colleagues, I'm proud to present AB 1986, a bill that will bring transparency and accountability to the practice of book banning in prisons. Access to knowledge is essential for rehabilitation, and it helps people reintegrate into society within our state prisons. However, the books currently ban seem to be disproportionately written by black authors and other authors of color.

Mr. Bryan.

CDCR bans books they deem not to be in the penological interest of the state, but with great inconsistency. Last year, the California Reparations Task Force recommended addressing the issue of prison book bans in their report, recognizing that CDCR's book ban contained many creative works written by black and other authors of color.

Some notable examples of banned books that are educational and cultural in nature include the Miriam Webster Visual Dictionary, Frida Kahlo: The Paintings, The Kite Runner, Lady Gaga: Born to Be Free, a Prisoner in The Garden, which was written by Nelson Mandela, who was a transformative, formerly incarcerated activist elected South Africa's President in the 1990s.

Shockingly, some notable books you can read in a California prison are Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler, virtually any book related to the KKK, for example, the Klansman, a historical romance of the Ku Klux Klan. AB 1986 brings needed transparency and accountability when necessary. This Bill will require the office of the Inspector General, who is responsible for CDCR oversight, to post the centralized list of disapproved publications on their state website.

The posting will bring transparency to what book CDCR has deemed necessary to ban for incarcerated individuals despite their literary value. AB 1986 also requires CDCR to remove a publication from the banned list if the Office of Inspector General determines that there is inadequate evidence justifying its inclusion on the list in the first place. Books are more than just sources of information. They're tools for empowerment, for rehabilitation, for transformation, and they're invaluable to all people to give testimony with me.

Yes. Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. My name is Tommy Ross. I go by Shakur. It means grateful, appreciative, thankful, and I strive to live by these characteristics throughout my life. I was leased from San Quentin on April 27, 2022 after serving 37 years. I'm currently employed with GRIP Training Institute. GRIP is an acronym which means guiding rage into power.

Today, I'm joined by Shakur, who has lived experience with our book banning in the state prison system.

It's a nonprofit that facilitates a rehabilitative curriculum in seven California prisons. I facilitate the GRIP program in both San Quentin and Soledad prisons. Today, I am testifying on behalf of GRIP, and I am here in honor of the people I've harmed, and we support AB 1986. For me, as a formerly incarcerated person, having access to books overall allowed me to not only stimulate my mind intellectually, but to learn and grow substantially as a result.

While incarcerated, I could not understand and still can't understand how, for instance, books by George Jackson were banned from state prisons, but books by Hitler weren't. Incarcerated persons can read and reflect on Hitler's radical ideology about racial superiority and learn how he was responsible for starting World War II and initiating the Holocaust. Yet George Jackson's book, Soledad Brother, a book of personal letters to his family and friends, is banned. There are no instructions on how to commit violence or start a revolution.

I had an opportunity to read this book while I was incarcerated and was unaware of any ban in place on the book at that point. It was such an interesting read for me intellectually because I can relate to his perspective, and his perspective encouraged me to learn and make positive differences in the lives of others. I encourage you to read it and see for yourself.

Since then, I'm aware that the book has been placed on CDCR's banned books list and know people who have been punished just for having it. To conclude, I understand the need for some books restrictions in regards to safety and security of state prison institutions. But to ban a book simply because a person has a different perspective than the mainstream seems like totalitarianism to me. There is a need for transparency regarding what books are banned and why.

Thank you. Anyone in support, please come up. Name and organization.

I strongly encourage you to vote in support of AB 1986. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Danica Rodarmel, on behalf of Initiate Justice, proud sponsor of AB 1986. Also registering support on behalf of Law Defense, Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area, and Root and Rebound,

Margo George, on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association in support. Thank you.

Melanie Kim, San Francisco Public Defenders Office in support.

Ed Little, on behalf of Californian's for Safety and Justice in support.

I'm Faith Lee with Asian Americans advancing Justice, Southern California. We're in support.

Thanh Tran with the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights. We support.

Barbara Chavez, the Ella Baker Center, and we support.

Heroni Moore Gilad here on behalf of legal services for prisoners of children. Also, All of Us or None in strong support.

Jim Lindbergh, Friends Committee on Legislation of California in support.

Alicia, California United for Responsible Budget in strong support.

Felipe Kelly with the Ella Baker Center, I live in Oakland, California, in full support.

Haley Little, Californians United for a Responsible Budget and Showing Up for Racial Justice Bay Area in strong support.

Kenneth Hartman, Transformative In-Prison Workgroup and formerly incarcerated author strongly in favor of this Bill.

Eric Henderson, on behalf of ACLU California action in support.

Thank you, anybody in opposition? Seeing none, questions or comments from Committee Members. Ms. Reyes?

Thank you for bringing this Bill forward. Sometimes we don't realize the harm we're causing by some rule, we put together this list of banned books. I appreciate the Reparations Commission looking into this and recommending this.

I take that as a motion.

I move the Bill

Motion a second from Ms. Reyes. Ms. Wynn. Ms. Wilson,

Thank you to the author and thank you to my colleague for noting as a part of the Reparations Committee, and just to be clear, as a part of the reparations package and initiative that the California Legislative Black Caucus has put forward, and primarily because we see that within the criminal justice system that black and brown folks, and particularly black Californians, are disproportionately impacted.

And so there are spaces within reparations as we look to right the wrongs of the past, of ensuring that within our criminal justice system, proper reforms are in place to rehabilitate and to bring those that have been within that system to bring them to a place of wholeness, and so I think part of that is through literature, and I know that's why it's a priority of the black caucus.

And so I just wanted to give you an opportunity to comment on why you think this is important to the reparations work that we're doing as a caucus. Thank you.

Thank you for that question, Chair Wilson. This is critically important for that reparations work because we know a disproportionate amount of people who are incarcerated are black, are descendants of slavery and California's afterlives and participation in slavery. There are also people who have been often let down by California's educational system and the overlap between poor education outcomes and the likelihood of incarceration.

There are countless examples of folks who were incarcerated who freed their mind long before they freed their body by learning about the world, their place in it, and how to be a stronger and better functioning member of society while reading, while they were incarcerated.

The idea that we would ban books that speak very clearly to that power of transformation and provide both the social and cultural tools needed for people to grow in that way, I think is a disservice for all Californians, not just the folks who are incarcerated. And I think it has a relative negative public safety impact as well. The goal of our penal system is to help folks rehabilitate and reintegrate, reform, reimagine themselves as part of a larger construct in society.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. First off, congratulations on your rehabilitation. Good job. Speaking of transparency, just also want to bring up, and just so the Committee is also aware, the books that are on this list that have been banned, correct me if I'm wrong, author, are books that have tried to come in, and that's why they're banned for whatever reason they were.

Thank you, Mr. Alanis.

And that's what allowing access to literature does. And that's why we need this accountability and this transparency.

And I agree on the transparency. I would like to know, I see pages are listed on here for specifics why, but there are some books that were brought up on, like Hitler, maybe nobody's tried to send it in yet. That's why it's probably not on there because I guarantee that would probably be on a banned list. Also for some of the stuff that's stated in there. I see you have the Inspector General on here. I'm assuming you've talked with them.

Are they going to be able to, this is a big task, and I'm supportive of this Bill, just so you know. But these are just internal questions that I have also to try and help as well, but to just let everybody know that there's going to be a lot more books on here. I'm sure they just don't have somebody that's able to go through every single one. And some of these books, if you were to get them in print, they're going to be expensive.

So that's another thing to think about. All yours.

Yeah. No, I have absolutely spoken with her. She and I have met about this Bill, and I think you've raised up a couple of good points. One, I think the cost of literature is probably not my favorite point, that you've brought up, because I think investing in education is something we have to do across the board, everywhere, all the time, in a down budget and in a good budget.

We also crafted this Bill being mindful of the workload and the capacity and the costs related to it. This Bill does not require the Inspector General to review every book on the banned list. It only empowers them with the authority to review books as needed and decide whether they are not in the penological interest or their banning is justified. And so I imagine that is in line with the duties already by the office of the Inspector General.

In fact, if somebody incarcerated or otherwise, were to put in a request to the OIG to look at this, I think in addition to officer brutality and the other things the office already does, that oversight seems to fit perfectly in that purview. And so I think this is also important for the general public in California. To your point about bringing books in, I'm a family Member of somebody who's been incarcerated. Right.

If I wanted to bring my little brother Between the World and Me by Tanahisi Coates or Nelson Mandela's book or any of these works that I think would have a powerful transformative effect on his both knowledge, enrichment, but sense of self and purpose in the world, I'd like to know in advance whether I could bring that or whether that's been banned. And the fact that the current process is opaque, completely discretionary, and behind closed doors is not in the interest of all Californians.

Okay, thank you. No further questions. Mr. Lackey.

Excuse me. My only concern is the unintended consequence if someone challenges this list, even the whole list, doesn't that mean the Attorney General has to go through the whole list, which would include an incredible amount of effort, and going through porn is really silly.

Yeah, that's a great question, and it makes me really proud of my team and I for taking the time to craft this in a really thoughtful way.

This leaves the discretion to review the banned list solely at the discretion of the office of the Inspector General. They get a lot of requests to do a lot of things. They are empowered to decide how deep they look into this list, at what times they look into this list. They may get many requests, but it is at their discretion.

And I imagine the requests that they seem to get most frequently will be the ones that they decide to prioritize a review on, if they so choose. And then they also make the final determination of whether the book seems to be justified or not.

Thank you for all the questions and comments today. I think in California we don't ban knowledge.

Thank you. Okay, thank you. A motion to second you may close.

We don't ban it for our young people who are in schools, and we don't ban it for our folks who are incarcerated who were let down by those very same schools. It is important for people to have access to the kind of literature that allows them to become better people and transform their lives and become a positive impact on our community.

This Bill brings transparency to a process that is currently done in the dark, and it brings accountability that allows for every Californian, not just folks who are incarcerated, to understand this process and to be informed about how we share knowledge amongst each other. And I respectfully ask for your. Aye vote.

Okay. Thank you. Motion a second, please call the roll.

Roll Call

That's how we roll.

Thank you. Measure passes. Next up, Mr. Reggie Jones-Sawyer, chair emeritus. Please proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. I present to you AB 2280 which will ensure that incarcerated individuals in county jails have access to confidential calls with their attorneys. Although the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation have policies in place to protect access to legal counsel and state facilities, there's little consistency among local jurisdictions.

Some districts have been reported to only permit confidential mail and in-person visits, which prohibits attorneys from effectively defending their clients. This bill will align county jails with state policy by requiring that incarcerated individuals are given, at a minimum, a 30-minute confidential phone call with their attorneys once per month per case. With me is Dan Messner, on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association, to speak in support.

Good morning, Chair and committee. My first time. Thank you for having me. I'm Dan Messner speaking in support of 2280. I did write something, however, I think my anecdotal experience is more important in this category. I've been lucky in my career. I've been able to work in three counties as a public defender. I'm currently in Northern California, but prior to that, for 10 years I was in San Bernardino County, and prior to that, in Riverside County as a public defender in all these different counties.

And speaking to this particular circumstance, the issue is: there's asymmetrical application of giving individuals who are incarcerated in county jail access to counsel and confidential calls. You take a county like San Bernardino, which is sprawling. There are jails hours away from other jails, and there's three jails in the county. There's one in Ranch Cucamonga. There's one out in Central, which is San Bernardino, one in Glen Helen, and then one all the way up in Victorville.

The ability for a lawyer to get out to have those confidential visits is truncated by that distance. As such, having the ability to have one telephone call, which is confidential for 30 minutes in any given month is a very small price to pay. And the circumstance with the county jails allowing it, if they're up and running and have the ability, they are already able to do so. So any idea that this is somehow burdensome on the county jail is not a realistic view.

Similarly, in Riverside, they have jails out in Marietta, they have jails in Central, they have jails in Indio. All of these are separated by 45 to an hour in some instances. Whereas now I'm in Northern California, I can walk across the street to the jail, and it's easy to get there and communicate with individuals.

But I think under the circumstances, given the asymmetrical performance on counties, mandating this like you would in state prison at a county jail level is important to individuals who are seeking justice and seeking adequate counsel. So I'm glad to be in support of 2280 and thank you for the opportunity to speak on it.

Thank you. Any others in support of this measure, please come forward.

Margo George. Also on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association, in support.

Ignacio Hernandez, on behalf of the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, statewide association of criminal defense lawyers in private practice and public defender offices, in support.

Philippe Kelly, on behalf of the Ella Baker Center, in full support.

Barbara Chavez, on behalf of the Ella Baker Center, full support.

Haley Little, on behalf of Californians United for a Responsible Budget and Showing Up for Racial Justice, Bay Area, in full support. Thank you.

Alicia Montero, Californians United for a Responsible Budget, full support.

Thank you. We have opposition. Please come forward.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. Cory Salzillo, on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association. Unfortunately, in opposition to this bill. You want them to hear me? Fair enough. Fair enough. Fair play. So the witness talked about procedures in place. There are already systems in place that allow inmates to have access to phone calls and visitation, as well as other correspondence that can be used to communicate with counsel.

Mandating an additional call for every inmate once per month per case will represent a significant drain on resources as it relates to the physical infrastructure to make these calls available, again, to every inmate once per month per case. Remember, there's a key distinction between state prisons and county jails--notwithstanding the fact that realignment has happened--is that the jail population is much more transient. And what that means is: people in prison, they don't come and go as much as they do in jails.

People are getting released and admitted to jails every day in pretty significant numbers. So 1,000 people in a jail versus 1,000 people in prison, that's going to represent many more people, and therefore cases and phone calls. So that's a key distinction on why this is not just a, "Well, we do it in prisons, so let's do it in the jails." Again, just because it happens for the prisons doesn't mean it makes sense for the jails.

Despite the examples about San Bernardino County and Riverside County, which are big counties that have multiple jails that are spread out, which--it's not like it's a big county with one jail at one extreme end, and then all the defense counsels on this end of the jail.

But it's much more likely in a county situation that an inmate who is in a county jail is likely in a closer proximity to their counsel than a person who is now in state prison, because there's not necessarily any sort of connection to where a person is housed in state prison. They might have had their case adjudicated in Riverside County and they may be serving their sentence in Lassen County at Susanville. Right? So that's why there's a distinction between prisons and jails, again, in this regard.

Having attorneys physically be present allows for jail personnel to vet who those people are. There's very difficult to ascertain with certainty that a person is an attorney or the inmate's attorney just over the phone. The fact that prison housing assignments are not close to the county--this was cited by the sponsors of AB 3043 which the author carried as well in 2020 that created this requirement for prisons.

The other difference is the state will pay for these guaranteed phone calls in prisons. If you, the legislature, tell CDCR to provide these calls and the governor agrees and signs the bill, then CDCR is on the hook to pay for those, and that's state budget money.

If you impose this requirement on county jails, then the counties will have to figure out how to pay for it with only the fleeting promise of an SB 90 reimbursement process, which if we're lucky, we'll see $0.10 on the dollar five years from now. And again, the reason the parallel is being drawn between this and the prison requirement because now county jails house many more felons, sentenced felons, people who would have been in prison, but for criminal justice realignment is because of criminal justice realignment. Thank you.

Thank you. Any others in opposition, please come forward. Questions or comments from committee members? Ms. Nguyen.

Thank you and thank you for your comments. I do agree that there needs to be some things in place, and I want to thank you for bringing this forward because I do agree that there needs to be time for folks to be able to have these conversations, whether it's prison or jail time, and to align it with state prison.

I understand that. But I'd ask that you work with opposition on trying to figure out what the infrastructure looks like because it does seem that it's going to be a heavy lift and not all counties are the same and the funding infrastructure for every county is different. So I hope that you would continue to work with them on trying to figure out how this would work.

I definitely will. As you know, this is the policy committee and once it goes to, I believe, Approps, that is where we're going to have to come up with the entire infrastructure, whether it be paid for or not paid for. And obviously the reason why we're doing that is that there's inadequacy in some districts, in some areas, and we need to be able to make sure that everybody is able to do that. And so you're bringing a valid point, the opposition is bringing a valid point. And that is one of the things I'm going to have to work real hard to make sure that we will be able to actually implement this.

Thank you. Assembly Member Wilson.

Thank you. My apologies to opposition for missing portion of the testimony. You may have addressed this, so please excuse me if you did. Just recalling from the bill analysis that was put forth by the committee talking about that there currently exists infrastructure, as I understand it--depending on the county--but basically, inmates are allowed to use the phone to talk with council and that call, by virtue of it being with council, can't be recorded and things of that nature currently.

And when they're making that call, they don't do it in privacy. And then this bill is asking to do the privacy. Is that the concern of the cost of infrastructure and all of the opposition? It already exists so they don't need the extra protection?

I think through the Chair, the opposition is, yes, the phone can be used. Yes, it would be recorded. So I suspect that's a concern of proponents. I don't want to speak for them, but that doesn't provide the privacy of other...

Correct.

I'm just saying from the opposite--I'm talking about your opinion that in standing in the opposition place, they already can access their attorney via phone.

Yes, they can call their mother, they can call their attorney, they can call the store, they can call whomever they like.

But that call is not private. Also noting that--did you address it? Because I think there's language that says that in the opposition. I wasn't sure if you said it before I came in the room that mandating an additional call would be an issue. And could you elaborate why mandating--because I thought the language said at least one call. And the viewpoint of yours, it's mandating an additional call. So I wondered, could you elaborate what you mean by that?

Sure. The bill mandates a phone call above and beyond the phone availability that currently exists for inmates. So that would be an additional call. So this doesn't count. And in fact, the committee's proposed language makes it even clearer that the phone call guaranteed by this bill is not to be used to supplant any existing communications that currently exist.

So in addition to all of the phone calls that an inmate may currently make, this bill would guarantee at least one additional 30 minutes call per month per case, above and beyond every other phone call that an inmate can make today. And above and beyond every-

So not as it relates to their counsel, just in general, like whether they call their mother, whoever, they have this one call. And that's why your viewpoint is it's an additional call because it's a minimum and then all the other calls they make and there's not capacity. If you have 100 people in your prison, you don't have capacity to be able to, with the existing structure--or jail, I should say, not prison--but there might not be capacity for additional phone calls. I mean, for that call plus all the other phone calls they get to make.

Okay, I think I understand. Thank you.

Correct.

Assembly Member Reyes.

I just want to say I appreciate the Inland Empire's representation here from both San Bernardino and Riverside. And I absolutely appreciate this for the first time I've ever seen in a committee. So thank you for bringing that. I appreciate the comments in opposition and those in favor, but my main comment had to do with the fact that the IE is represented. Thank you. And with that, I will move the bill.

Thank you. Have a motion and a second. Vice Chair Alanis.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I just have a few concerns that I want to bring up about the bill. As you guys may know, again, worked in law enforcement, correctional setting was one of them as well. And as the opposition had brought up, a jail is completely different than a prison. We have so many working parts making sure Title 15, Title 22, showers, clothing, bedding, everything's changed and is on a schedule.

Some of the things I want to bring up as far as the deputies in the jails--knowing how many cases they have. As a deputy, I never knew how many cases they had in court. That's what they took care of in court. And then the other thing, and for the author, maybe you guys want to identify this, and I don't know if it's in your language or not. It says per case per month. Are they a victim in it? Are they a witness in it?

Are they defendant in it? Some cases are seen as being part of one case and not the other. So that's another issue that I'd bring up. And then on top of it is by mandating this, who's going to be in charge of enforcing this? What happens if I don't get my one phone call because of my case? What happens then? Now, do these agencies get sued for something they didn't really know? Well, I didn't know he had a case. Where does that come from?

Also, these are just all questions that I'm bringing up right now that I'm thinking of as we're talking. And I see the difficulties. Obviously, the opposition brought up. It's a little easier in prison because they've already worked on those cases and those cases they're there for and hopefully they're not getting any more unless they're doing something in the facilities. But that's a big difference.

Sometimes you get defendants that have bailed out or were released on their own reconnaissances--OR, there we go--and they may get another case. But I didn't know that. I thought they were back here on the other case that they were on originally. So I see a lot of big troubles coming up with that. Thank you.

Thank you. Do you have a question or just comment?

That was it. Just for the opposition.

Yes. I have a question for our opposition. So my understanding is the majority of the calls that people would make as an inmate in county jail would be to family members way more than to their attorneys. Probably. Correct? Family and friends, you would think?

I presume that's the case, but I can't point to data that indicates. But anecdotally, I suspect that's right. And counsel may have thoughts on--but I'm sure--I probably agree with that.

Yeah, we'll assume that is. And so if they're already making these calls and it's just the privacy, maybe you could paint us a picture as far as what would have to happen. You'd have to have another--a room you convert, you'd have to have people, two people staffing. So what's the burden that you're trying to articulate to us as far as the change?

Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So the first account is typically, the phones are available to inmates during certain times. So there's phone time, and you can go make your calls if you want to make calls. And if not, you don't have to. There's no guarantee. There is guaranteed time available, but there's no guarantee that say, "Okay, Mr. McCarty, this is the time for your call. Go make your call." Right? So that's number one. Number two, the privacy, ostensibly, is that there are different spaces for--and I'll draw the distinction between in-person visitation.

So there is more privacy generally afforded to an attorney visit with a client, a defendant, or an inmate. So ostensibly, if it's a confidential call, this could not be accommodated with most, if not all of the existing phone infrastructure, which is typically a phone out in the general areas. Right? We haven't talked at all about tablets. A lot of jail facilities have tablets that allow for some form of communication, whether it's a video call or email.

Again, that could be used for family, that could be used for council. So again, it's the infrastructure of the privacy requirement, of the confidentiality requirement. It's the infrastructure tied to availability of the phones, because you already have significant draw on the phone time and the number of phones that exist today. And by saying, okay, these 500 inmates, say--these 500 inmates are all going to get one call per month per case.

So that's 15,000 minutes of phone calls, maximum, per month, if each inmate only has one case and only avails themselves of that one phone call. So that has to be accommodated with all of the other phone calls. Or if it can't be accommodated with the phone calls, then you've got to have new phones. You've got to have new space for those phones to be located.

You've got to have staff who can move the inmates around to those phones, because, again, if it's a confidential area or a privacy setting, it won't be: "Just go in the day room and make your calls." There'll be a room just like there's an attorney visiting room, that a deputy or two or a correctional officer or two will have to accompany that person, standby.

Okay, thank you. And as the chair emeritus noted, this is the policy committee, and so some of these fiscal issues will be evaluated, presuming this bill moves forward. Assembly Member, you may close.

These are really good questions, things I'm going to have to work through. Just like to say that I didn't know about tablets. I think with technology, we could get through a lot of this if we really put our heads together on the budget side to make sure that we can get this done. But most important, privacy.

When you are arrested, you have the right to remain silent, your right to have counsel. And that doesn't mean counsel that other people can hear. It's about having that confidentiality to be able to talk to your counsel freely and to explain what the problems are or what you need to be able to have your defense without others listening in.

If there's a way to have private conversations, even on the phone, if we could do that--again, this is not the Appropriations Committee where we're going to have to explain all this. But from a policy standpoint, I think we're pretty solid that we really need to make sure that everyone has a right to counsel and the right to be able to speak to that counsel freely.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you for your close. We have a motion and a second. Please call the roll.

On AB 2280 by Assembly Member Jones-Sawyer the motion is do pass, as amended, to the Appropriations Committee. McCarty. Aye. Alanis. Not voting. Lackey. Not voting. Nguyen. Aye. Reyes. Aye. Ting. Aye. Wilson. Aye. Zbur. Aye.

The measure passes. Next measure. Assemblymember Sanchez. Thank you. Item number three, AB 1874.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And Members, I will be accepting today's Committee amendments, and I want to thank the Committee's staff and stakeholders for working with us on this measure. AB 1874 is a reasonable measure that will provide judges more discretion to enhance penalties for convicted criminals who repeatedly record minors in intimate settings. As the mother of a young kid, I can tell you nothing is more important to a parent than their child's safety.

And my heart sinks when I hear about the cases involving young children being secretly recorded when they're trying to use the bathroom or change in a locker room. It is absolutely vile that people do this.

That's why I was shocked when the Orange County Sheriff's Department came to me to discuss how people in our community and around the state were continually being put in jeopardy of being sexually victimized by convicted criminals who were re-entering our communities without being fully rehabilitated or fully coming to terms with the nature of their crime. The punishment for secretly recording a minor in an intimate setting is a misdemeanor with a fine of no more than $2,000 or less than a year in county jail.

The punishment for that individual, if they do it a second time, is the same. The punishment, if they do it a third, 4th, 5th time, is the same. To me, that's unacceptable. That's why I introduced AB 1874, to ensure that repeat offense of recording minors in intimate settings is treated seriously and that judges have additional tools to remove these criminals from our communities so that they may have sufficient time to rehabilitate.

That is a common sense approach that strikes a fair balance between ensuring community safety and rehabilitating repeat offenders. I respectfully ask for your aye vote on this measure and testifying with me today is Captain Rachel Puckett, correct with me from the Orange County Sheriff's Department.

Good morning to the council. My name is Captain Rachel Puckett.

As the captain of the Criminal Investigations Bureau with the Orange County Sheriff's Department, I oversee a stellar team of over 60 professionals who handle complex and sensitive cases ranging from cybercrimes to homicide cases to cases where children are the victims of sexual assault. It is my honor to speak to you today about Assembly Bill 1874 as proposed by Assemblywoman Sanchez. We are so appreciative that Assemblywoman Sanchez has shed light on this much needed change.

Currently, California Penal Code 647 Juliet 3 makes it a misdemeanor to secretly record another identifiable person who may be in a state of full or partial undress in an area where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. Currently, there are no additional consequences for those who repeatedly commit this crime. In my opinion and experience, this is absolutely unacceptable.

Almost all aspects of the Penal Code have carveouts for minors and have greater penalties for such, which acknowledges that our children are more vulnerable, are more easily exploited, and ultimately suffer even greater irreparable mental and emotional harm because of childhood victimization. We believe that AB 1874 will fix this problem. AB 1874 would allow a person convicted of a second or subsequent offense of PC 647 Juliet 3 to face a felony punishment.

We strongly feel that an increase in punishment for a second or subsequent offense would act as a deterrent and sufficient justice for victims would also be achieved. Ideally, prevention of this crime would be the ultimate goal. It's important to note that as technology develops and devices to record become easier to conceal, it is important that the law recognize the impact to those who are victims of being secretly recorded.

In the past year, there have been several cases that illustrate this need for change in our county, and I'd like to mention a case of a 61 year old suspect who was arrested in 2023 after being caught secretly taking upskirt videos at a local shopping area. The individual has a history of committing this and other crimes, violating a person's privacy. The individual's past convictions include a felony sentence for possession of child sex abuse materials and previous convictions of California Penal Code 647 Juliet.

Had the proposed law been in place, the individual could have faced a more significant consequence for his actions. Another case is another 60 year old Orange County man that was caught in 2023 with over 500 up skirt videos found on his phone. The suspect had three similar arrests over the past 10 years for similar conduct. Had the proposed change in law been in place, there's a likelihood that he would have been serving a sentence preventing him from committing this offense in the first place.

Our children are especially vulnerable and we must protect them. Advances in technology have made it much easier to manipulate photos, send them to others, or post them to internet sites. In an instant, an innocent victim loses their privacy and faces the wellknown trauma associated with these very personal violations. In closing, AB 1874 is an opportunity for the Legislature to provide justice for victims and send a strong message that those who victimize others and violate one's privacies will be met with consequence. Thank you.

Thank you. Others in support, please come forward.

Cindy De Silva, on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association, in support.

Lieutenant Julio De Leon, on behalf of Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, in support.

Pastor Brandon Campbell with California Baptist for Biblical Values in support.

Mr. Chairman, Members Corey Salzillo, on behalf of The California State Sheriff's Association, in support.

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

Margo George, on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association, we want to thank the author. I believe she's taking the Committee amendments and we're reviewing them. As of now, we're still opposed, but thank you very much and thank you to the Committee.

Thank you.

Ignacio Hernandez, on behalf of the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, we are in opposition to the Bill. I want to thank the author and the Committee for the work on the amendments. It does address a major piece of our concern, which was individuals will be prosecuted who are under 18. So we are reviewing them. We'll talk to, we may have some suggestions going forward, but happy to engage and have that conversation.

Also want to point out very quickly that a lot of the concerns that were brought up in support of the Bill, there are other crimes that already can be charged, like for the posting of the pictures. So we want to just make sure this Bill is really just focused where it should be, but we'll continue the conversation. Thank you for the amendments. Thank you.

Melanie Kim, San Francisco Public Defender's Office. In opposition as written, but we will review the amendments. Thank you.

Okay. Questions or comments from Committee Members? Mr. Lackey?

Yes, sir. Excuse me. Certainly this is a very awkward set of circumstances to even consider, to even think about the prevalence of this problem. But we have a very high profile case that's being discussed in Southern California right now, where this took place at a school. And inarguably, this offense is an affront against innocence. And I think that we, as policymakers need to admit that.

Mr. Alanis.

I'm surprised that the opposition didn't bring up the argument about deterrence, because there's some differing opinions on whether this would actually deter. But it's my opinion whether it's a deterrence or not. It's about making a child feel like the state will protect them when someone violates them in this serious way. So I thank you for bringing this forward, and it certainly deserves my support.

Captain, thank you for your testimony. Great job as a prior crimes against children's detective as well.

This is near and dear to my heart as well. Just earlier we were talking about deterrence and adding more to a sentence to deter that as well. And I see you're doing that just in line with them. And also, I want us to thank the author for working with the opposition. It sounds like you guys are working really hard to get this Bill through, so thank you for doing that. And I move the Bill.

Thank you. Motion a second. Assembly member Reyes,

I agree with my colleague that it is so important to protect the innocence of our youngest children, and I appreciate that you have talked about continuing conversation with opposition, but protecting our youngest is key here, and I thank you for that.

Thank you. So with the amendments, I think that we narrowed it and brought more balance to this. I do support this if you like to close.

Roll Call

Thank you. Thank you for your consideration of this measure. I believe it is vital to help protect our children from being unnecessarily victimized by repeat sexual offenders. I respectfully ask for your Aye vote.

Okay. Please call the roll

Measure passes. Our final author is our Committee Member, Assembly Member Reyes.

Thank you. Mr. Chair Members. I present AB 1956, a Bill that makes clear that supporting victims of crime is a priority of California. This Bill accomplishes this by committing to backfill funding for critical services, including programs that fund rape crisis centers, domestic violence assistance, and child abuse, if federal funding dips below 10% of what was allocated in previous years.

The Victims of Crime Act, also known as VOCA, was created by Congress 40 years ago to provide federal support to state and local programs that assist victims of crime facilitated through the Crime Victim Program or Fund. This is the largest federal funding source for victim service providers in the United States.

Recently, the United States House of Representatives released language for a Bill which included VOCA funding indicating a cut of over $620,000,000 to crime victim services nationwide, which we estimate will be a decrease of 155,000,000 here in California. This will undoubtedly devastate local providers ability to serve crime victims by either increasing wait times and other barriers to these critical services or forcing some of the organizations that facilitate these programs to close their doors indefinitely.

There are a number of services that have been provided by VOCA: housing violent survivors and their children, including more than 350,000 emergency shelter nights, providing transitional housing over 180,000 times, and supporting thousands of individuals with housing needs. Services for over 46,000 individuals experiencing sexual violence served by the California Rape Crisis Center. Culturally appropriate victim services for approximately 42,000 unserved and underserved survivors of crime, in addition to more than 4000 child and youth survivors of crime from underserved communities.

We cannot leave behind our victims of crime here in California just because funding has been reduced today. To testify in support of this Bill, I have Michelle Cates, Executive Director of Partners Against Violence in San Bernardino, and Holly Fleming, Program Director for the Children's Advocacy Center of California.

Thank you. Please proceed.

Good morning, Chair McCarty and Committee Members. My name is Michelle Kates and I am the Executive Director of Partners Against Violence, a non-profit in the Inland Empire supporting survivors of sexual assault. For over 50 years, our small staff has answered calls day or night for thousands of victims of sexual violence. We provide free counseling, medical and legal accompaniment, and referrals to other community based organizations to anyone who walks through our doors. With the steady decline in crime victim funding, my program must prepare for the worst.

AB 1956, authored by Assemblymember Reyes, will create a mechanism for the state to backfill the federal gap in crime victim services when funding levels drop by 10% or more each year. This bill is critically important to ensuring the stability and longevity of these life saving programs.

Should AB 1956 not pass, Partners against Violence will likely be forced to close our satellite office in the Victorville area, supporting the underserved region of the high desert area, a growing area with a few resources and significant barriers to accessing them. Victims in the furthest part of this area currently have to travel upwards of 3 hours in the immediate aftermath of a sexual assault just to receive a forensic exam.

Closing this office will only further the distance survivors face accessing life saving services while recovering from trauma. Partners against violence is just one of 400 crime victim service providers across the state who are facing the harsh reality of drastic funding cuts if the state does not act. Without advocates, survivors are far less likely to receive the critical care and support they need and deserve. At a time when California is grappling with how to support victims of crime, AB 1956 is the solution.

These funds will directly support survivors on their unique healing journeys and ensure California's survivor safety net stays intact. Thank you for your time. I respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you. Next witness.

Good morning. My name is Holly Fleming, and as mentioned, I'm the Program Director for Children's Advocacy Centers of California. Prior to that, I was a forensic interviewer at a children's advocacy center in Alameda County for seven and a half years. Now, children's advocacy centers, also called CACs, are the first stop into an investigation of child abuse.

When there's an allegation, the child can go to a CAC where they'll talk with a trained forensic interviewer who gets the facts of the case in a non leading, developmentally appropriate way. Then a team of professionals, including law enforcement officers, CPS workers, prosecutors, victim advocates, and more, can work together to decide what's in the best interest of the child and for keeping the community safe.

Additionally, children's advocacy centers provide services for the caregivers of these children, connecting them with mental health as well as medical treatment, forensic treatment, and other services, so that they can start on the road to healing. FOCA is the only source of funding for children's advocacy centers in the state. For many of our centers, it makes up 80% to 100% of their budgets. And like many of the other crime victim service providers, losing this funding means drastically reducing the services or even closing their doors.

Now, without a CAC, agencies that investigate these allegations are less likely to coordinate. Perpetrators may be tipped off, communities are less safe, caregivers get less support services, and children have to talk about the worst moments of their life over and over again with untrained professionals. This often leads to recantation, not because the abuse didn't happen, but because it's too hard to get justice in healing in an unorganized system, AB 1956 helps to ensure that this won't happen.

By creating this backfill, we support the victim service programs and the survivors who rely on them. Everyone who survives a crime, child or adult, deserves help, and AB 1956 goes a long way towards that. Thank you.

Thank you. Others in support, please come up.

Natasha Minskar, Smart Justice California, priority support,

Faith Conley with Weideman Group on behalf of the County of Santa Clara, as well as co-sponsor ValorUS and the 64 rape crisis centers that they serve. Strong support.

Mr. Chairman, Members. Dan Felizado, on behalf of the Los Angeles County District Attorney's office, in support.

Ed Little on behalf of Californians for Safety and Justice and Crime Survivors for Safety and Justice, in support.

Magali Zagal, on behalf of the California Partnership to End Domestic Violence, representing over a thousand advocates, organizations and allied groups throughout the state, as well as the culturally responsive domestic violence network, the LGBTQ Center of Long Beach, the LA LGBT Center and culturally specific service providers across the state in support.

Good morning. Glenn Backes for the Prosecutors Alliance of California, in support.

Danica Rodarmel, on behalf of Initiate Justice and Law Defense, in support

Cindy De Silva, on behalf of California District Attorneys Association, in support

Good morning. Lizzie Cootsona here on behalf of the Counties of Fresno, Madera, Kern and San Joaquin, in support. Thank you.

Melanie Kim, San Francisco Public Defender's Office, in support.

Ryan Morimune with the California State Association of Counties, also on behalf of the Urban Counties of California and Rural County Representatives of California, in support

Corey Salzillo, on behalf of the California State Sheriffs Association, in support

Jim Lindbergh, Friends Committee on Legislation of California, in support.

Beth Hassett, CEO of WEAVE, serving Sacramento county, in support.

Haley Little, in support, with Californians United for a Responsible Budget and Showing Up for Racial Justice Bay Area.

Alicia Montero, Californians United for Responsible Budget, in support.

Eric Henderson, ACLU California Action, in support.

Darya Larizadeh, National Center for Youth Law, in strong support.

Okay, thank you. I don't think so, but do we have any opposition? Seeing none. Do we have a motion? So moved from Ms. Nguyen, second by Mr. Zbur. Yes, Ms. Wilson.

Just one question, just so I understand. The 10% drop in comparison to the prior year. So if in the second year the Federal Government continues to drop the program, there's not the makeup of that, it's just the original 10%. It kind of creates a-- So every year. So if it's 10% one year, and then the next year they drop it another 10%, then the state is supposed to supplement 20% from the two previous years. Is that the thought process?

It's from the previous year.

Just only the previous year?

Yes.

Okay. Thank you.

Okay, Mr. Lackey.

Just real quickly, I wanted to say that I do sit on the Budget Sub 6, and this may serve as an augmentation to our budget process. At least I certainly hope so, because we are facing significant reductions in these very areas that you're trying to protect. They very much are under assault, and I don't know how they're going to survive, but we'll do our best. But this is certainly a help. Thank you.

Thank you. Vice Chair Alanis.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Well, for the author, this is a very fitting bill for us to have at the end, and I think it's great to see those that were in opposition and support throughout this hearing all coming up for this one bill. So that's great to see us all come together for the victims.

Also, just looking at the letters of support, over 125, I think I counted, if not more, coming, and I was happy and proud to see one of them with the Stanislaus Family Justice Center, where I used to be a forensic interviewer, also there. So very proud of that and also thankful to be a co-author with this one as well. Thank you.

Thank you. You may close, Assemblymember.

Thank you. I think it's so important that if our victims are at risk of having their benefits reduced, we do have a responsibility to try to help that. I do want to thank my over 15 co-authors. Some of you are members of this very Committee, and thank you for that.

And I will continue to my conversations with our Budget Chair, Assemblymember Gabriel, and our Sub 6 Chair, Assemblymember Ramos, as we put together the coalition of advocates to make sure that we do protect our victims.

Thank you.

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

Excellent. Thank you. Please call the roll.

[Roll call]

Thank you. We're going to go back and do add ons and lift the call on a couple of measures. One measure.

Roll Call

Roll Call

Roll Call

Okay, thank you. That concludes this hearing. We will adjourn. Thank you. Thank.