Senate Standing Committee on Public Safety

[Roll Call]

We have quorum. I do just want to give a couple of announcements. We had 14 bills on this calendar with three on consent. SB 1381 by Senator Mcguire, SB 1489 by Senator Mcguire, and SB 1473 by Senator Laird. I also would like to say that SB 894 by Senator Min, SB 1392 by Senator Stern, and SB 1400 by Senator Stern are pulled from today's Committee. So that makes eight bills we will hear testimony on.

I'm going to call the first Bill by Senator Min. Give me 2 seconds. SB 1126, Senator. And again, announcements. Witnesses as well as me toos will be speaking at that lectern. Lead witnesses will have two minutes. We'd like to move this pretty quickly. Other than that, Senator, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Committee Members. SB 1126 would clarify that mandated reporters of child abuse and neglect would not be required to report on the basis that a child has witnessed or been present during a domestic violence incident. Currently in California, when a child witnessing or being present during a DV incident comes to the attention of mandated reporters, they believe they must report the survivor parent to child welfare authorities. Survivors of domestic violence are reported even when they are the ones seeking help.

Once reported, survivor parents and their children are subjected to the known stresses and trauma of investigation, including the threat of separation. They are then potentially separated from their children and charged with neglect for failing to protect their children from witnessing domestic violence. As a result, and perversely, survivor parents, including those who are victims under our criminal laws, can have their children taken from them, including as a result of their efforts to try to seek and receive support.

Research has made clear that keeping survivor parents and their children together with access to support and services is the most effective way to try to break the cycle of domestic violence and to help children who witness domestic violence. In contrast, those same studies show that separating children who witness DV from their survivor parents can cause more long term harm to the child.

State separation of children from parent and placement of the child in the child welfare system has been shown to be perhaps the most significant predictor of emotional and behavioral problems in childhood. Today, I have with me two witnesses, Doctor Rachel Robitz, associate clinical Professor in the UC Davis Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences and the medical Director of Turning Point Community Program's mental Health Urgent Care Clinic, as well as Maria Nembhard, policy and community advocate at the Jenessee Center to testify in support of SB 1126.

Thank you. If you can approach the lectern, then you will have two minutes.

Members of the Senate Committee on Public Safety my name is Doctor Rachel Robitz. I am an associate Professor of psychiatry psychiatry at UC Davis and a physician double boarded in family medicine and psychiatry who has provided care to countless parents and children who have been impacted by domestic violence in the child welfare system. I am speaking on behalf of myself, not my employer. As a resident physician, I was trained that if a child witnesses any domestic violence, I was mandated to call child welfare.

Other mandated reporters, because of a lack of clarity in the law, do not receive any instruction on what to do in this situation at all. My own training didn't leave any room for the gray that exists in some of the cases I've seen clinically, leaving me in a position where it felt like my mandated reporting obligations conflicted with what I understood to be in the best interest of my patients and their children.

The relationship between a child and a loving and supportive parent is one of the most crucial building blocks to the healthy development of children. Research shows us that separating a child from a loving and supportive parent disrupts a crucial attachment, resulting in an adverse childhood experience with many downstream lifelong physical and behavioral health impacts.

While I recognize that witnessing DV is also an adverse childhood experience, we compound the harm to the child when we add a second adverse experience by removing the child from their protective parent. Beyond the impacts on children, our current approach to mandated reporting impacts the health and well being of survivors of DV.

Survivors have reported hesitancy to seek medical treatment due to concerns about mandated reporting and particularly about the potential for cps to investigate them and potentially separate them from their children when they are not able to come into my office because of their fears, I am not only unable to care for them medically, but I am unable to have open conversations with them about the violence they are experiencing and am unable to connect them to services which will in turn help them leave an abusive relationship.

Ultimately, my inability to connect them to resources for the violence they're experiencing leads to further abuse and further adverse childhood experiences for their children. In medicine, we focus on achieving health equity, and I firmly believe that SB 1126 is a step in the direction of achieving health equity for both survivors of domestic violence in their children. Mandated reporting has differing impacts depending on the population, with California black and Native American youth being overrepresented in the child welfare system.

These differential impacts have downstream effects and further contribute to health inequities. Thank you so much for your time and thoughtfulness about the complexities of this issue. As a mother and as a physician, I am asking that you support SB 1126.

Thank you. Next.

Public Safety Committee Members, thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. I'm Maria Nembhard, policy and community advocate at Jenesee Center, a domestic violence intervention and prevention program in South Los Angeles foundation founded by five black women over 43 years ago with a focus on the underserved community, offering comprehensive, culturally specific programs including shelter counseling, direct legal services, permanent housing assistance, workforce development, and healthcare advocacy to more than 1300 survivors each year.

I'm here to strongly support SB 1126, a Bill amendment that represents an important step forward in stemming the rampant referral of dv survivors and their children to the child welfare system, by clarifying clarifying that a child witnessing domestic violence does not require a mandated reporter to report child abuse or neglect as specified, meaning that on its own, the presence of domestic violence in the home and a child witnessing their protective parent being subjected to violence is not in and of itself enough to require a mandated report and traumatic child protective services investigation that could result in the separation of a child from their survivor parent.

The law, as currently written, results in thousands of reflexive and thoughtless mandated reports of survivor parents to cps under the exact circumstances described above, creating a chilling on survivors willingness and ability to seek the services and support needed to escape abuse. It is tragically ironic that the moment a survivor finds the courage and strength to seek help from a medical provider, counselor, teacher, or police officer, they are ushered into a system that may remove their children from their care.

In this context, mandated reporting does not increase child safety. On the contrary, the fear of being reported causes many survivors to avoid seeking help from entities they fear will refer them to CPS. This is particularly true for survivors of color who often struggle with historic system betrayal and system distrust and are all too aware that black, brown and Native American children are overrepresented in the child welfare system.

Thank you. Appreciate it. Do we have any other me toos in support? Please state your name your and that you support.

Good morning, Margo George on behalf of. The California Public Defenders Association in support

Annie Thomas on behalf of the California Alliance of Child and Family Services in Support.

Good morning. Sally Ching with the Alliance for Boys and Men of Color in support. I'll also be reading on behalf of several organizations in support if that's okay the California Partnership to End Domestic Violence, Family Violence Appellate Project, Futures Without Violence Public Counsel, UC Irvine Domestic Violence Law Clinic, Caminar Latino Weave Western Center on Law and Poverty, California alliance of Caregivers, AAPI Equity Alliance, Casa of Los Angeles, Children's Law center of California, Legal Aid foundation of Los Angeles, Project Sanctuary Reimagine, Child Safety Coalition, Lumina alliance, healthy alternatives to violent environments and Los Angeles dependency lawyers. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no other me toos, do we have any opposition? Lead witnesses, you will have two minutes.

Good morning. My name is Eileen Cubanski. I'm with the County Welfare Directors Association. Some regret that I stand here before you today in opposition to this Bill at this time. The mandated reporter system, at its heart, does fundamentally, it's well intentioned. It is intended to protect the safety and well being of children. But we know, as we've heard from testimony, that it is a confusing system and it's imperfect. It is definitely one that is in need of reform.

We are supportive of efforts that the Child Welfare Council within the Health and Human Services Agency is undertaking right now to actually look at the mandated reporter system more holistically.

They have created a mandated reporting to community supporting task force, and the goal of that task force, of which we are a Member, is to safely narrow that front door to child welfare, at the same time directly supporting families with the right services at the right time, figuring out how we prevent reporting and entries into child welfare in the first place.

Still ensuring that we have a reporting system that is sufficient enough to ensure that children who are abused and neglect are enabled to be served by the system. So in the absence of that task force recommendations which are due this summer, we have concerns about doing these reforms on a piecemeal basis. In particular, in this situation, there is no training or education required or provided by the Bill.

And we don't think that without that, that we are going to continue to perpetuate some of the confusions in the system around mandated reporting in this situation. So we are absolutely supportive of reforms to this, but we do want to see the holistic recommendations of that task force and consider these reforms in that context.

Thank you. Thank you. Do we have any other opposition witnesses? Hello.

Lieutenant Julio De Leon from the Riverside County Sheriff's office. I don't see anybody else in opposition, so I'll just make a few comments here. We do agree that it is bad policy to take children away from surviving parents. However, I think that this Bill should mirror our policies, which is 13700 pc, which requires our peace officers on scene to differentiate who the dominant aggressor is and arrest the dominant aggressor and not both parents.

Because when we arrest both parents, which is strongly discouraged by the penal code, then at that point we make that recommendation to CPS, where then CPs then takes a child away because of a dangerous situation at home. But it is our job, and we believe that it should be CPS job as well.

And this Bill should also recommend that the training component should be there where a social service agency should make that determination as well, just like we do to avoid arresting both parents or taking both parents away so that one child can stay at home with a survivor parent or have that child placed with a family Member. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other opposition witnesses seeing? None. We'll move the conversation to Committee Members. Senator Seyarto, thank you.

Real quick question on the comments by the opposition about the task force. Why not wait until we have that in hand so that we don't make a law that then we have to fix again later on?

I will refer to my witnesses here and let them answer the question. But just I think, to preface it, we all have seen examples of waiting for task force recommendations, but we know, you know, and sometimes those may come timely, they may address this issue, they may not. But this particular fix is one that I know is well documented as being a good one. And just to address the comments made by the other witness, I don't believe this has to do with arrest.

This is around mandatory reporting and simply clarifies that what many believe is already the law, that it is not required to report solely on the basis of witnessing or being present during a domestic violence incident. And we know this is a problem. So regardless of what the recommendations come back as, I think this particular piece is well supported by the evidence. But I would refer to Doctor Robit's to answer that question.

Yes, no, I would agree. And I would also say that harm is currently being done. And so this is something that we need to act on now as opposed to waiting until the recommendations come back. And I can't imagine that the recommendations. I don't know. I'm not a part of that task force or Committee, but this is something that we know is in the best interest of children and families.

And one more year of delay could result in who knows how many families being torn apart, how many children being put in foster care.

Okay. I've been a mandatory reporter before I retired 10 years ago. So this has been going on for 10 years. There's a lot of reforms that need to be done. And again, I kind of go back to. We finally have gotten to the point where we're going to try to figure out what's really wrong with the program, because there's a lot wrong with it, and they're going to come out with some recommendations to fix it, and I'd rather have it all fixed in one.

So I'll be laying off the Bill today because I prefer that approach than the piecemeal approach that, you know, this and probably other bills are going to be taking when we have something on the horizon, on the short horizon to address it. I appreciate that.

Senator Skinner. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator. Min, would you like to close?

I respectfully asked you. I vote.

[Roll Call]

Thank you, Members.

That motion's on call or that bill's on call. Can I get a motion for the consent calendar again? Okay, moved by Senator Bradford again, it's SB 1381 by Mcguire, [Roll Call] All right, those bills are on call or consent's on call. Senator Portantino, would you like to present SB 1128?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Should I proceed?

Yes.

All right. Thank you, Madam Chair and Committee Members. SB 1128 will require tier-one sex offender registry if an offender engages in unlawful. It says unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor. We're talking about young girls, and the offender is more than 10 years older than that minor. Failing to require registration for offenders engaging in the unlawful sexual intercourse of a minor is inexplicable. This undercuts efforts to prevent the sexual exploitation and trafficking of children throughout our communities.

Existing law requires sex offender registration for oral copulation, sodomy, digital penetration if the offender is more than 10 years older, but not for sexual intercourse. But current law does not require registration for those offenders with a minor, irrespective of age differences between the minor and the offender. Many minors engaging in these relationships are exploited, manipulated, and fall victim to trafficking and other types of abuse.

The vast majority of victims come from marginalized communities, and frankly, most of them are people of color who are the most vulnerable. Human trafficking is a $150 billion-a-year global industry, and over 24,000 victims have been identified in California. California consistently ranks number one in the nation for reported human trafficking cases. That is not a statistic. We want to be at the top of the list. SB 1128 is essential to protecting vulnerable youth, and we're holding sexual offenders accountable.

We are going to amend the Bill to make it tier one. I believe procedurally will come as if it passes the Committee. You'll make those amendments, I guess, as Committee amendments.

So it will be do pass as amended, and Committee staff will make those amendments.

Great. Thank you. With me today, I have LA City Attorney Hydee Feldstein Soto. I have LAPD Deputy Chief Emada Tingirides, and I have Deputy City Attorney Laura Drino, who is here for technical support. She is the head of the Children Exposed to Violence Task Force. So I have two primary witnesses and one witness for technical support. And I believe we have some me toos as well. So with that, when appropriately, obviously, I want an aye vote, and I would love you to hear from my witnesses.

Thank you. You will have two minutes. If you can approach the lectern, you will be timed.

Thank you. I have one question. If I take less than two minutes, may I yield to Deputy Chief Emada Tingirides?

No. She will have two minutes as well.

Okay. Thank you so much. Good morning, Members and staff of the Public Safety Committee. I appreciate your time this morning. My name is Heidi Feldstein Soto, and I am the elected City Attorney for the City of Los Angeles. I have a couple of quick technical corrections. The statement says that this is my office that supports the Bill. In fact, city council unanimously passed this Bill, and it was signed by Mayor Karen Bass as support for the City of LA.

So I can tell you that the Bill is unanimously supported by our City Council, by our mayor's office, by my office, and therefore by the City of Los Angeles. I also would like to correct one statement made by the opposition, that the majority of the people affected by this Bill are youth. That is not accurate.

From our experience, the majority of the people that would be affected by this Bill are middle-aged, primarily White and Hispanic men who are either traffickers or those who engage in unlawful sexual intercourse with minors and girls. I think the Senator stated it very well when registration is already required for sexual activities with a minor, so long as the age difference is at least 10 years.

I do not understand why we do not protect our girls to the same extent, why we don't have the registry that serves three purposes, not only deterrence, but also public information for communities and aid to law enforcement, which you will hear more from deputy chief Tingirides including the statistics regarding the trafficking and exploitation programs that we are running in LA.

Thank you very much for your time and attention, and I would ask you for a yes vote on this very important Bill to plug a gap in our sex offender registry.

Thank you.

Good morning, Senators. My name is Ivata Tingirides. I'm a deputy chief with the Los Angeles Police Department, where I have been serving in south Los Angeles for nearly three decades. We're currently working with our city attorney's office, our council districts, our local, federal, and state partners to address human trafficking in South Los Angeles. This work is done with the victim service compassion lens on our communities. We have young girls that are being victimized and trafficked on a daily basis.

Our human trafficking victims are 70% Black, 70% young Black girls, 26% Latino, and 4% other. In 2023, in South Los Angeles alone, we rescued 60 young women and 11 adults and were well on our way to exceed that number this year. 80% to 90% of the arrestees that are trafficking these young girls are either White or Latino. Law enforcement needs additional tools and resources to support dismantling the ease of traffickers and gaining access to these young Black and brown girls, children, and minors in our communities.

This Bill will help provide a database for us to monitor for investigative purposes and to protect the young girls that are being victimized in our community. We need this victimization to stop, and I ask you to support this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. We'll move on to me too witnesses. State your name, your organization, and that you support.

My name is Soshanda Marbury. The organization is Sister Friends and I support.

Thank you.

Can I read?

Oh.

No, that's it.

Good morning, Committee. My name is Heidi Gibson and I am affiliated with Sister Friends, and I am here to say that I am in support of the SB 1125 and also 1275. I mean 1128 and 1275 that was postponed.

Thank you.

Madam Chair and Members. Good morning. Andrew Antwih with Shaw Yoder Antwih Schmelzer and Lange, here today on behalf of the City of Los Angeles. City council voted unanimously to support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Kristen Allison on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association in support.

Good morning. Laura Drino, Deputy City Attorney Director of Children Exposed to Violence Unit in support.

Thank you. Seeing we have no other me toos, we'll move on to lead opposition witnesses.

Two minutes.

Good morning, Chair Wahhab and Members of the Committee. My name is Marshal Lawler, and I'm an attorney at Root and Rebound, which is a reentry legal services organization that serves formerly incarcerated people. We respectfully oppose SB 1128. This expansion of the sex offender registry will undermine public safety and prevent people convicted of sex offenses from rehabilitating. Root and Rebound assists many clients who are required to register under Penal Code Section 290.

And what we see is that they face extraordinary barriers to stable housing and employment. This leads to higher rates of homelessness, drug addiction, mental illness, and poverty. All of this undermines the ability of people convicted of sex offenses to rehabilitate. Importantly, a large body of research has shown that stable housing and employment are crucial to prevent reoffense. It's important to note that this crime is still a punishable offense, regardless of whether it requires registration under Penal Code Section 290.

Additionally, people convicted of this offense are still supervised by a parole officer upon release. Therefore, registration for this crime is not necessary to deter the underlying criminal conduct. Moreover, this Bill does not address one of the most common underlying causes of this crime, which is a lack of awareness that consensual sex with a minor is a crime. Rather than further punishing people and stigmatizing people who commit this offense, the Legislature should prioritize funding education programs that raise awareness in our communities about the age of consent.

For these reasons, we respectfully ask that you vote no on SB 1128.

Thank you.

Margo George, on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association, in respectful opposition, I just want to make a couple of points. One, that in the appropriate case, the city attorney or anyone else is able to obtain registration. She has prominently displayed on her website a conviction for 647--annoying, molesting a child--which is a mandatory registrable offense. It's a misdemeanor, but it is a mandatory registrational offense.

Also, there is a catch-all provision in the Sex Offender Registration Act that allows a judge in appropriate cases if he or she finds that it's a matter of compulsion to order registration. So this is not needed. The Sex Offender Registration Act was carefully crafted by all the stakeholders just a few years ago, including Nancy O'Malley, who was the District Attorney of Alameda County and the head of the Sex Offender Management Board at the time. So we ask you not to amend it at this time.

There's no evidence supporting that this will stop human trafficking or that it will stop the abuse of young people. I'm here for technical assistance if you have any further questions. So thank you.

Thank you. Can we get me too's in opposition? Please state your name, your org, and that you oppose.

Hello, my name is Aldazia Green on behalf of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, in opposition to this Bill.

Thank you.

Duke Cooney on behalf of ACLU, California Action in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Su Kim on behalf of UnCommon Law in respectful opposition.

Thank you. Seeing none, we'll move over to Committee Members. Committee Members, you guys have any comments, questions, concerns? All right, Senator Wiener.

Excuse me. Thank you, Madam Chair. So I just want to explain why I'm not going to be supporting the Bill today. And I've spoken with the author about my rationale for this, and I understand that the author is taking an amendment which moves the absolute worst part of the Bill, which I appreciate, but I still am not able to support this Bill. And I come at this as someone who's done quite a bit of work on the sex offender registry.

We have a broken, dilapidated sex offender registry that doesn't serve its purpose, which is to, is not punishment. The crime underlying crime here today is statutory rape. That is a crime, and it will remain a crime, whatever happens to this Bill. Sex offender registry was put in place so that dangerous people could be monitored by law enforcement. Over the years, so many people were put on the sex offender registry that literally 1 in every 40 Californians was on the sex offender registry. One in every 40.

And I guarantee you, it's not the case that 1 out of 40 Californians are predators. It was just filled with people who had committed lower-level crimes, who were, if they ever were a real risk, are no longer a risk. So we worked very hard with law enforcement and created the tiering system in 2017.

It took many years to put that in place so that not, because we were one of the few states that required everyone to remain on the registry for the rest of their lives, whether they were a sexually violent predator, or whether they were a gay guy who got caught having sex in a car in 1972 and then 50 years later remained on the registry.

And so we did that work, and then we followed up in 2018 to say that we know that for statutory rape, which is at issue here today, since, as I understand it, since the 1940s, has been discretion of the court, that if someone commits statutory rape, the judge and the district attorney take a look at the facts of the case and decide, should this person go on the registry? Are they a threat, or should they not go on the registry?

It's based on the facts and circumstances of the case. That was not the case for non-vaginal intercourse. And so we did some work in 2020 to align that with how statutory rape is treated. Discretion of the court. I have a lot of battle scars from that Bill and, colleagues, I appreciate the support for that Bill. This moves in the other direction by taking a bunch of crimes that have always been discretion of the court and making them mandatory.

So no matter what the facts of the case, no matter what, doesn't matter, the judge will be mandated to place the person on the sex offender registry. And that's not something I support. I know there's been a lot of talk about human trafficking today. Human trafficking is a very serious problem in California and elsewhere. We have very strong laws against human trafficking. Our law enforcement does tremendous work to target and arrest people who are engaging in human trafficking.

We passed a strong Bill out of this Committee last year that was signed into law to enhance penalties for human trafficking, and that's something we take seriously. But to suggest, as I think, is some of the implication that I've heard in the discussion around this Bill, that statutory rape is somehow automatically human trafficking, that is just not true.

And having the discretion of the court and the district attorney allows them, if someone is actually engaging in horrible predatory behavior or human trafficking, then they can be placed on the sex offender registry. So I appreciate the intent behind this Bill, but it is not something that I can support.

Thank you. Senator, would you like to close? Sorry, Senator Skinner.

Thank you. And I appreciate my colleague from San Francisco's comments, because I went through those battle scars with him, and the thing that's that he brought out and that is referenced in the analysis, but not as in much detail, the analysis focuses on--which is principled to build the addition of this sex work registry and permanence--is this, in effect, the age of consent.

So if we do it this way, and even if we just make the registration a Tier 1, so 10 years instead of life, we have--look, statutory rape is still if you're under 18, so that's existing in law. And, but there, we have parts of the, different parts of the Penal Code that treat it differently if you're under 16. And so we have not in one place codified what the age of consent is. We kind of have this, whatever, kind of a hodgepodge.

And I think for me, that's part of the difficulty, is that I'm clear that a 15-year-old cannot consent to sex with somebody 10 years older. That is absolutely clear to me. There's not a. Seventeen, however, I think is a gray area. And this is where I like the judicial discretion, because it is conceivable to me that a 17-year-old is more able to have that consent.

I also am quite aware that a 17-year-old can be just as vulnerable to a very predatory male, who's, that the predatory male is 10 years older than her. Then obviously there's lots of coercion that could be involved. But I think there is still these gray areas. And so, while I'm not advocating that we change, per se, the ages in different parts of the code, I am comfortable with the fact that the judicial discretion allowed for that, in effect.

So it allowed for a case where it was a 17-year-old, and of course, a 17-year-old, it could be a month before they're 18, for example. That difference between a month before you're 18 and 18 is pretty gray. So that's why I'm not comfortable with how the Bill is constructed.

Thank you. Senator, would you like to close?

Yes. Thank you for the opportunity to present the Bill. I appreciate the testimony from both the folks for and against. I would submit for the one comment about, "we need to be made aware that this is a crime," I would think that a 21-year-old should know that sex with an 11-year-old is wrong, and the fact that a defense of opposition would be, but.

I'm just saying, the 10 year difference, the age difference, we should just instinctively know that the exploitation and sex with a minor is predatory by its nature. And so I appreciate the Chair offering the Tier 1 and Mr. Bradford working with my office. As amended, with a Tier 1, I would respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. I do just want to highlight that we are specifically talking about this particular Bill, and other comments that are made, we're going to ignore and we're going to focus on this Bill, so. Right.

Yes. So, with that, do we have a motion?

I'll move the Bill.

Senator Seyarto moves the Bill.

SB 1128. Motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations. [Roll Call].

That Bill is out.

Thank you.

All right, moving on to Senator Archuleta, SB 1262. But Senator, prior to you, can we just call roll call for all the votes so far?

Consent. So, for consent. [Roll call] For Min's SB 1126, the current vote is three to zero. [Roll call]

Bill is out. Okay. And then, Senator Archuleta, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And good morning Committee Members. I would like to thank, once again, the Chair for working with me and I look forward to continuing working with her. Senate Bill 1262 is a reintroduction of AB 1408 Calderon from 2017, which was introduced in direct response to the shooting death of Officer Keith Boyer of the Whittier Police Department by an individual on post-release.

The community of Whittier continues to mourn February 20, 2017, fatal shooting of Whittier police officer Keith Boyer and the wounding of Whittier police officer Patrick Hazel. It was the first killing of a police officer in nearly 40 years in the City of Whittier. Officer Boyer's death not only impacted the City of Whittier, but resonated with cities and towns across California, highlighting the need for effective management of post-release supervision.

Senate Bill 1262 seeks to make modest changes to California's post-release supervision law to allow local law enforcement and public safety professionals additional resources to make the best decision in determining the proper response for repeat offenders. Enhancing the oversight and transparency within the post-release community supervision would help all law enforcement agencies to be successful in facilitating the transition for formerly incarcerated individuals back into the community.

This Bill would ensure law enforcement agencies have the necessary comprehensive information regarding those on post-release community supervision in their counties. The Bill is a reasonable approach and intended to mitigate the opportunity for additional tragedies from occurring by closing some of the loopholes that allow repeat offenders who deliberately abuse the system. Senate Bill 1262 implements five basic reforms.

One, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation would be mandated to provide a local law enforcement agency with copies of a person's record of supervision during any period of parole. Two, it increases information sharing between the state and the county regarding criminal history. And three, it requires consideration of an individual's entire criminal history by the parole board. Four, requires the probation Department to notify the court, public defender, District Attorney, and sheriff of each of a flash incarceration.

Lastly, it requires county prohibition or probation departments to seek a mandatory post-release community supervision hearing for the third violation. Again, let me repeat that if I may. Lastly, it requires counties probation departments to seek a mandatory post-release community supervision hearing for third violation. I am committed to continue to work with the opposition and law enforcement to ensure individuals who do not pose a danger to our community are not incarcerated, but given the opportunity to appear before the Committee.

And the Parol Board. The intent of the Bill is not to incarcerate, as I mentioned, and not to intend the Bill. I'm sorry. The intent of the Bill is not to incarcerate individuals who are complying with the terms of their release. Our goal is to provide an extra layer of oversight to prevent any tragedy from occurring. We are focused on individuals who continue to disregard and abuse the system. As I said, I am committed to working with the opposition to find common ground should this pass and pass on from the Committee today.

Thank you.

My staff has been in contact with the opposition and are trying to find a place where law enforcement and the opposition are comfortable with the language. Senate Bill 1262 prioritizes accountability to prevent repeat offenders on community supervision and needed oversight information to ensure the appropriate persons receive this type of release, all of which are a testament to the lessons learned from the tragic loss of Officer Boyle. I feel strongly we can achieve that goal working together and moving this Bill forward.

Here with me to support the Bill, the mayor of Whittier, Joe Vinatieri, and Tony Rice, who can answer any technical questions. And with that, Committee Members, Madam Chair, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Please approach the lectern. You will be timed at two minutes.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Joe Vinatieri, and I've had the honor and pleasure of serving the City of Whittier for the past 18 years and as the first elected citywide mayor. I am a Whittier person, and I make as much time as necessary to meet with all the people in Whittier as often as possible.

But on February 20, 2017, our tight-knit community was rocked to its core by the senseless murder of Officer Keith Boyer, by an individual who was on post-release, who was known at that time to have issues with the terms of his release based on a number of technical violations, five, that he had garnered in a relatively short period of time. The murder of Officer Boyer was so deeply felt by our community that Whittier's then Assembly Member, Ian Calderon, carried AB 1408.

Mister Calderon was basically, all intents and purposes, sponsor of that legislation. The Bill passed the Legislature on very strong bipartisan, bipartisan support. Three Members of this Committee at that time served in this body and voted in support of the legislation several times. We truly appreciate it then, and we're hopeful today that the momentum can keep moving forward on SB 1262. And I want to acknowledge the fact that we've had groups that have expressed some concern about the application, and we understand that.

And our representative has been in concert with Senator Archuleta and his staff and met with several of the groups to find some compromised language that can work for all sides. We hear and we appreciate the conversations, and it's absolutely not our intent, absolutely not our intent to unjustly or impugn individuals who are doing their best to comply and are working through their PRCS. Our only goal is to provide some additional oversight for a small group of individuals that seem to be flagrantly disregarding their PCRS conditions.

Thank you.

So, thank you for the opportunity.

Good morning. Thank you, Madam Chair and Members, Tony Rice, consultant for the city. I'm here today usually, as you know, it's customary for another support organization to come before you. And we actually have Mister Martinez, a councilman, who you'll hear on a me too, who graciously allowed the time for me to come before all of you to explore, express our sincere appreciation, and I mean that sincerely to the opposition. We have been educated through this process.

As the mayor indicated, we were not the sponsors of the bill from 2017. We came. We come with an open heart and an open mind. We have been educated to the benefit of making this Bill, I think, better. And we are in a negotiation period that I'm hopeful that this Committee will allow us to move forward with the recognition and this commitment. Madam Chair, if, in fact, you would allow this Bill to move forward with your colleagues.

I know you and I have never had a handshake agreement before, but I've been in this business for almost 30 years. It'll be my next year. Some of you on this dais I do know. I will commit to this. We would not ask. Senator Archuleta, I commit to you as well. And I commit to you, Madam Chair, that we got your directive loud and clear last week, and my first call was to the opposition that provided the amendments.

We don't have a problem in concept with those amendments. We'd like to continue negotiating on another aspect of the proposal. So if you would allow us to continue to move on, my hope and intent would be we can work something out in appropriations to the satisfaction of the Committee as well as to the opposition, because we do view it as a partnership. So, with that, I don't know if I can answer all technical questions, but I am here to answer any questions I can.

Thank you. Do we have any other me toos in support? State your name, your organization, and that you support.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. My name is Octavio Cesar Martinez, council member for the great City of Whittier. We strongly support the measure and believe the provisions of the Bill may prevent any further tragedies from occurring.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Jared Maas, on behalf of the California Police Chiefs, in support.

Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members, Zach Saffu with the League of California Cities in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Cassandra Mar with the City of Downey in support.

Thank you. Do we have any other me toos seeing? None. We're going to move on to lead opposition witnesses. You will be timed at two minutes.

Good morning, Chair Wahhab and Members of the Committee. Once again, my name is Marshal Lawler and I'm an attorney at Root and Rebound. We are opposed unless amended, and we are working with the author's office to find amendments to address our concerns. I'd like to thank Senator Archuleta's office for working with us. We are concerned that this Bill, as written, will needlessly incarcerate people on post-release community supervision for conduct that is neither criminal nor harmful.

Technical violations of supervision are violations that do not amount to a new crime. They are frequently for conduct as minor as having low battery on one's GPS monitor or arriving 15 minutes late to a meeting with a probation officer. Our clients commonly face incarceration for technical violations, and what we see is that even short flash incarcerations are incredibly harmful and destabilizing. Most often, after being incarcerated for a technical violation, our clients' outcomes get worse.

Additionally, this Bill supplants the expertise and experience of probation professionals who make decisions whether to revoke someone's supervision on a case-by-case basis. A three-strikes approach for noncriminal conduct is just too harsh. There should always be an individualized assessment of whether to send someone to jail. This Bill will also needlessly cause an increase in the number of people in prison in jail for noncriminal, nonharmful conduct and will lead to the disproportionate rearrest of black and brown people under community supervision.

We have proposed amendments that would instead provide that a probation department must file a petition only after at least three technical violations and the Commission of a new criminal offense. We respectfully ask that you vote no on SB 1262 unless it is amended. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Next.

Good morning, chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Sue Kim on behalf of Uncommon Law, we provide legal representation and other advocacy for people navigating the parole consideration process, and we're urging respectful opposition to SB 1262. The parole provision of this Bill is simply unnecessary, given that Penal Code 3041B clearly requires that the board consider the timing and gravity of all past convicted offenses.

In addition, the governing regulations also direct the board to consider someone's entire criminal history, and in addition to that, the board's own structured decision-making framework, which is the tool that they use to make their parole decisions tells them that they have to consider someone's entire criminal history. It's one of the core factors that always need to be evaluated in a parole hearing.

This factor is so embedded in the board's decision-making practice that commissioners routinely even take into account records of arrest that didn't lead to a conviction.

So not only is this provision redundant, and unnecessary by overemphasizing criminal history, this Bill also reinforces an outdated and punitive approach to public safety that's not proven to work, especially given all of the research that shows that more recent and dynamic factors, like someone's record of rehabilitation, their post-release plans, are much more relevant to their current risk of committing violence than decades-old offenses. So we have requested that the author removed the provision regarding parole and are waiting to hear back.

So we urge your opposition, and I'm here for any technical questions about this provision.

Thank you. Can we get me toos in opposition? State your name, your organization, and that you opposed.

Margo George, on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association, also on behalf of the San Francisco Public Defender's Office, and also on behalf of Initiate Justice. Thank you very much. We're in opposition.

Thank you.

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

Good morning. Alicia Montero with Californians United for Responsible Budget in strong opposition.

Duke Cooney on behalf of ACLU California Action in opposition. Thank you.

Henry Ortiz, on behalf of All of Us or None Sacramento, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, and Community Healers. We strongly oppose. Thank you.

Bill Melendez, Smart Justice California, in opposition.

Thank you. Seeing no one else, we're going to move the conversation to Committee Members. Senator Skinner.

Thank you, Chair. Senator Archuleta, you're accurate in your description that you are reintroducing a Bill that, that this Committee back in 2017 passed. That was my first year as chair, and it was, as you indicated, after a very horrific circumstance in Whittier, the first time an officer had been killed and another officer injured. And the, you know, I cannot put myself back into that time as to, you know, why.

Both I supported the Bill and why, as a chair, I recommended its aye vote, but I would say that I'll explain what I, you know, what I've come to understand now, but I'll also raise in looking into, in reading the analysis and looking at all the documents, I read Governor Brown's veto message, and it was very powerful.

So Governor Brown, as you know, vetoed the message, the Bill, and he vetoed it because of the issue of the parts of the Bill that allow for someone to have their parole revoked due to a technical violation. And I will say I should have caught that then. But whatever it's, you know, there can be circumstances around a crime that, you know, we respond to and sometimes don't always think through, separate the circumstance of the crime from what the law before us is proposing.

So anyway, so that is one of the key things. And what we know now is that that is partly why California had, and we do not want to return to this, why we had, you know, when I got elected in 2008, we had some 170k, 170,000 people incarcerated in our facilities. And today we have 90 some. And, you know, putting people back in for technical violations does not make sense.

Putting them in for committing a crime, revoking their parole for committing crime. Fine. So that's one concern. Now, a second concern is, and the analysis points out that the other part of your Bill, and you raised five points, and I'll get to that in a minute, but one of the points you raised is that it allows for the Parole Board to, you know, to look at this totality of crime.

Now, the Parole Board already does that and it is in their regs, but this Bill would put that into statute. Regs are something the Parole Board can revise. And there are California Supreme Court cases that don't agree with that practice of the parole boards. So I am very, very hesitant to put into statute something that the Parole Board now if they at some point choose to, you know, maybe we want to revise our regs a bit.

Maybe we should be looking at only their history of violent crime, and maybe we should not be looking at their history of an arrest versus a conviction. I do not want to put into statute such rigidity that, in effect, goes counter to what we even have rulings by our own California Supreme Court. And I much prefer the Parole Board being able to revise their regs as they deem appropriate and as people might and all of us might influence.

So, in terms of your opening comments, so backing up, the two key witnesses in opposition made the two points that I am referencing, which were their fundamental problems with the Bill, and those are my fundamental problems. You made five points of what the Bill does. You referred to the record of supervision. I'm okay with that. You referred to the sharing of criminal history, which again, that's information that's hearing. I'm okay with that. You referred to a notification of court regarding flash incarceration.

Such notification, again, I would not oppose it is the last two points you made, which is the requiring of the mandatory parole hearing around those technical violations and putting the Parole Board's regs into statute. Those are the two parts of your Bill that I cannot support today. And so I will be either an abstain or a no vote on your Bill today if we bring it to a vote.

But if there were to be some agreement between you and the Committee to revise those, to remove those two parts that I mentioned, then I could support your Bill.

Thank you. Senator. Do you have any comments? Okay, so I just want to highlight a couple of things. Senator, I do appreciate you bringing this Bill forward. I do appreciate the mayor and other witnesses speaking to this Committee. I want to highlight a couple of things. One, I think Senator Skinner is absolutely right.

If you take a look at the veto message that Governor Brown signed, he specifically says, and I quote, I do not agree that a three strikes and your out approach is the correct solution, even if this is a truly terrible crime.

And I think that one of the things that we try to do in public safety is really allow for those individuals that are more engaged with the individual to make that call and have the discretion to really gauge whether or not this person is a risk to society or not any further. There were a couple of opposition folks that came in and spoke and stated, as Senator Skinner mentioned, some of their opposing views.

And I understand one of your consultants for the city that also spoke, you know, stated that they would like to come to an agreement, right? I fully do support that there is some common ground and some middle ground that we all would like to see. I do not feel comfortable moving this Bill forward unless the agreement and arrangement of what is that middle ground happens in this Committee. This is the Public Safety Committee.

I do not want it to move to Approps. unless there is a conversation had an agreement made. I was hoping that this Bill would be pulled for this week. That has not been the case. I will be abstaining on this particular motion and hoping that you all will not only speak to Committee, but also opposition and support and find a common ground, because we know that there is some common ground that we can, and we're not going to have the conversation or debate here.

But I do want that to be had. Primarily because I think that there is some reasonable adjustments as we continue to correct and perfect our laws. So I will be asking you for a closing statement and then asking for a motion as well.

Good. Thank you, Madam Chair and Senator. I think we're so close when you mentioned what, three out of five? That's not bad. And I think that's a great way to start a negotiation. And I do agree with some of the opposition, granted. And I certainly agree that this is not to incarcerate.

And I do agree that these little minor things being late 20 minutes to a hearing or you got stuck at work, you have to, finally you got a job and you're able to run off, drop the kids off, and go to work, and you're 15 minutes late to meet your parole officer, and that's a violation. I agree that's crazy. But I also agree that we should be able to look at the individual and see where he's going and rehabilitation.

That's what I'm trying to do, not incarcerate. And so these adjustments that we're talking about, they're not that far apart. And I think we can work this out because back then, 2017, so on and so on, but this is 2024 now. Things have changed. The pendulum has moved. Communities are asking to feel safer in the City of Whittier, in communities.

That's why we have independent cities, California cities. All the cities in California are looking to us to provide them an avenue of safety and also, I believe, an avenue to give people an opportunity to change their lives. And so this is not being punitive, but it does open a door for opportunity to sit down and to instruct everyone that let's analyze what's taking place and how we can help that individual. That's the key.

And we have to remember, we have women with children that are also on probation that are subject to issues. And I want to protect them as well. But I would like to be able to come back to you, as you said, and refine it. So my staff is going to continue working with the opposition. I just need to be able to come back or take it forward and continue working, because we're not done with this Bill. And I think it's important, it's vital.

And I think that we're so close that it's a great opportunity for us to show California that we can work together when it comes to public safety. And for these reasons, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Senator. I do want to say that if this motion fails, we will grant you reconsideration. I would like things in writing so everyone can see. So, you know, I trust your word and your handshake. But again, we would like it in writing because the public has a right to also see what we are voting on. With that, I'd ask for a motion.

I'll move the Bill.

Senator Seyarto moves the Bill.

SB 1262, do pass to Appropriations. [Roll call]

Okay, that Bill is on call.

Look forward to meeting you all again.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, we're going to move on to Senator Newman. Senator Jones, would you like to go ahead? All right. Senator Jones? SB 1074. No. At the lectern. They're going to be timed at two minutes, too. Yes.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Madam Chair. And Senators, I appreciate your attention this morning on Senate Bill 1074, which provides additional oversight to the process by which a sexually violent predator gets placed back into our communities. A sexually violent predator known as an SVP, is an individual convicted of a sexually violent offense and diagnosed with a mental disorder that causes them to be a danger to others with a high likelihood of reoffending.

When an SVP is determined to be ready for release from civil commitment under the Department of State Hospitals, a process known as conditional release program, or ConRep, begins. Currently, the Department uses a contractor to execute the entire ConRep process throughout the entire state to taking little to no personal responsibility or oversight. This Bill will make two important updates to the ConRep process.

First, SB 1074 will hold the Director of state hospitals responsible for ensuring that Department vendors consider public safety as the first priority in all placements of SVPs. Second, SB 1074 requires the Department to take a bigger role in the ConRep process by mandating the Department approve any lease before it is signed by the vendor. That lease means lease for a home that the vendor is placing these sexual violent predators in in the neighborhoods.

This will help curb the issue of the vendor being committed to a lease before a judge has approved the placement and thus being struck with the payment. Even if the placement is denied. Under current conditions, the vendor is allowed to sign a lease, begin the lease payments, begin renting the home before a judge has actually approved the placement of the SVP. These common sense updates will afford more oversight to the placement process and help ensure more appropriate placements of SVPs.

With me today, I have two fabulous witnesses that are very up to speed on this issue and have lived through it themselves personally. Sarah Thompson is a former constituent of mine in San Diego County that when I was originally elected to the Senate in 2018, was one of the very first constituent cases that we took under as the state was trying to place an SVP in her neighborhood. And she will speak to that, and she's the founder of Kids Safe California.

Also with me today is Butte County District Attorney Michael Ramsey to testify in support of the Bill, and he has significant investment and experience in this issue as well. I think, first up will be Sarah Thompson.

You will have two minutes.

Thank you. Thank you for having me this morning. I want to say this really should be a bipartisan Bill. It's based on common sense. So thank you to those who are participating and fighting to make these common sense changes. A few years ago, my family was forced because of poorly written laws to fight against sexually violent predators from moving into a home directly across the street from us.

Now, I'm not going to give you the typical I'm a mother, please listen to me spiel today. What I'm actually asking is a plea for human decency. These two men that were proposed to live in a home directly across are the worst of the worst. One had been incarcerated for at least a decade, had attempted to kill a gay couple, raped a senior grandmother at knifepoint.

He had no remorse and refused to participate in the state therapy programs because in our state, those are not necessary to attend and you still are released. The second man had been incarcerated for 30 years, had committed arson, killed animals, kidnapped a judge, and admitted to kidnapping and attacking several hundred people with either a gun or a knife. He is diagnosed with schizophrenia, manic disorder, and is a sexual sadist. Both of these men have been diagnosed with severe mental disorders and will forever need medical treatment.

The areas these men were being proposed to live in are very rural with a minimum of 2 hours for medical treatment, and then they are expected to reintegrate into society by getting a job. These small towns where everyone knows who you are have refused to hire these men, which targets them even more. When you really think about it, none of this makes sense, which is why I'm saying we need this Bill based on common sense.

There is no oversight other than with liberty healthcare, and they only care about money. The Department of Health needs to be held responsible and have some involvement in these placements. Currently, there are two SVPs living in Jacumba Hot Springs with another on the books to be released or placed soon. This beautiful community that used to be a travel destination for the hot springs now appears to be a destination for sexually violent predators.

They deserve appropriate medical treatment and the profiting of the homeowners who are charging taxpayers three to four times normal rent is not helping, especially with the housing shortage in these communities. It's also allowing liberty to target low income neighborhoods where the majority of these residents don't even have the opportunity to know what's going on. I'm coming to you as a human being and asking that we vote using common sense and support these men in some appropriate medical treatment facilities. Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chairman and Senators. I'm Mike Ramsey. I've been a prosecutor now for 46 years and have been the elected District Attorney of Butte County for 36 years. I'm here to support Senator Jones Safe Act, particularly the a, the accountability part. I'm a strong supporter of California's Sexually Violent Predator Act and the program, which is a carefully crafted program to make sure that mentally ill and dangerous people do not prey on innocent victims.

However, an important part of that program, as indicated, is when an SVP, sexually violent predator, is determined to be ready to be released for treatment as an outpatient. The community into which that SVP is placed, however, deserves to know that community safety is the priority of the person that is making that recommendation to place the person there, and that currently is Liberty Health, the vendor of the state hospital. The state hospitals have contracted away their responsibility to find appropriate and safe housing to that vendor.

It's been Butte County's unfortunate experience with Liberty Health that their investigative nature and these various houses has been less than sterling. We point to a particular person, a SVP that was released to outpatient or was going to be released outpatient, by the Santa Cruz Superior Court 2019.

Could not find a place in Santa Cruz, so started looking in Butte County. Found his sister of that SVP and approached her with a lucrative offer to place that brother in an RV on her property with supposedly 24 hours security personnel to also be on that property. It turned out that was a false offer, that it was also of importance that the housing report by the investigators for Liberty Health indicated this was an appropriate location away from schools, that it was some 17.

The house was some 1742ft away from the sister's house. True, if you drive on rural mountain county roads from the house to the school. However, the problem was it was only 350 foot walk from the back of the house to the school. Also, GPS, which is an important part of keeping, sir? Yes, keeping the person under control. There was no GPS, as Liberty Health said was in the area.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Do we have any other individuals in support? Please state your name, your organization, and that you support.

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

Good morning. Kristen Allison on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association, in support.

All right, do we have any opposition? Witnesses lead opposition.

Duke Cooney with ACLU California action we are opposed to this Bill as written. SB 1074 creates new barriers to community placement for a person conditionally released as an, under the Sexually Violent Predator Act. These individuals have already been found to no longer pose a danger to the community by a court, and further delaying their release is not only costly, unfair, and harmful, it could result in California's SVP law being found unconstitutional.

We have very serious concerns about the ramifications of this Bill, and for those reasons, we remain in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any other lead opposition witnesses?

Good morning, Madam Chair, Committee Members. My name is Michael Aye. I'm an attorney here in Sacramento in private practice. I'm here on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association, of which I'm a member. I am probably the longest continuous SVP lawyer in the State of California. My first case was in March of 1996. This began in January of 1996. So I've had a lot of experience in this area. I am opposed to this for a number of reasons.

One, if you look at the history of the SVP act and look at the provisions of 6607, which directs the Director of the Department of State Hospitals and now the Department of Mental Health, or the Department of Mental Health. Department of State hospitals. I keep getting that backwards over the years. Directs them to authorize a person who is ready for release to be released. This recommendation has never been made. There have been 2006 SVPs committed to the Department between 1996 and October 26 of last year.

Those are my most current figures. Of that number, 55 have been released on community release, ConRep. And that's less than 3% of the individuals committed to the program. Very few make it through. It's very hard to do. And you can look at anybody's history who has been in the SVP program, and you can say, this is a very bad person. He's done a lot of bad things, because if you look at the history, that's what got him there. Okay.

To be motivated enough to get through the program, though, is something else again. And even while all the Clinicians in the program may support somebody's release, the Director has refused to recommend conditional release or unconditional release. Our fear is that with the new giving the Director the responsibility that no one will be authorized release. The biggest issue right now in the SVP community in terms of, of defense and issues, is the due process issue of keeping these people in the hospital longer than needed. Thank you.

Do we have any other opposition witnesses? State your name, your org and that you oppose.

Good morning. My name is Aldazia Green. On behalf of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights and respectful opposition to this Bill.

Marshal Lawler. On behalf of Root and Rebound, and we are respectfully opposed.

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

Su Kim. On behalf of Uncommon Law and opposition.

Thank you. Seeing no other commentary, we're going to move over to Committee Members. Committee Members. Senator Seyarto.

All right, thank you for the Bill. And I have a lot of complaints in my office about this particular issue. So something isn't working in the system. You hear, you know, a lot of the opposition is about people who trying to protect the rights of people who have preyed upon others. And in the meanwhile, what's being pushed aside here is the rights of people to live in neighborhoods that are safe for them and safe for their community.

They are being terrorized by all of these people that can't follow the rules. And while I am all for trying to help those people and ensure that in cases like this, if and when they ever should be released, that they are fully capable of functioning like a law abiding citizen should and be respectful of other people that are out there in the general public, a lot of these people don't. And that's why we keep having these problems over and over.

I had a sexually violent predator that lived across the street from me. He would get arrested. He'd go to get help, and then he'd be released, and then he'd go do it again. And then the same thing would happen. He'd do it again and again. So the system to help these people is not working and putting them square in the middle of a neighborhood to figure out or to allow it to happen again, because that person should have the right to try to get better.

You know what? A lot of times, people get out there, and they do fool the people that are trying to treat them. They know what they're supposed to say. The same things happen on parole. They know what they're supposed to say, so they say it. They know what they're supposed to do, so they do it. And the minute they get out there, what do they do? They reoffend again.

So at some point, we're gonna have to start refocusing a little bit on the public safety part of what we're supposed to be doing and stop being so obsessed with making sure that the people that can't get along, that are preying on other people have all the rights. We need to make our neighborhood safe again. And bills like this are what that is attempting to do.

It's not undoing the process to help these other folks that just can't get along with everybody, and that just insists on preying on other people. All it's doing is keeping us safe while they figure out a way to do it that doesn't make us less safe and the law abiding citizens out there less safe. So I'll be supporting this Bill, and I'll move the Bill. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Senator, would you like to close?

Sure. Yes, thank you very much, and I should have had in my opening remarks. Thank you, Mrs. Thompson, for reminding me that this is a bipartisan Bill. Also by Cameron. We've got several co authors on this Bill. It is an incredibly important issue for constituents throughout the state. One of the comments made by the second witness in opposition talking about responsible, well, that's the state being responsible.

That's the entire purpose of the Bill, is to make the state responsible for the decisions it's making when they're releasing svps on this con rep program. One of the things I would like to point out is, as some of the Senators on the Committee, we'll remember that this has been brought to this Committee a couple of times before by myself and other times before that.

We took in the comments and the concerns from last year's Bill presentation to craft this Bill and really remove what we thought were some of the more contentious parts of the Bill. And I'll just explain real quick what we removed. We're no longer mandating that the Department of State hospitals Director report how many SVPs are in each county.

We're no longer asking the governor's Administration to survey inventory for appropriate placements on state property, and we're no longer prohibiting SVPs near Indian reservations, which I think those are all important things for the Committee to consider that we are listening to the input of the Committee. We are listening to the input of the opposition and trying to come up with a Bill that makes sense for all of us.

The state is responsible for keeping its citizens safe, and the Department of State hospitals has been ducking their responsibility and passing it along to a non government contractor. SB 1074 holds the Department of State Hospitals accountable for the placement of SVPs and prevents the Department from offloading its duty onto private companies that prioritize profits. I ask for your. I vote this morning. Thank you.

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

SB 1074? The motion is do pass to appropriations. [Roll Call]

Thank you. That bill's on call.

Thank you. I appreciate it.

Senator Newman. Senator Newman, the floor is yours.

Thank you. Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair and Members, thank you for the opportunity to present SB 1416, which creates a set of escalating enhancements for middlemen who are found guilty of profiting from the sale, exchange, return, or attempted resale of items obtained through organized retail theft. Before I begin, let me apologize for any confusion around possible amendments and thank Committee staff for both their patience and their customary very good work.

Organized retail theft operations often involve multiple individuals collaborating in a coordinated effort to obtain stolen merchandise from multiple stores, thereby maximizing the amount of stolen goods aggregated for eventual resale. In recent years, organized retail crime operations have increasingly targeted specific types of merchandise with high resale value for which there is demonstrated demand. Such items often include electronics, designer clothing, pharmaceuticals, baby formula, diapers, razor blades and makeup products.

Organized retail theft, as defined under California Penal Code section 490.4, includes anyone who acts in concert with one or more persons to steal merchandise from one or more merchants premises or online marketplaces with the intent to sell, exchange or return the merchandise for value.

One disconcerting byproduct of the intersection of the evolution of social media and the rise of online marketplaces is the ease with which individuals or syndicates can effectively coordinate the activities of others to steal, aggregate and then resell stolen goods at levels of scale which have begun to compete with the legitimate businesses from which these goods are often stolen in the first place.

As an example, consider a recent case in Southern California where a couple and eight accomplices were arrested in connection with the theft of an estimated $8 million worth of beauty products from two leading specialty retailers.

In addition to the scale the operation what made this bust especially noteworthy was the fact that while the stolen goods were being fenced out of the San Diego area, the vast majority of the merchandise being stolen and then resold was originally stolen from stores in Alameda, Contra Costa, Napa and Marin counties by individuals recruited and coordinated through social media and other electronic means.

When the arresting officers searched the couple's San Diego mansion, they found at least $400,000 worth of makeup still in its manufacturer's packaging that had been stored, organized and then prepared for imminent shipment to customers who had purchased the merchandise at impressively discounted prices on Amazon under the provisions of AB 1065 in 2017 and later extended through subsequent recent legislation, CHP, in consultation with the Department of Justice, has developed task forces to work with allied agencies and affected distributors, shippers and retailers to combat organized retail theft across the state.

The enhancements created by SB 1416 will add another set of tools in support of that important work.

Under its provisions, a person found guilty of operating a fencing operation to dispose of goods secured through organized retail theft will be sentenced to an additional term of one year in prison if the property value exceeds $50,000, two additional years if the value of the stolen property exceeds $200,000, three additional years if the value of the stolen property exceeds $1.0 million and four additional years if the value of the property exceeds $3 million. This bill is a component of the Senate's Working Together for a Safer California package.

By enhancing the criminal penalties associated with organized retail theft, SB 1416 will better safeguard California's businesses by deterring those who would hope to profit from organized retail theft. With me to testify today is Ryan Allain from the California Retail Association, and I believe Jonathan Feldman on behalf of the California Police Chiefs Association, who may be. oh, he's right there. You're back from your other hearing. Welcome, both of you.

Thank you, Senator Newman, Madam Chair, Committee Members, my name is Ryan Allain, Director of Government Affairs with the California Retailers Association, and we're pleased to support SB 1416, which, as the author just explained, would create sentencing enhancements for attempting to sell, exchange, or return for value any property acquired through one or more acts of shoplifting, theft, or burglary from retail business. Organized retail theft has plagued the retail industry and our communities in recent years.

It has forced retailers to spend millions annually on security measures such as guards, cameras and store redesigns. Retail employees and customers are increasingly feeling unsafe, and the simple act of shopping has become burdensome for many. SB 1416 promotes public safety. Property crimes such as shoplifting and theft are not victimless crimes. They jeopardize the safety of retail workers and customers, create an atmosphere of fear and mistrust, and contribute to the proliferation of organized retail crime.

By cracking down on the sale of stolen property, we help safeguard our communities. Unfortunately, organized retail theft pays it's a low risk, high reward scheme. The unlawful acquisition and resale of stolen goods perpetuates a cycle of profitable criminal activity that undermines the integrity of the retail environment and erodes consumer trust. To combat this reality, we need to enhance penalties for prolific offenders profiting off of stolen goods.

By imposing stricter penalties for those attempting to profit from stolen merchandise, SB 1416 serves as a deterrent against retail crime. It sends a clear message to such illicit activities will not be tolerated, thereby helping to protect businesses, consumers and communities from the adverse effects of criminal behavior. SB 1416, paired with the package of other measured measures introduced in the state Legislature, will help keep our employees, our customers, and our neighborhoods and our neighborhoods retailers operate in safe from this criminal activity. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, chair Members. Jonathan Feldman, California Police Chiefs Association, in support of the bill. You know, retail theft, like any statewide issue of this magnitude, is embedded in many different policy problems that need to be resolved through statutory solutions, and we do believe that SB 1416 is one of those solutions, using targeted penalty enhancements against major criminal operations will help reduce the number of total thefts and reduce the number of or the value of stolen goods, which has only gone up since 2014 and has doubled since that year, as reported by the California Department of Justice.

You know, we do think that we need to focus on a comprehensive solution to this ongoing problem, you know, both from the preventive and deterrent side, but also through enhancements and supervision on the penalty and consequence side. And again, we believe that SB 1416 is part of that solution package that is needed. And for that reason, we are in support and ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Do we have any other me too's in support? Please state your name your org that you support.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Committee Members. I'm Zach Cefalu with the League of California Cities in support. Thank you.

All right. Seeing no other members in support, can we move on to opposition lead opposition witnesses. Seeing none. Appreciate it. We'll turn it over to Committee Members, seeing none. Would you like to close, Senator?

I appreciate it. Again, I want to apologize for the back and forth on the prospective amendments. The thinking there was, you know, we're effectively adding a new enhancement that's roughly similar to an existing set of penal code provisions that were allowed to sunset. So it didn't make sense at the time to adjust for inflation, something which was intended as a deterrent. This, again, is part of a larger package to address retail theft in California. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Do we have a motion? Senator Skinner.

I appreciate that that was, you know, that clearly the bill that the provisions that sunsetted. I would be much more comfortable if the, excuse me. If the dollar amounts were adjusted because it's real that, you know, the products and goods are cost a lot more today.

I have, for all the years I've been on the Public Safety Committee, tried to avoid adding new enhancements because enhancements have, have not, there's no evidence from our research, and I also serve on the Penal Code Review Committee that enhancements are benefiting us or increasing public safety. And when we did include this bill in our package, which I'm part of, it was still a spot and we didn't have all the details. I would be much more comfortable if the dollar amounts were.

I can be supportive, but I would hope that you do look at that, because I appreciate your answer, but I don't think the answer is adequate to the thing. Did sunset. We are bringing it back. So I feel it is appropriate to adjust it to today's realities.

So I will say, clearly I'm open to continue that discussion about the number. And again, I think the logic here was to your point, if you believe that deterrents work. Right. I respect your point of view. The intent of the deterrent is to create sort of an adverse environment toward this kind of retail crime. It probably doesn't have a huge impact to adjust it for inflation. So, happy to continue that discussion.

That is a point. And there is a lot of debate about, I mean, I think the entities that are doing this organized retail, that, in other words, that are. What's the word? We had a recent, there was news reports about a couple in San Diego that have been paying people to steal the goods for them, and then they take all the stolen goods and then they sell them online. Now, you know, do that.

Does that couple instruct those people, like, make sure to bring your calculator, because unfortunately, nobody adds up by their head anymore. You know, make sure, bring your calculator. I have no idea. Right. Some, you have proponents of these different measures that say, oh, yes, the thieves are like, they know exactly dollar amounts and they're always keeping under a certain threshold. You know, I don't. No, but, you know, I. Whatever. So you're right about the dollar amounts may make a little difference, but it's.

And whether something is a deterrent or not, but I just think it is more reflective of the.

And your point is a good one, I think, using that as an example. So the intent of this bill is to actually go create the tools to go after the couple, not about the folks that they recruit. And I think it's a safe bet that the couple, who is running the equivalent of an online business using Amazon Marketplace as their point of sale, they knew very well exactly what they were looking for, and the aggregate value, especially the value accumulated value, over time.

So we're trying to create a tool to go after those folks and create a disincentive for that activity. Hopefully, when applied properly, the same provision doesn't apply to the person in Contra Costa who went out to Ulta and stole the beauty products that the existing law should cover that.

Okay, so, Senator, you closed, correct?

I did, and we got into it.

Okay, so we're gonna refrain from any more commentary. Can I get a motion? Thank you. Senator Wiener has moved the bill. Excuse me.

SB 1416, the motion is due past two. Appropriations. [Roll Call]

Thank you for that enthusiastic aye.

That Bill is on call, Senator. We are gonna move on to Senator Menjivar. Senator Menjivar will be presenting SB 1323. Senator, the floor is yours.

Thank you. One second here. Yes. Good morning, Madam Chair. Public Safety Committee Members. In California right now, there is a monthly statewide waitlist that averages between 200 and 300 individuals alleged to have committed felonies whom the courts have deemed mentally incompetent to stand trial. These individuals are waiting for a bed to become available in a state hospital so that they can undergo evaluation and a process to restore them to competency.

So SB 1323 is seeking to align with the recommendations of experts at the Council of State Government Justice Center and the Committee on Revision of the Penal Code to improve state competency to stand trial procedures for those who are charged with nonviolent felonies. The state and federal constitutions require people who are accused of a crime to be competent to stand trial, meaning that they have the mental capacity to understand the court process and the charges against them.

If a person is found incompetent to stand trial, the criminal case remains on hold while the person participates in competency restoration, where the goal is to prepare a person to participate in and understand the courtroom process, not to provide lasting therapeutic treatment. For those who are restored to competency, very few are convicted of felony offenses and sentenced to state prisons.

Most would then be released to the same conditions that led to incarceration, furthering adding to the cycle of them coming back and coming back, because we're not addressing the issues at hand at core with that person related to poverty, houselessness, and continued serious mental illness without treatment or support. That's because for low level felonies, the amount of time needed to go through the restoration process is equal to the amount of time they would be incarcerated if convicted.

So by the time the restoration process is done, these individuals are quickly released to the streets with no long term treatment. Right now, judges have no choice. All individuals accused of a felony who are found incompetent sound trial must be sent to competency restorations. They're funneled through our state's most restrictive and costly state hospital beds, at times waiting for months in a jail to get a bed. Our existing process does nothing to disrupt this cycle, so we're looking to change that.

It doesn't serve the victims as well. So it does a few things and it gets into the weeds of it. So bear with me. One, it will require mental health experts to determine at the beginning of the process if a person is likely to be restored to competency. Two, there are cases where everyone agrees at the outset that a person is not likely to be restored, for example, people with dementia or certain brain injuries.

Judges will have the discretion to place the person in conservatorship proceedings or specialized placement instead of wasting our resources on a process that will not work. We will ask judges to determine if sending the person for restoration of competency is in the interest of justice. And if it's not in the interest of justice, judges will have discretion to pursue other options, like treatment through mental health diversion, assisted outpatient treatment, or treatment through our care corps. Lastly, the final option for them would be placed on conservatorship.

Finally, we will allow the judge to reinstate competency procedures if the person does not succeed or cannot be placed in another treatment option. I will note that we have met with our opposition. The only one we have CDIA, the district attorneys. The most recent amendments that I have taken address their central concerns, and we are committed to continue working with them to address the remaining issues. Madam Chair. Now, at this point, I'd like to turn to my two witnesses here in support of the Bill. First, Joy Haviland, a Senior Staff Attorney at the - just one witness, sorry - Senior Staff Attorney at the Committee on the Revision of the Penal Code.

Thank you. You will have two minutes.

Thank you. Good morning. I'm Senior Staff of Counsel at the Committee on Revision of the Penal Code. This Bill is based on a recommendation from our 2022 annual report to modernize the competency to stand trial system. The core components of the felony competency process have not been modified in decades. They're largely the same.

And during that time, it's failed to interrupt cycles of criminal legal involvement. For example, the number of people found incompetent to stand trial, with more than 14 arrests, has steadily increased. And once restored to competency, only a quarter of people go on to - for felony charges - go on to serve a state prisons sentence. The majority of people, once they are restored to competency, are returned to the county and released, either because of time served, probation, or charges are dismissed.

And again, almost three quarters of people are re arrested within three years after being restored to competency, our state has a significant backlog that has far surpassed our state's ability to provide services. Our Committee and this Bill recommend modernizing the competency to stand trial by giving judges more flexibility and more tools to address individuals with serious mental illness by allowing them to determine whether restoration to competency is the interest of justice and considering alternative treatment options other than hospitalization.

In the most restrictive and most expensive setting the state provides. The Penal Code Committee recommended what's in this Bill because it makes better use of limited resources and gets people into long term treatment while increasing public safety. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any other Members in support? Please state your name, your organization and that you support this Bill.

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

Duke Cooney, on behalf of ACLU California Action and Disability Rights California in support. Thank you.

Phil Melendez, Smart Justice California, in support.

Alicia Montero. Californians United for a Responsible Budget in strong support.

John Drebinger with the Steinberg Institute in support.

Margot George on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association, also on behalf of the San Francisco Public Defender's Office, and also on behalf of Initiate Justice in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Esteban Nunez, on behalf of the Anti Recidivism Coalition in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you. If we have any opposition witnesses, please state your name. And you have two minutes.

Thank you. My name is Kristen Allison. I'm here on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association. We are currently in opposition. However, we are very grateful to the author. We have had very productive meetings, and we appreciate your willingness to work with us, and we are very hopeful that we'll be able to reach a common ground. We look forward to continued productive efforts. And that's it. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any other opposition witnesses that would like to me too? Seeing none, we're going to move this conversation to Members of the Committee.

Madam Chair can I correct myself? I said something that was false, and I want to make sure. I just want to clarify. I said it does not apply to certain felonies. I want to clarify. It doesn't apply to all felonies. What we're excluding from this Bill is sexual based offenses and homicide offenses won't be eligible for this diversion.

Thank you. Seeing no comments, would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Can I get a motion? Okay. Senator Wiener has moved the Bill.

SB 1323. The motion is do pass to appropriations. [Roll Call].

That bill's on call.

Thank you.

All right, our last Bill, or second to last Bill, is going to be SB 1502 by Senator Ashby. Senator Ashby is unable to attend today, so we will have her Chief, Cassidy present.

Cassidy, whenever you're ready.

Thank you. Madam Chair. Good morning. My name is Cassidy Denny, and as the Chair stated, I'm Senator Ashby's Chief of Staff. As most of you know, Senator, her husband had an emergency surgery last week, so she's in the hospital with him today. So thank you for letting me be here to present on her behalf. I'll start by accepting the Committee amendments, and thank you to your wonderful staff for helping us work through this Bill.

SB 1502 seeks to prevent the illicit use of xylazine, which is an animal tranquilizer that's becoming increasingly more popular for human use. This bill is a part of the Senate's Working Together for a Safer California legislative package, hoping to address the fentanyl crisis. SB 1502 adds xylazine to the list of Schedule Three controlled substances, which enables the DEA to restrict access to this medication. It also creates guardrails for the drug's continued use in the veterinary medicine practice.

It also contains an exemption allowing compounding pharmacies to produce xylazine for veterinary use in the event of a shortage. Commonly referred to as tranq or the zombie drug, xylazine is a potent veterinary sedative which is becoming increasingly more trafficked throughout the country. California is in the midst of an opioid crisis, with over 7,000 deaths attributed to opioid overdose in the state in just 2021 alone. According to the DEA, xylazine-related deaths have drastically increased nationwide, more than tripling from 2020 to 2021.

There's a growing trend of mixing fentanyl with xylazine, rendering it the deadliest drug combination in the United States. Xylazine is considered unsafe for human use and can cause severe wounds and necrosis, potentially leading to amputation or fatal overdose. Unlike other opioids, a xylazine overdose cannot be reversed by naloxone, commonly known as Narcan. Xylazine has been found in individuals who have died from overdose in San Francisco and Los Angeles counties, which means this drug, previously only found in the East Coast, is now in California.

It is crucial that we protect Californians from the negative impacts of xylazine, and SB 1502 ensures the health and safety of our communities by regulating its availability and preventing its misuse. Here with me today is Doctor Grant Miller, on behalf of the California Veterinary Medical Association, in support.

Thank you. You will have two minutes.

Thank you, Chairperson Wahab and Members of the Committee for Considering SB 1502 today. And thank you also to Senator Ashby and her staff, as well as your Committee consultants, for the work that you've done on the Bill language that you have before you.

The California Veterinary Medical Association is in strong support of SB 1502 because it moves to protect the public from xylazine diversion and abuse, while balancing the need for veterinarians such as myself to maintain access to this important drug for use primarily in livestock, equine, and wildlife species. Xylazine is commonly used in veterinary medicine to provide sedation and pain control to livestock and horses.

Its use and availability are of paramount importance to animal safety, to human safety, to veterinarians such as myself, who my patients outweigh me by tenfold, and to public safety for animal control officers who use it to subdue wild and loose animals under the direction of a veterinarian. It also is used in zoo medicine to help care for exotic species, and it easily ranks among one of the top 10 most common medications used in livestock, equine, and wildlife veterinary medicine.

I myself will administer xylazine to probably about 75% of my patients on a daily basis, because these animals don't really want you doing things to them if they if, you know, they're feeling uncomfortable or they're feeling nervous. So I use it to commonly provide sedation within about 45 to 60 seconds of its administration. We use it in emergencies to help ailing horses, to dull their pain. I will use it to relax a horse before I numb a wound, when I'm cleaning and suturing a wound.

We'll also use it to facilitate dental work and to avoid a horse kicking me when I'm bending down to stick a needle in its joint, to inject its arthritic joint with cortisone, because we do that with animals, too, just like we do with humans. The risk to me and my patients if I were to try to complete these medical procedures without xylazine is not something I want to imagine. There are similar examples of its instrumental use in wildlife medicine, animal control, livestock practice.

I'm happy to provide some of those if you're interested. But suffice it to say that SB 1502 will align California law with federal legislation that's currently in motion to make xylazine a Schedule Three controlled substance. But it does so by incorporating language that will keep xylazine in the hands of veterinarians, where it belongs, and to maintain our vital access to xylazine.

Thank you.

For its legitimate use. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Do we have any other lead witnesses seeing? None. Can we move on to me too in support? Please state your name, your org., and that you support.

Good morning. Stephanie Estrada on behalf of the City of San Jose in strong support. Thank you.

Zach Cefalu with the League of California Cities in support. Thank you.

All right, seeing. Do we have any opposition witnesses? Lead opposition you'll have two minutes.

Good morning, Chair and Committee Members. My name is Jeanette Zanipatin. I'm the California State Director for Drug Policy Alliance, and I'm here in respectful opposition to SB 1502. DPA is the nation's leading organization working to advance drug policies that are grounded in science, compassion, health, and human rights. And we are very concerned about placing xylazine on Schedule Three, which will not only criminalize xylazine, but will also set a dangerous precedent.

Similar efforts in Congress have been halted as both federal agencies and lawmakers are split on what to do. California should not be getting ahead of what the Federal Government is doing. Right now, they're currently awaiting guidelines on how to proceed with xylazine at the federal level. SB 1502 will also inadvertently create research restrictions at a time when we need more research to understand xylazine's impact and effect on humans.

Placing xylazine on CSA will also result in disproportionate prosecution and sentencing of people struggling with substance use, including people who may not know that drugs that xylazine is in the drug supply. Criminalization at this moment is egregious and redundant because individuals are actually consuming it accidentally. Experts agree that there is a need for further research to better understand overdose risk and response, pathophysiology, patterns of xylazine use, clinical treatment as well as wound treatment and management, and tailored harm reduction responses for xylazine.

There are a number of potential criminal justice implications, including, again, most people are not actively seeking xylazine, and they do not know that they possess the substance or are actively seeking it out. Xylazine is predominantly found with fentanyl, and it is estimated that over 99.5% of xylazine-involved deaths in 2021 were illicitly manufactured with fentanyl or their analogs, and these are substances that are already criminalized. Sending people to jail also creates more folks vulnerable to overdose.

Data demonstrates that folks that are jailed consistently are 27 times more likely to die. In essence, we need to make sure that we have more research on hand to understand the impacts on humans. Thank you.

Thank you. Can we move on to any other opposition witnesses? Can we move on to opposition me toos? Seeing none. Can we move on to the Committee Members? Seeing no comments. Chief, would you like to close?

I appreciate the opportunity to present this Bill. I ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Can I have a motion? Can I have a motion? Senator Wiener has moved the Bill.

We don't want to ask her a lot of questions.

As my former amazing staffer, I was, I'm tempted to ask a lot of questions about horses, but I will refrain.

Thank you. I appreciate that.

SB 1502, the motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations. [Roll call]

All right, that bill's on call. Thank you.

We have to wait for Skinner so we can lift Weiner's calls.

Yeah, can we lift the calls so Senator Wiener has a chance to vote?

Sorry. SB 1074, motion was do pass as amended to, sorry, do pass to Appropriations. Current vote is two to zero. [Roll call] SB 1262. Motion is do pass to Appropriations. Current vote is one to one.

It's Archuleta. He didn't take any amendments.

Wiener?

Or abstain.

Everyone else has.

We're abstaining.

Yeah, so abstain and ask.

I'll just. I'm gonna. I'm gonna lay off. I think that there is a version of this Bill that could move forward, and I hope on reconsideration the author works with it. So I'm gonna lay off.

So we can ask for reconsideration.

So SB 1262 is, has failed. It's up for reconsideration. So Senator Archuleta has an opportunity to adjust the Bill, make the appropriate amendments, and bring it back to the Committee. Thank you. We granted reconsideration.

SB. Oh, no. He was here for that. Sorry. I think that.

Let's lift the call for Senator Seyardo.

Wait a minute.

You should be ready.

Well, I'm trying to be ready for three different committees right now, so.

SB 1323, the motion was do passed to appropriations. Current vote is two to zero. [Roll Call]

And then SB 1502. Ashby, motion was do pass as amended to appropriations. [Roll Call]

So we just have one bill to present.

Senator Skinner, whenever you're ready. Can we lift the call for Bradford? Just to catch him up? You appreciate that, right? You ready?

No.

SB 1074, Jones motion is do pass to appropriations. Current vote is three to zero. Bradford, aye.

That bills out four to zero. Do you want to continue to abstain on.

SB 1323. Motion is do pass to appropriations, current vote two to one. Bradford, aye. Skinner, aye. That's out.

That bill is out four to one.

SB 1416, Newman motion is due past to appropriations, current vote is four to zero. Bradford, aye.

Five to zero. That bills out five to zero.

SB 1502. Ashby motion was do passed as amended to appropriations. Current vote is three to zero. Bradford, aye. Bradford. Skinner, aye.

That bill is out five to zero. And, Senator Skinner, the floor is yours.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair and Members. In 2015, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation launched a program referred to as the MCRP, the male community reentry program. And they've subsequent to that, also now created a female community reentry program, but they're still kind of collectively referred to as MCRPs.

Those programs are programs where a person who is still in custody by CDCR is placed in a community based facility where, say, a year to two years before their release, where they are given much more rehabilitative services, such as job training, financial management skills, a whole variety of skills that would help them be successful in their reentry. And since the start of the MCRPs, there has been, our records show, zero recidivism for anyone who was released as who had been participant in these MCRP programs.

Now, what this bill would do is help us enhance those services by directing CDCR, to the extent possible, to pre enroll those folks who are in those MCRP programs into benefits like Medi-Cal and such, so that if they are, for example, on a medically assisted treatment around an addiction, where once they are released, that will be a seamless continuation of that or other medical needs they may have if they have mental health supports that are being provided medically by CDCR while they are in the MCRP.

Again, by having them in Medi-Cal from the moment they are released, they are then able to continue those supports upon release, which, of course, will help us a great deal in ensuring this kind of low to zero recidivism. We also, the bill will create a working group with our corrections department and the board of community corrections and department of aging to look to find ways to secure housing for those reentering. Because obviously the MCRP program, they are housed.

But once they are released out of the MCRP program, they still need housing. So how can we again, encourage that? You know what makes successful reentry? That you're housed, that you have a job, and that if you have any underlying conditions, they are being treated. So that's what the bill does, is to really help ensure those supports continue.

And I would like my witnesses, Gary McCoy, who's the VP of public policy and affairs for HealthRIGHT 360, and Doug Bond, who is President and CEO of the Amity Foundation, to address you. And the Amity Foundation operates under contract with CDCR, some of these MCRP programs. Go ahead, Doug.

Thank you, Senator, Madam Chair, Members of the Committee, thank you for having me here today. My name is Doug Bond and I'm the President and CEO of Amity foundation, which is dedicated to the inclusion and habilitation of people marginalized by addiction, trauma, incarceration, poverty, racism, sexism, homelessness and violence. We strive to improve the health and promote environmental, social and economic justice, and we have spent decades helping individuals incarcerated and those returning home from incarceration, along with their family members.

We're happy to co sponsor, along with our other re entry partners, this bill from Senator Skinner. At its core, the bill does two really critical pieces that will help ensure a successful reentry back into the community from incarceration. The first, it reinforces collaboration amongst providers, CDCR and other critical agencies to both offer reentry opportunities to more individuals to set them up for success as they transition back home in a seamless fashion.

And second, many people who leave the state prison system have complex needs, including drug addiction, homelessness, employment, and other additional service needs. Having re entry facilities that are designed to cover these complex needs has shown to work, and it increases sobriety, reduces the risk of overdose, improves public safety and public health, along with reducing recidivism. It is for these reasons that we happily happy to co sponsor this legislation. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, chair and Committee Members. My name is Gary Mccoy, Vice President of policy with HealthRIGHT 360, a proud cosponsor of SB 950 on behalf of one of the largest unionized, nonprofit behavioral health providers in California, which operates community reentry programs. And as a formerly incarcerated individual, I speak from both personal experience and deep engagement and direct service. Each year, California's prisons release approximately 37,000 individuals. During reentry, everything can be difficult all at once.

People need to be connected with primary care and services, attend meetings, renew their education, reconnect with loved ones and family, secure housing and employment, and obtain food and resources necessary to survive. SB 950 represents an opportunity to dismantle unnecessary barriers to successful reentry and advance continuity of care for individuals immediately upon release. Despite concerted efforts to reduce recidivism, a significant portion of people post release lack immediate access to primary care, behavioral health care, and other resources.

This legislation seeks to address these disparities by establishing prerelease enrollment strategies, ensuring a more equitable and inclusive reintegration process, uninterrupted coverage, and access to essential services. By better facilitating seamless transitions from parcel settings to community life, SB 950 will enhance health and public safety outcomes. And we respectfully urge your aye vote. Thank you.

All right. Can we move on to me too's in support? State your name, your org that you support.

Darby Kernan, in support, representing WestCare. Thank you. A current MCRP provider.

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

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

Fargo George. On behalf of the California Public Defenders and also the San Francisco Public Defender's office, thank you. In support.

Thank you Chair and Members. Dylan Elliott, on behalf of the California State Association of Psychiatrists in support. Thank you.

Hello. Aldazia Green. On behalf of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights and also on behalf of the Prosecutor Alliance of California, in strong support of this bill. Thank you.

Marshal Lawler, on behalf of Root & Rebound. We are in strong support. Thank you.

Duke Cooney. On behalf of ACLU, in strong support. Thank you.

Good morning. Laura Lane, on behalf of The Glide Foundation, in support. Thanks.

John Drebinger, with the Steinberg Institute, in support.

Do we have any opposition witnesses? Seeing none. We'll move on to just opposition me too's? Seeing none, we'll move on to members of the Committee seeing no comments. Senator, would you like to close?

Thank you. I request your aye vote.

Thank you. Do we have a motion? Senator Bradford has moved the bill. Can we call role?

SB 950 motion is due past to appropriations. [Roll Call]

Okay, that bill's on call. Can we call for Senator Wiener?

He's supposed to come back.

And do we have everybody who has voted? It's just this for Wiener.

Five minutes before the bell. You were that kid, weren't you? You're backpack was packed three minutes before the bell.

You're right.

Can we lift the call, please?

SB 950, Motion was do pass to Appropriations. Current vote, four to zero. [Roll call]

That Bill is out. Five to zero. Thank you. Meeting adjourned.

There we go.