Assembly Standing Committee on Public Safety

Good morning. We will begin and start today's Public Safety Committee hearing. We will start this committee hearing as a Subcommitee. We will not establish a quorum for a few moments. We will start and begin as a Subcommitee. First off, we are going to begin with some housekeeping items, the bills that were off the calendar today. So we have two AB 1800, Jones-Sawyer and AB 1848 Davies. They're both-one was Joan Sawyer pulled by the author. Davies pulled by the Committee.

Secondly, we have a consent calendar, but we will act a bit later when we have a quorum. So we will proceed with we have 6 bills to be heard today. And we will start in file, I'm sorry, in sign in order. And the first author is Assemblymember Lowe, AB 2766. And he'll be joined by family Member Dixon. Good morning.

Good morning Mr. Chair and colleagues for allowing us to present AB 2766. With me is Assemblymember Diane Dixon.

This bill proposal helps to ensure that public has access to public records request or early release credit information.

Apologies. That was me. So that was so amazing. But we'll start over. Briefly, you can recap. Start again.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and colleagues, for allowing me to present with our joint author, Assemblymember Diane Dixon, on Assembly Bill 2766 to help ensure public transparency in keeping our community safe.

This bill has previously been introduced with Assemblymember Dixon, but also was inspired by an incident that happened in the City of San Jose in the district that I represent, in which my brother and his partner were shot at in the line of duty. She was unfortunately hit and was the first female police officer in the history of San Jose to be hit and injured in the line of duty for the City of San Jose.

Of course, this bill helps to ensure transparency and accountability on helping ensure that we're keeping our community safe. I also like to mention that our offices have been working with a potential opposition from those who have issues last year to help address these issues of staying neutral and will continue to address these issues should this bill move forward in Judiciary. Respectfully ask for aye vote and I'll turn over to Assemblymember Dixon also for additional comments.

Good morning Mr. Chair and Members. I'm proud to be here today to present alongside Assemblymember Low. We have worked diligently with all stakeholders and continue to to bring back AB 15, which is what I introduced last year, and I'm pleased that Assemblymember Low has brought it forward this year. This bill has taken amendments to address the concerns that were discussed during the hearing last year. We continue to meet with opposition to ensure AB 2766 addresses our intent while maintaining appropriate protections for misuse.

This bill is critical to provide more transparency as it relates to early release credits for incarcerated individuals. You will recall two years ago next month, six people were murdered in a mass killing several blocks from this Capitol building. One month after these murders, three people were each charged with three counts of murder. Of the group, one individual was a felon in possession of a firearm and a machine gun. Police say he fired his gun at least 28 times during the shooting.

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation later confirmed that he was released from prison a little over a month before the shooting, only to have served slightly more than half of his sentence, only 5.5 years out of a 10 year sentence. The people of California deserve to know why incarcerated individuals are released early by the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation before their sentence realize date.

CBS News Sacramento, seeking to understand how a defendant in a gang related multiple homicide case was able to be released so early, submitted a Public Records Act request. CDCR responded by denying the news station's request, arguing that credit earning information was confidential. The people of California deserve transparency. It is only fair.

AB 2766 offers a remedy to this lack of transparency by amending the Public Records Act to provide that the calculation of a prison inmate's release date and a summary of how the inmate earned any release credits is not confidential and is public records subject to disclosure. When an incarcerated person serves a fraction of their sentence imposed by the judge, the public is entitled to know why that is the case.

And just to be clear, because this came up last year, no personal HIPAA relation related information is subject to disclosure. This is all quantifiable data related to educational credits, vocational credits and life performing behavior performing issues nothing to do with HIPAA and privacy related medical information. I am proud to sit alongside my colleague who has personal experience with this policy and it is so important to many. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Before you begin, let's establish a quorum and take the role.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Quorum is present. Support we have five minutes to share with your support side. Please proceed.

Thank you. Good morning, Chair and Members, Jonathan Feldman with Arc Strategies on behalf of the California Police Chiefs Association in strong support. I want to state from the outset that it is not the goal of this legislation to discourage anyone from participating in rehabilitative services. It is not the goal to put anyone in harm's way by exposing their personal information or whether or not they were an informant.

We know we've heard those concerns. The goal here is really, it's about good governance. It's about oversight. It's about understanding these decisions that are being made, that, frankly, when mistakes are made, people lose their lives. And we've seen too many examples with individuals mentioned in these two stories, but other ones in police officers that have been killed by offenders who were released early, in some cases years, off their sentences. And we can't understand why because we don't have access to that information.

Decisions that are this critical, this important, require a level of oversight, not just from the public, but from you all and from the Legislature and from the lawmakers to understand what's working, what's not. And frankly, these are life and death decisions that are being made in these cases. It's not a tremendous amount of, I'd say, mistakes that are being made, but when they do occur, the consequences are severe.

So we think this is a step in the right direction and will help us better understand how these credits are being awarded, what programs are effective, which ones are not. So we can make better decisions moving forward. So ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Witness in support. Please line here and say your organization and position. Thank you.

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

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members Julian Dolores on behalf of California City is in support.

Thank you. Do we have opposition?

No testimony. Just Danica Rodarmel on behalf of Initiate Justice opposed unless amended. Thank you.

Good morning. Margo George, on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association, we're a tweener and look forward to further negotiations so we can reach a neutral position.

Thank you. Questions or comments from Committee Members? Mr. Zbur?

So I was hoping that Mr. Low or Evans Davies, you could respond to one of the assertions in the ACLU letter, which is that incarcerated people subject to the California Public Records Act is likely to discourage incarcerated people from taking advantage of programming potentially viewed as stigmatizing, including drug and alcohol treatment, sex offender treatment, parenting classes, mental health treatment, for fear that participation will become public and will be used against them.

Wondering, does your bill continue to do that? You said that it excludes HIPPA, but it doesn't. I mean, what is the context and how elaborate are the summaries?

I just want to acknowledge also that ACLU removed that letter specifically as we're addressing the issue of privacy. We know that this also, should this leave also be addressed in Judiciary as it is double referred.

But we acknowledge also in conversation with the Chair last week that the intent to address some of the concerns that might exist and tidying that up.

Thank you. And I just had one other quick question. I'm wondering if the person from Initiate Justice could come up and just tell me what the amendments are that you're seeking.

I don't have them handy with me right now, but I know that Greg from Initiate Justice has been in conversation with both the author's offices and is just asking for further privacy coverage, potentially carving out certain kinds of programs from being eligible. But I don't have the full copy of them here with me today, unfortunately.

Mr. Low, I assume you understand what those are and you're continuing to work on those? Okay, thank you.

Very receptive.

Okay. No other questions. That was my comment is that we didn't understand what exactly they were looking for. So hopefully you can continue to engage. We have a motion. Motion a second. Mr. Alanis is a second by Assemblymember Nguyen. Assembly Member, you may close.

Thank you very much. I respectfully ask for your aye vote. I want to also acknowledge the hard work of my colleague as well, and appreciate the consideration.

All right, thank you. Please call the roll.

On AB 2766 by Assemblymember Low. The motion is due passed to the Judiciary Committee. [Roll Call]

All right, the measure passes. Next we have Mr. Lowenthal or Villapudua, Flora or Bauer-Kahan. All right, Mr. Villapudua, come on up.

Yes. Item number nine. AB 2336.

All right. Thank you, Chair, Members. I like to start by thanking the Chair and Committee staff for working with our office and refraining the language. And I will be accepting Committee amendments today to continue my efforts from last year. I'm proud to present AB 2336 today to continue prioritizing the health and safety of Californians. The fentanyl crisis has had a destructive impact on our society. The unlawful use of this substance has resulted in countless deaths and presents an immense danger to our communities.

As a product of the drug trafficking, we have consistently seen possession of both loaded firearms along with lethal amount of fentanyl. The combination of these two pose an even greater threat to the public, law enforcement and first responders. Fentanyl is 50 times more dangerous than heroin. It is now mentioned in the current statute. AB 2336 is a common sense measure that simply provides a level playing field in law enforcement and lethal substance.

With me today to testify in support of this measure is Cindy De Silva from the San Joaquin County District Attorney's Office and Rhonda Manning from A Major Movement.

Good morning. Cindy De Silva, San Joaquin County District Attorney's Office and I'll keep my comments brief, but I would like to point out as some one item of opposition to this measure has been the 234 triad of state prison. I want to point out that probation is eligible for this offense. In fact, a lot of offenders do get probation for it. So keeping my comments brief, I would like to read a support letter from one of the victims on a jury trial I had.

He could not be here this morning because he's ill, but he wrote a letter to you all and it was a case involving fentanyl and many, many loaded, inoperable firearms, in fact, one that was shot at him during a road rage incident. The jury acquitted on that portion, but they convicted on the 11370.1 as well as fentanyl charges and that offender is due to get out any day now thanks to Prop 57 and credits.

He writes, "My name is Ramiz Hadad and I am a victim of gun violence. I am one of countless victims, but unlike some others, I happen to survive. Up until my close encounter with death, I never thought much of guns. If anything, I thought guns were intriguing as I spent the majority of my childhood consuming media that brandished them. The bombastic excitement and bravado that a gun represented through my favorite protagonists only projected an idealized power, but never real catastrophe. Now, as an adult, my eyes are open.

A gun now represents a crying mother, traumatized children, gore and squander. To me, guns are only practical in a volatile society, not the progressing and civil society we're trying to create today. For context, my attacker was a complete stranger. It took only a second or two for three gunshots to blaze by me. What was convenient for my attacker was held for the rest of my life.

There's nothing one can feel through watching TV, reading a statistic, or ironically, even reading this letter to understand what it feels like to have endured what I did. Countless nights gone unslept, deathly pains churning in my stomach at the thought of what could have been and a paranoia that forever plagues me when I go outside. We can't ask many gun violence victims what they think because most of them are dead. Here I stand, an example and a voice crying out for change.

I do not believe guns are useful tools. I do not think guns save lives. I do not think guns serve any other purpose but to efficiently kill. The concept of guns is antiquated and holds no place for a society meant to uphold its integrity through communication and civility. I know this firsthand, as my attacker found it faster to pull a trigger than to use their words. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. You have two minutes left on your side in support.

Okay. And I'm just going to read kind of what I wrote from you too, if I'll stay on task. My name is Rhonda Manning and I am support of this bill. I have formed an organization called A Major Movement in honor of my son. My son Major was 17, and on October 3, last year, my son took what he thought was a Percocet pill that was laced with fentanyl.

My son was due to graduate this year from a senior in high school and he won't be able to go to his prom or any of this. We had no idea that fentanyl was just ramping and just taking over our communities and in our neighborhood. And as a parent, my husband and I have made it our life's mission to try to help save other kids from this dangerous drug and educate parents.

I've been speaking with District Attorney Cindy at different schools, my son's junior high school and his high school. And we are in honor of supporting this bill to help protect our young people's life. My son Major's life matter, all lives matter and we want to fight this fentanyl in a major way.

Thank you for your testimony. Others in support, please line up state to your organization and position.

Chairman, Members. Jonathan Feldman with the California Police Chiefs Association, strong support.

DeFranklin Davis here to support Danny and Rhonda Manning in the Major Movement.

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

Dan Manning, father of Major Manning, in support of the Major Movement.

Morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Ryan Sherman with the Riverside Sheriff's Association, California Narcotic Officers Association, and a number of local POAs and DSAs in support of the measure. Thank you.

Shawna Ollie. I'm in support of the Major Movement. And I'm Major's sister.

Scotty Galdin. Support Major Movement. I'm Major's uncle.

Carla Posada, in support of the bill, in support of Rhonda and Danny. And as a mother of a 10 year old daughter, I want something to be done. Thank you.

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

Good morning. Glenn Backes for the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights. The Ella Baker Center is a racial and economic justice group based in Oakland, California. It's easy to consider this bill as an update of existing law, it's easy to say, why don't we add fentanyl to existing law? But I'd remind Committee that possession of a small amount of a controlled substance for personal use is a misdemeanor and possession of a firearm is legal.

So why do we have an existing law that says that a misdemeanor plus a legal action is now a felony with four years in state prison? That doesn't make any sense. And before we consider expanding that section, we should consider whether the underlying section should be reformed first. This underlying section was implemented in 1989, signed by Governor Deukmejian. It was amended in 1996, amended by Pete Wilson. In this section, there's no weight threshold. So we're not talking about anything but one pill.

We're not going to talk about five pills, we're not talking about 10 pills, we're not talking about stash houses, we're not talking about dealers. One pill plus one gun now equals four years in state prison. That doesn't make sense, and it shouldn't be expanded without reform. There's no requirement that the gun be in the hand of the person, that it be brandished, that it be used inappropriately, that it be a ghost gun, that it be an illegal gun.

It just has to be a gun in the house, in the vehicle, or on their person. So, literally, you're being asked to support one pill in the bathroom, one gun in the closet, four years in state prison. That example of one small amount of drugs in the bathroom and one gun in the closet is specific. That's what the California State Appellate Court held up. A defendant surrendered to a warrant in the living room peacefully, according to court records.

In the back bathroom, law enforcement found 7 grams of methamphetamine consistent with personal use in a pill bottle. They found one gun loaded in the closet, in a locked box. Loaded in the sense that the clip was full, but the chamber wasn't. Though it was locked, law enforcement was able to open it without a key. Therefore, according to California State law as it sits today, it was accessible and operable.

That's what the appellate court held up, because that's the laws given to us from the Wilson and Deukmejian era, which also is known as the height of mass incarceration and the drug war. So after 25 years of these laws on the books, there's no evidence that they reduce gun violence. There's no evidence that they reduce the availability of drugs. Drugs are more plentiful, cheaper, and stronger than ever before. This law doesn't work. It should not be expanded on.

There's also plenty of evidence in the 40 years of the drug war that we hurt families when we give their moms, dads and others long sentences in state prison. When you take someone out of the family and then force the family to send them money to support them while they're in prison, that hurts the family.

And because we over concentrate these penalties in specific communities, low income communities, mainly black communities, Latino communities, indigenous communities, that guarantees the intergenerational transfer of poverty for those families and for those communities, that should be considered whenever you're asked to expand a long prison penalty. Thank you.

Margo George for the California Public Defenders Association, in respectful opposition. This bill is not about drug sales. Let's not add another law disproportionately increasing the incarceration of black and brown people. All this law takes is a person, perhaps addicted, with knowledge of one pill containing fentanyl and one gun in the household. The bill does not require knowledge that the gun is loaded and operable.

An addicted individual could have a roommate or a family member who is a security guard or even a police officer who legally owns a gun and has it safely locked up and be found guilty of this offense. This bill would ensure that otherwise law abiding citizens, addicted individuals, family, friends, would not be eligible for drug diversion. Let me repeat that. An addicted individual would not be eligible for drug diversion under Subsection D of this bill. D as in David.

They would not be eligible for treatment in the community. Instead, the individual would go to state prison with violent offenders for two, three or four years. Almost 40 years ago, I started my career in Oakland, California, as a deputy public defender. I have seen black and brown individuals go to prison during the height of the war on drugs for possession of crack cocaine, one or two rocks.

I saw them go to prison suffering from poverty for selling one or two rocks to support their habit or their family. I saw the expansion of jails and prisons as the prison industrial complex expanded. We cannot incarcerate our way out of a public health crisis.

Thank you. And I respectfully ask for your no vote.

Thank you.

Thank you. To those in opposition, please state your name and position only.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Members. Mica Doctoroff with the ACLU of Northern California here today on behalf of ACLU California Action, in respectful opposition.

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

Aldazia Green from the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, in strong opposition to this bill.

Danica Rodarmel, on behalf of Initiate Justice and the San Francisco Public Defender's Office, in opposition.

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

Minerva Campos from Essie Justice Group, in strong opposition.

All right. That's it. Questions or comments from Committee Members? Mr. Alanis.

I can make this quick. Andy, can you please answer some of the questions that I have for that the opposition brought up as far as possession of just the one gun also, I think opposition also said it's legal to possess the gun. The Bill also cover that. Is it like a felon in possession of gun? Can you elaborate more on that?

No felon in possession of a gun would be punishable under another statute. And there's various ways that an otherwise legal gun can be made illegal. For example, the way that it's housed, whether it's around children, whether or not it's in the trunk of the car, whether or not it's loaded and inside the car, whether or not it's stolen, and in this case, whether or not you simultaneously possess it along with these certain six big, and we're hoping to make it seven big drugs.

In terms of, respectfully, the argument that one pill and a loaded operable gun that belongs to a security guard is going to put you in prison for four years, that is wildly unlikely to happen because people with people that have a lawful reason to have that gun are going to likely have it locked away outside of the possession of the person. And that would be a categorical defense to the person who possesses that gun as a security guard.

Them saying, I didn't have it readily available for defensive or offensive use. I didn't know about the drugs being present. They'd be found not guilty. They'd likely not be charged. With regard to the concern, understandable, about locking up racial minorities, unfortunately, major is dead and my own cousin, who is an incarcerated individual due to drugs, and I'm not talking AB 109, I'm talking prison. She's on a parole violation right now because of her addiction.

So we've got a white person locked up for methamphetamine, one of these big six crimes. So this is a law that applies across the board no matter what your race is. I'd be happy to answer other questions as well.

Thank you. Also, I want to get into the, they brought up the loaded box, but we're able to get into. Are you familiar with that?

I'm sorry, what's that?

Able to get into a loaded box with the gun. Are you able to elaborate on that or even the defense on that? Being able to get to it without it being locked, I believe, is what.

Zero, sure. The definition pursuant to both the statute as well as case law is it's got to be readily available for offensive or defensive use, that implies a knowledge element that you essentially have it in order to protect your stash and you're willing to deploy it if somebody tries to come take that valuable drug from you or any other reason. So it depends on the facts. The jury is going to need to decide whether or not they have it readily available or not.

If it's locked in the back of a trunk and you're inside your 3000 square foot mansion, probably less likely that you'll be convicted of it. But if it's hidden in your oven, which I've seen, and somebody does a gang shooting on your house, and police issue a search warrant on your residence, and they find all kinds of drugs, and then that loaded operable gun inside that oven, I would argue to the jury that that's readily available. It depends on the facts.

Actually, the case law indicates something.

I think we have a... I'll let you go, but let him finish his question. Hold on a second.

Let me just make one more comment because I got to go to another Committee. We talked about hurting families from the opposition, and I'm sure you're referring to those that are making the offense. Don't forget we also have victims out there that also have human rights as well. And I think that's, we're also here to talk about. And also the mere point that was brought up as far as being in possession of a controlled substance from back in the day.

Obviously, as we've been talking about this and continue to talk about this, fentanyl should not be compared to these controlled substances like cocaine and heroin and meth. Completely different type of drug. We've said that many times. This is a poison. As a supervisor out on patrol, I had to worry about my deputies being out there when there was an overdose with fentanyl because my deputies could be killed just by inhaling it, touching it. That couldn't happen with cocaine, that couldn't happen with heroin or meth.

So we're talking a different drug. So don't do compare the apples and oranges part. And I move the Bill.

Yeah. Did you have a question for the opposition? I do. You do not. Okay. Mr. Zabern.

The problems that I have with this Bill are, I think, twofold. One is it applies not only to people who have a quantity available for sale, but it applies to people that may have very small quantities only for personal use. Is that accurate?

Yes, assemblymember Chavez, it is accurate. However, in my experience, and I understand that discretion may be an issue for this Committee, but we do have discretion on when we charge it, we're far more likely to seek a conviction on that count. If the person is a seller and if they have a small personal use amount, they are always eligible for the probation.

Secondarily, being quite Frank, the way that this tends to work is we'll charge the 11370.1 when they have a small amount of the drug. But we have other evidence that they're probably selling, but we can't get them convicted on sales. No narcotics expert is going to want to say that, let's say a 16th of an ounce, although some are going to look at that and say, that's a lot of fentanyl there, could kill a lot of people.

But that a 16th of an ounce without being coupled with payo sheets, witnessing a hand to hand transaction, previous surveillance that they're not willing to disclose based on confidentiality. We know the person selling. We caught them with a certain amount, and we caught them with a loaded, operable firearm. We have concerns about them. So that we're going to charge them with it.

Yeah. So, first of all, I've supported the authors prior bills that have focused on making sure that we're sort of taking fentanyl off the street for sales. And I think that that is something that is a really important focus of what we should be doing for fentanyl. This Bill, though, I think what it does is it provides harsh penalties for a person who actually has fentanyl in his or her or their possession in a very small quantity for personal use.

And if they have a firearm someplace in the house, and I'm looking at the language of the Bill, and it says, armed with means having available for immediate or offensive or defensive use. So that could be someplace in the house that there's a gun and you have someone who has a one pill for personal use, and then that person who's convicted is not eligible for diversion or deferred entry of judgment.

So you have someone who may have a drug addiction, and the thing we want most is not to put them in prison for four years, but to get them into a diversion and a treatment program. And for those people, this Bill makes it impossible to do that. So that's why I am very supportive of bills that are focused on getting fentanyl off the street and fentanyl in quantities that are there for sales.

And when people actually have knowledge that something is fentanyl and that they basically are putting it on the street and making that available to kids and people who have no knowledge of what they're doing. But this Bill while I think it's really well intentioned, seems like it goes in exactly the opposite direction of what we want to do.

It's basically taking someone who is a drug addict, who may have a drug addiction, who needs treatment and has a very small quantity, a quantity that's not even an amount that would be necessarily likely to be for sale, and then says, we're going to put you in prison for four years and you're not eligible for any kind of drug treatment or diversion program, which seems like this is the exact opposite of what we want to do. It's just basically filling our prisons rather than treating people.

If this was about sales and quantities of sales, whether or not it had a gun, I would be much more open minded about it. But that's not what this is. So I have significant concerns about the Bill. And thank you for giving me the time.

Chair.

Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Lackey.

Yeah, I respectfully disagree with that assessment. I think that one of the things that we try to do as legislators is protect the innocent from unnecessary threats. And for us to try to say that this is targeted towards individual users, I think is unfair, because the topic that we're talking about is fentanyl. Fentanyl is way different than any of the other narcotics that we're on the market today. It takes such a minuscule amount to be deadly. A minuscule amount.

And so these poor people that have addiction to fentanyl, their chance of survival over the long haul is going to be very dim, in all truth, and it's a very small part of the population. And I do think special considerations should be taken for those in personal use. But let's be honest about the reality we're talking about here and the balance that we are expected to consider when we're passing legislation.

I'm very proud of the fact that because you have two deadly threats that are inarguable, and I'm almost entertained by the conversion of some of our colleagues that become Second Amendment people for just a moment. And I don't think that that's a reality. I really don't. I think people that are carrying fentanyl and have a loaded weapon are extremely dangerous, and they are out to kill, and we should do everything we can to prevent that.

And so I would like to be considered a co author for this measure.

Thank you.

Okay. I just want to try to bridge these two statements because we're trying to bring balance to these issues. So we don't want to impact and lock away people who are focusing addiction and small quantities for personal use. But one of the arguments was made, I'll give you one more time to help convince us, is that there's discretion based upon the law enforcement and the DA and of course, the judge and the jury in evaluating this.

So can you one more time try to convince us that there is adequate discretion here to ensure that we don't unfairly focus on people who are suffering from addiction, but conversely focus on people that have possession with the sole purpose of trafficking that product?

Thank you, chair. And I want to acknowledge Assemblymember Chavez Zbur. It's true he has supported these measures, particularly when they're aimed at the higher level dealers. I want to assuage any concerns about the lack of access to deferred entry of judgment. That's a term of art that is particularly referring to penal code Section 1000, that particular form. It's not saying they're ineligible for treatment. It's saying they're ineligible to have their conviction dismissed after they go through a certain program.

They're always eligible for programming, whether on probation or even at the state prison. Also, the concern about one pill and one gun, in all honesty, I've even asked a narcotics expert on the stand, and he responded under oath, we never see that, because the truly simply addicted, Low level user, who is just down and out and using four times a day to support their habit, they can't afford a gun. They'll hawk that gun in order to get their next $8 pill.

And in terms of discretion, I don't know that I can satisfy this body without coming to you with statistics, but I can tell you that we have all enacted recently the Racial Justice Act. District Attorney's offices are enacting raceblind charging. We're doing all that we can to try to make sure that any bias that we're unconscious of does not leak into our charging decisions. So we look just at the facts.

And if, quite frankly, we're all too busy to go after an 11370.1 for somebody that we don't have prior information based on their rap sheet, based on what the narcotics officers know but aren't at liberty to disclose because there's confidential informants involved, is not technically a dealer. We don't have time to go after that person. I hope that satisfies you. If it doesn't, maybe I can work in future years with you to satisfy you on the discretionary realm.

But sometimes discretion is good, because we can take into account those things like fairness. In this case, what concerns you is the race aspect, and we're working on that.

Okay, thank you. Do we have a motion? Motion. A second. Mr. Alanis. Mr. Lackey of the second, no more questions from Committee Members. Seeing none. Mr. May close.

Thanks for having this discussion. I mean, this is a. Last year we passed a great Bill that does will add to make sure that we put help folks that really do need the rehab. I'm a social worker. That's where my degree is in. And I am for about making sure that we do help people. But we're in a crisis. And if you don't see it, just drive around your communities. I can drive around throughout the state, and you'll see it. It's everywhere.

At the end of the day, fentanyl and a gun and a drug dealer just do not belong in the streets. It just doesn't. It's killing our communities. It's to a point where I heard it from Assembly Member Alanice is like, don't even want to touch this, because it's that contagious. It's 50 times more potent than any other, any. I don't even want to say the word drug because it's poison and it's killing our community.

So this Bill is a sound and a necessary commitment to close the gap in our health and safety code. It will work to reduce the ongoing health and safety risks across our states. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. We have a motion to second.

Please call the roll on AB 2336. Bison Assembly Member via poojois the motion is do pass as amended to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

Measure passes. Next measure. Mr. Lowenthal.

Check.

Yeah, looks like. Have you done this before? Yes. Okay.

Item number 10.

Thank you. Mr. Chair and Members, good morning. I am pleased to present AB 2420 which allows individuals who have been convicted of Low level crimes and whose records have been expunged to also be eligible to have their records sealed. Right now, convictions, except for vacated convictions, cannot be sealed. They can only be expunged. An expungement and a sealing are, however, similar. In fact, in many states, the terms sealing and an expungement are used interchangeably.

Item number 10. Mr. Lowenthal? AB 2420. Please proceed.

If granted expungement through the court, a person's guilty plea is withdrawn, the case is dismissed, and they're able to leave their encounter with the justice system without a conviction. In California before the digital age an expungement in practice was as good as a ceiling, however, now criminal history providers are able to access expunged records and make them easily available for the public to see.

Even when the courts have deemed that an individual should no longer be penalized in the judicial system for the low level misdemeanor that has since been dismissed through the public's access of their expunged record, they are still penalized in everyday life. What this bill does is simply allow for low level convictions that have already been dismissed and forgiven by the judicial system to be eligible to be sealed at the court's discretion.

A criminal conviction carries with it a loss of civil rights, public benefits, employment opportunities, housing eligibility, and the freedom to live and work without restriction. These sanctions and disqualifications cause long lasting effects not just to the individual, but to the entire community, because when people are disenfranchised from work, school, family life, and civic participation, the overall health of a community declines. The only way to truly protect against disenfranchisement is to seal those records.

I'm pleased to be joined by Mr. Ed Little on behalf of Californians for Safety and justice, who is here to testify in support of this Bill.

Thank you. Please proceed.

Good morning, chair and Members. My name is Ed Little and I'm a government affairs manager with Californians for Safety and Justice, and we are in strong support of AB 2420. In California, roughly 8 million residents have criminal convictions on their records, hampering their ability to find work and housing and to secure professional licensing and, in certain areas, even to adopt their own relatives. Millions have owed arrests on their records that have never resulted in convictions but remain obstacles to employment.

Collateral consequences of even a minor arrest can thus have ripple effects throughout a person's personal and economic life, even if they are never charged or convicted. Criminal records are serious barriers to successful reentry and come at a cost of $20.8 billion to California's economy. Studies show that the lack of access to employment and housing are primary factors that drive individuals to reoffend. As a result, barriers to criminal record relief reduce the likelihood of successful reentry and harm public safety.

AB 2420 seeks to address this by allowing individuals who have been convicted of low level misdemeanor crimes and whose records have been expunged to be also eligible to have their records sealed. People oftentimes make the erroneous assumptions that low level misdemeanor convictions have little effect on a person's overall quality of life. However, this is far from the truth. Misdemeanor convictions can permanently tarnish your personal and professional reputation, affecting your relationships and future career opportunities.

While expungement is granted by a court can cause a guilty plea to be withdrawn and a case dismissed, disenfranchisement is still very real and likely in the digital age, and expunged records are easily accessed by the public. Currently, people who have their convictions dismissed are eligible for their records to be expunged but not sealed. AB 2420 clarifies that a dismissed conviction is also eligible to be sealed. We respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support?

Alicia Benavidez, on behalf of Initiate Justice in strong support.

Aldazia Green, on behalf of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, in strong support of this bill.

Marco George for the California Public Defenders Association in support thank you.

Alicia Montero with Californian's United for Responsible Budget in strong support.

Micah Dockdroff with the ACLU of Northern California here on behalf of ACLU California Action in strong support.

Shrita Moore, on behalf of California Attorneys for Criminal Justice in support.

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

Morning. Chris Ladgson, ARC Anti Recidivism Coalition in support.

Do we have witnesses in opposition? Please come forward.

Seeing none, questions or comments from Committee Members. Mr. Zbur.

So I want to thank the author for bringing this bill. I think it's a really important one. I just had a question about, so when I was in my prior role, had many cases of people who had had drug charges who then later went through probation. Part of the terms of the probation were that if they finished it, they would have the potential to have the charges expunged from the record, and then they were expunged.

But because they were embedded in criminal records, they were in criminal reporting databases, and they were never able to actually not have that part of what an employer would look at or what someone who, if they were renting an apartment. Does this bill do anything to prevent reporting agencies from picking up those records and reporting them? I'm just curious.

I appreciate that, Assemblymember, and it precisely addresses that. So once the record is sealed, then those agencies would not have access to that any longer. I would like to take the liberty in answering this question to make sure that all of the Committee Members understand that law enforcement would still have access to this. This does not prevent law enforcement from not having access to those records in its investigative work.

I guess the one last thing is, is there any penalty or repercussion from, I mean, the folks that were sort of the culprits, to use a bit of a charged term, tended to be these reporting, these private reporting agencies that would actually go through court records and then report stuff, even though it was clear that the records had been, quote, expunged, because it would say record, you go through the whole criminal record, then expungement, and that's part of the record and they just report the whole thing.

So it would report an expungement, but that's, an employer would see the whole record. So is there anything that would prevent that? There would be any repercussions from a private company going through court records and then reporting it nonetheless?

I think that there exists no such penalty at this time, which is why the bill addresses this very loophole. And to make sure that the spirit of what the court is asking for is implemented, I think we would need further legislation to address that issue.

Thank you for bringing the bill. I think it's a great bill and I'm fully supportive of it.

Thank you, Assemblymember Nguyen.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to thank you for bringing this forward. In my prior life, I ran expungement programs, and I would say that that was probably one of my most favorite thing to do just because it was individuals that made mistakes. And they're trying to change their life and turn their life around. And this was always a barrier.

And to be able to help them get this expunged and then watch them walk back in and say that because you assisted us, I was able to get a job, I'm able to raise my family, I'm able to do all these things that I never thought I'd be able to do. And so I move this bill, thank you for bringing this forward. And really, thank you.

Okay. With motion and a second, Mr. Lackey?

I have something I would like to say. Yeah. Thank you. Excuse me. I do believe that this has laudable intent, but an honest assessment of our current condition needs to be considered because we have some district attorneys that don't follow up on legitimate arrests. I think that that is a problem with our system. That's a reality. And so, therefore, arrests are often the only thing that we have to consider in a person's history.

For example, I mean, imagine hiring a bank teller who was arrested for embezzlement. I think that's problematic. And I think there are some considerations that I have concerns about, because not all arrests that don't lead to convictions are indications of improper arrests. And so that's my concern. And so I'm not prepared to support at this time. But I do think what you're trying to do is laudable. I wish we could tighten this up. And the last piece is, what's a low-level crime?

That's a pretty broad definition. I mean, think about this. We have the term violent felonies. That doesn't cover the rape of an unconscious person, which to me is quite violent. So I'm worried about these broad definitions. That's my other concern.

Mr. Lackey, first of all, I can't respond to this without first thanking you for all your service in law enforcement and acknowledging the credibility that you bring when you're asking these questions and the transparency by which your thought process is going through. So thank you for that in advance. I think, by way, to give color to this situation, there are 95,000 people that are currently serving in CDCR right now. Not a single one of them would be eligible for this.

Anybody who has ever served time in prison would not be eligible for this whatsoever. We are talking about very low-level misdemeanors and people who have tried to get their lives on track, that are impeded, their ability to get a place to live, the ability to get a job. And what this lends itself to is actually making us less safe when somebody is unable to go on with their lives. It pushes them back. I don't know if you wanted to comment any further on this.

No, I think you hit it right on the head. This legislation is designed for a very precise group of people, but a group of people whom the court has already deemed eligible to have their records expunged. So the court has already looked at these folks and made a determination that they were not a risk to public safety. And so going, taking the next step to seal those records would not risk public safety.

The court has already expunged these records. It's simply sealing them.

Thank you, Mr. Alanis.

Thank you, author, for bringing this bill before us. I also wanted to say I appreciate you maintaining law enforcement's access to these basically cases, court cases. But I want to get a little bit, I know we're talking about low-level misdemeanors, but I want to say there's also felonies, some felonies, including in this, if they successfully complete probation. Can we elaborate on that?

Felonies do not apply to this legislation.

Okay. May need to look at under 1203.4, the penal code as well. That includes some felonies as well, just for further work on that. But other than that, I want to say thank you for, again, at least cutting law enforcement out of that part.

Okay, thank you. We have a motion a second. You may close Mr. Lowenthal.

Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, please call the roll.

On AB 2420 by Assemblymember Lowenthal. The motion is due pass to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

Measure is on call.

Measures on call. You need one more vote, Mr. Lowenthal. Next measure. Mr. Flora. AB 1898.

Good morning, chair and members. Thanks again. Today I'm going to present AB 1898. AB 1898 would add convicted child sex predators who commit a nonviolent felonies involving the depiction, possession, and use of material depicting a minor engaging in sexual conduct to the list of felonies that make criminals ineligible for early release credits against their prison sentence.

Under current law, early release credits may not be earned for individuals convicted of a crime, such as lewd and lascivious acts on a child under the age of 14 years old by use of force, violence, duress, malice or fear, and continuous sexual abuse of a child.

AB 1898 would make convicted felons who exploit and prey on innocent children by the distribution, possession, and use of child pornography ineligible for early release credits, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Do you have witnesses in support?

No, sir.

No, you're the star witness. Do we have individuals wishing to testify in support? Seeing none. Do we have witnesses or opposition who wants to come forward and testify? Please begin. You have five minutes to split amongst yourselves.

Thank you. Margo George for California Public Defenders Association in respectful opposition. It appears AB 1898 is an unconstitutional attempt to roll back CDCR's authority under Prop 57, the Public Safety and Rehabilitation Act of 2016, which California voters overwhelmingly passed to award credits to nonviolent offenders.

As discussed in the analysis, even judicial critics such as Justice Chin have concluded that Prop 57 placed the ability to award credits in CDCR's hands. On a more practical level, there are three benefits of credits, better behavior, lower cost, and safer communities.

Under Prop 57, CDCR has incentivized incarcerated people to take responsibility for their own rehabilitation by providing credit earning opportunities for sustained good behavior as well as in prison program and activities participation and that is from the CDCR website.

Good time credits are awarded in 32 states, while earned time credits are available in 37 states, many states award both types of sentencing credits.

A recent International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice, which did a meta-analysis of a number of studies, found that in high risk groups of incarcerated men, there was less misbehavior and a considerable decrease in antisocial behavior with credits.

This translates into lower cost, and the lower cost are realized in two different ways. One, it requires less money spent on security in prison, and two, lower costs due to shorter prison stays, which is particularly important given our overwhelming budget deficit this year.

Safer communities are also a benefit. A 2021 study for the center of evidence based corrections, looking particularly at California, the Cal PIA, which is a California prison industries association, found that people who worked in the prison industries had lower recidivisms rates, and that even lower rates of recidivism were found with people who took career technical education, which is one part of Cal PIA, and they teach skills ranging from computer coding, construction, optical care, diving, metal fabrication, and computer aided design.

So in conclusion, AB 1898 would make prisons and the community more dangerous. So we respectfully ask for your no vote.

Danica Rodarmel on behalf of Initiate Justice also in opposition I won't repeat a lot of the numbers that Margo already shared, but just want to note clearly none of us that are in opposition to this bill condone the kind of behavior that this bill is seeking to target. It's a difference of opinion about how we actually respond to that kind of harm when it's caused and a real goal to stop that harm from ever happening again.

And punishment and incarceration is one aspect of what we do in society. But accountability is a different component for encouraging people to really dive deep and understand why it was they caused a specific kind of harm and really trying to get to the bottom of that and ensure that it doesn't happen again.

That is what people do in these kinds of programs. The folks that earn rehabilitative achievement credits, according to CDCR's most recent recidivism report, have a 50% lower recidivism rate than people who don't.

And the truth is, the vast majority of people ever incarcerated are going to come home someday, and so we want them to return with a lot more insight and accountability for what brought them there to begin with. I really would encourage the assemblymember, if he hasn't been inside, to see some of these programs in action to come. I'm happy to facilitate a visit like that.

I think when you see it happening, you get a better sense of what we're talking about and why we want to encourage people to enter those spaces. So I urge a no vote. Thank you.

Thank you. We have others in opposition. I know we're going to allow you in a second. Others in opposition, please come forward.

Thanh Tran with the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in opposition.

Mica Doctoroff with the ACLU of Northern California here on behalf of ACLU California Action in opposition.

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

Minera Campos with SC justice group in strong opposition.

Janet Hughes of Essie Justice Group in strong opposition.

Betty Mckay has Essie Justice Group strongly opposed.

Okay, thank you. We're going to allow a support to come up who missed it.

Yeah. Apologies for getting out of turn here, bouncing around this morning. Jonathan Feldman, California Police Chiefs Association in support.

Okay, do we have questions or comments from Committee Members? I'll start with one. Mr. Flora, I know you're the main witness, and my understanding is your backgrounds, you're not an attorney, you're a rancher, a firefighter and a bodybuilder.

But I wanted to ask you if you wanted to respond to the concern that this is an issue that the voters passed and there's constitutional issues with this, what you're proposing, and therefore the legislature would have some limitations on making such alteration to credit policy.

Yeah, I can certainly respond now or in the closing if there's other questions, because I do want to address some of the concerns of our opposition as well.

Ms. Nguyen.

I actually just have a comment, not necessarily a question, but I had the opportunity. I don't even know if I want to call it an opportunity. But Sheriff Jim Cooper took me out in a home where we found an individual who had videos of child pornography. And it was not just a few, it wasn't just hundreds, but it was thousands, thousands of them.

And not only was he keeping them in the home, but he was also selling it, sharing it, and a distributor of it. Come to find out, not only was he creating some of these videos, but he also acted out, and some children in the neighborhood were a victim of it.

As a mother, you don't ever not see that after you've seen that already before. I went home that night, and I hugged my kids real tight. This can happen to any children, any of our kids out there. I don't believe these folks deserve to be able to do anything to get credits, to be released out in prison and jail.

There aren't children in there. There aren't videos in there for you to entertain your fetish or whatever it is that you have. And they may be on good behavior because what they were put in there for was because of what they did to children, to kids, to babies.

And so, of course, they're going to work to get the credits to be able to release out there. But it's when they are released out there in the community and the public, in your homes, in schools and neighborhoods, that they may then do what we put them in there for again.

And so I am very supportive of this bill. I cannot support giving these individuals any opportunity to be released out in the community, to then continue this again in their path. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Ting. And then Mr. Alanis.

Thanks. I did have some questions for the author for opposition as well. We definitely want to do everything possible to stop child pornography, to stop these acts from happening. I guess my question to the author is, how does taking away the rehabilitative credits actually help us stop this kind of behavior? That's my question right now.

In working with the task force, we have five task forces that deal with us up and down the State of California and working with the individuals that deal with us on a daily basis. The longer that we can keep folks serving out their time, the more opportunities we have for rehabilitation.

And my colleague Stephanie Nguyen mentioned this by cutting their stays short, these folks are incredibly challenging and incredibly expensive to rehabilitate.

This is very much a significant mental health issue, in my opinion, to do this. So releasing them back into the community, I do not understand how that makes our communities safer. These folks are really tough to deal with, and I would just say releasing somebody early from the programs that they needed and are mandated to go to. While they're in prison, we need to stick with that.

We need to get them all the help we can while they're incarcerated so when they do serve their time, they can be released and are actually valuable members of society, hopefully once again.

I guess the question is that, and I agree with you, I think this is a mental health issue, obviously. I think that's the key piece of it. Are you saying that if they earn credits, they won't get the proper treatment because they're getting released? Let me ask a different way. How can we ensure they're getting the treatment they need before they are getting released?

I think that's for the folks that run these programs within the system, right. I think that's up to them. I'm not a mental health professional as it deals with child pornography and sex trafficking, those types of things.

But there are, and I think at some point to have somebody, when we reintroduce somebody into society to make sure when we talk about work programs.

I'm a huge fan of rehabilitation programs, support those for a very long time, especially when it comes to the state, Cal fire, the fire crews, all of those things. But this is a very different beast that we're dealing with here.

This is something that is, and I will address a little bit more of this in my close on why I'm so passionate about this issue, but it is something that I do trust the men and women that work in this field. When they say somebody's rehabilitated, I trust them because they are the experts, but they need the time and the expertise to actually get that training that they need.

So is there a way to have this? Because right now all you're doing is taking something away. Is there a way to add back in the part that I think you and I both agree on around the mental health piece to ensure that they're getting, because if you're closing this one door, then all you're saying is that you can't work to getting rehabilitated for this one segment of folks, but at the same time, you're not ensuring that they're improving their situation.

And I understand you're concerned about the early release, but how do we have it so that they're not getting out before they're getting the help? But how do you ensure that they're getting the help?

It's a great question. And I think that's something that maybe in a different conversation or piece of legislation we can address this right here. We really want to make sure that when they are sentenced that they are not released before they are absolutely ready.

And if a judge sees fit to put you in for however long, when you hear about some of the things that these folks have done to our kids, I agree with the Assembly woman. They do not deserve early release. They simply don't. And I am going to go into that a little bit in my close as well.

I've just encourage you just to think about it as sort of how you can still accomplish sort of what? Because I think ultimately what you want to do is we want to stop this behavior from happening. And we know that the only way to really do that is to address some behavioral health, mental health issues. So without addressing that, that's the challenge.

Understand.

Thank you, Mr. Alanis, then, Mr. Zabur.

So I just want to address a little bit of the question that somebody Member Ting was talking about. I'm not a mental health person as well, but the way I look at this, and this is why I look at a lot of the bills that we're working on, where we're releasing people early is, let's just say, for example, I give them a year in jail or prison, whatever it is, it's going to take a year.

That's what they're figuring out to rehabilitate them. But when I'm letting them out at six months or five months, what service did I do to them? How did I help prepare them to reenter into society? I didn't. I took the time away. And another thing I want to discuss, I don't think many people here have worked in the custody setting that I have.

I've released people out into the public from jail, signed off on them so they can go out and be along with their family and their neighbors. Good time, the earned time credit is already factored into their sentence. That is something that is supposed to be allowed to be taken away from them if they don't earn it. That's what we're missing here.

If they don't go through the rehabilitation process, if they don't go through their classes, if they don't do what other inmates are doing to help keep their sentence where they are, that's where that time is taken away. But we're not doing that.

We're automatically giving it to them and calculating that into their sentence. That's something that not many people would know unless you actually worked in the facilities and then to also talk about the whole reason we're here.

I think I'm the only one here that can actually say that. I've interviewed many, many people for child abuse, for child pornography, having to go through those videos, having to see all that terrible stuff that happens in our society, and it's a sickness.

I don't ever see them rehabilitating from that. And so if keeping them away from our public, keeping them away from our young people is what we need to do, then that's what this bill does. That's what I'm totally for.

And again, to the point to the authors that he was making was keep them in there as long as they have us for their sentence, work on the rehabilitation. Maybe that will help. I highly doubt it from my personal experience dealing with and working on convictions with them, but that's how it is. And the other thing I want to talk about is the overwhelming budget deficit that was brought up. I don't think that has to do with the prisons.

We've talked about this in many other things that has to do with the theft going on, people leaving California, taxes not being paid. So all that factors into it as well. We can't just say it's because of the prisons. I'll close with that.

Thank you, Mr. Zaber.

It says that it prohibits custody credits for any person convicted of all of these things. Obviously. I agree that we need to treat these horrendous crimes involving kids in a different way than we do others. And so I do look at it in a different way.

I think the question, two questions. One is looking at what the existing law provides. It's not like many of these crimes have super long prison sentences to begin with.

But the question is, does this prohibit credit for rehabilitative in terms of just sort of good behavior credit? I sort of agree with you. I think that if someone has a mental illness that results in these horrendous activities involving kids, I'd rather keep them in prison as long as we possibly can, unless there's some good evidence that there's been some rehabilitation.

And so the question I have about the bill is, does this prevent some kind of early release when there's rehabilitation, or is it just all good credit? One. And then second, if you could address, I think, the chair's question about whether or not this is permissible based on Prop 57.

Yes. If there's any other, I can just close as well, if that's.

No. We have more questions.

More questions.

Not done yet.

All right.

But he had another question besides the same.

Mr. Zbur I absolutely respect your position, and no to my, when we talk about early release, you're absolutely right. And I'm glad that you brought it up because it is remarkable how short these sentences are already.

Unless that there is production, like just possession and distribution is minimal at best, unless you're actually producing content. And I think that is something that we should honestly look into as a state at some point as well.

It is not, to my knowledge, in this bill, the way that we intended this to bill to be written, that if you go for six months or whatever that is. You're going to serve all six months of that. And it was my hope and would be my prayer that during that time we had enough counselors that made sure that you as a human being are getting all of the help you can possibly get in that time frame.

And so there is no distinction for me whether it's, if you're going to therapy or counseling, there's no early release credits for that. That's not factored in. What your sentence is, is what you're staying for.

Just one quick question.

Would you be open to working with the opposition on refining this so that if there's rehabilitation activities occurring while they're in prison, that there would be some amount of ability to give credit for that as opposed to just good behavior credit?

Yes.

Absolutely. I think absolutely. It goes back to what we said with some of our team, that if the men and women that deal with this issue, like with these individuals. If they are okay with this, is a very different thing than work release credits. Or we're not teaching somebody how to run a lathe. That's very different. So, yes, to answer your question, I would be.

Okay. I'll have some questions at the end, too. But, Mr. Lackey.

Yeah. I just have just a couple of remarks or no real questions. The unique ugliness in this considered offense is a very uncomfortable conversation for all of us.

And I think what's inarguable is that these people need help, and they need it in a very desperate way, because if they reoffend, they're part of our population that's in jeopardy, is our most precious commodity, our children. And I don't think there's any argument about that.

But I think what is more likely to take place is any, if there's any hope for rehabilitation, it's more likely when they're isolated and they're not tempted with all these other circumstances that freedom affords. So I believe that this bill is focused on reality and benefit to not just the potential reoffence, but to the person who has this trouble.

And I think that it strikes the balance that society would want. And so it clearly has my support.

Do we have a motion?

Sure.

We have a motion. A second. Mr. Flora, I'm torn on this measure. I do think that credits are a good thing in our state prison system to help manage 95,000 inmates and have better behavior. And I know our prison guards have long talked about that.

And I also think I supported the measure 57 because I don't think it's good for politicians to be setting guidelines. It's too much of the emotion and having the professionals work on this. These are very serious offenses.

And I'm not a former law enforcement officer like our two colleagues over here and seen horrific stuff. I didn't go out with Assemblymember Nguyen with our sheriff and see some of these things firsthand. But I'm like, you a girl dad, and I think about our youth and our kids, and this just wears on me.

But I am going to support this. I do support it. And one thing I am interested in is the questions that Mr. Ting alluded to and then our colleague Mr. Zbur.

As far as working and looking at not just, I concur getting credits for mopping and not getting in fights, how does that make you a better person when you get out? But some of the specific stuff with mental health and these other issues, I think that's why we're having people in the first place, because eventually these people are eligible for release. Whether or not they get credits for other things or not, that's a good question.

But I will ask you to engage with us still on these issues as you move forward with that. I do support this measure. You have a motion and a second by Mr. Lackey. Mr. Alanis, you may close.

Honestly, thank you so much, chair, for your comments. I really do appreciate. And to the opposition, there's not a single person that has concerns about this bill. Your concerns are not rooted and you want bad things happening. And I understand this very much.

I also had the opportunity to go on the same sting with some of them with Nuguyen, and it was absolutely life changing. And when you see the images that we saw that day, I didn't sleep very well for a few weeks.

And the men and women that set on these task force to deal with this up and down the state, in my opinion, are some of the very unsung heroes in law enforcement. That is a very, very special person that can mentally deal with that.

And I think that that is something that we need to address. But I'm just going to cut my comments short. Chair, thank you. Thank you for your support.

Absolutely happy and look forward to working with the committee as this moves forward to address these issues. Because I do think there is a balance here. And if we truly care about our communities, keeping our communities safe, we need to protect our kids.

But we also need to make sure that the men and women, when we release them, that they are back in our communities, that they are safe as well. And I think that is ultimately all of our goal in this committee and certainly mine. And respectful ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. A motion. A second, please call the roll.

On AB 1898 by Assemblymember Flora. The motion is do passed to the Appropriations Committee.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. The measure passes. Next measure is summary Member Bauer-Kahan. Item 12, AB 2527.

Good morning. Chair left. Hi, how are you? Oh, my gosh. Hi. Do you want to sit here?

I think we need a motion a second. Right away.

I mean, I brought the cutest witness. There's no question about it.

Who moves the Bill?

She wanted to be here so bad. And I'm so sorry. She would not go with anybody.

She is so cute. Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And Members, I'm here to present AB 2527 which will support the physical and mental health of pregnant people who are incarcerated by ensuring that they have access to basic necessity and safe environments. A recent report from the ACLU on reproductive health in California's criminal justice system found that incarcerated people are not receiving adequate amounts of healthy food during their pregnancies.

The same report found that in some California jails, the water quality was so poor, it was often brown and people were unable to consume it. It is critical for both the development and health of the parent and child. They have access to nourishing food and clean water. These are basic necessities that incarcerated people must have when they are pregnant. AB 2527 will raise the nutrition standards for incarcerated pregnant people and ensure that they're provided with at least 120oz of clean water each day, seems basic

And the Bill also will prohibit the use of solitary confinement on pregnant people. It is important to note that the experience of solitary confinement can be extremely damaging and can cause acute stress, which is particularly dangerous during pregnancy. AB 2527 makes progress toward ensuring that all pregnant people are treated with dignity and receive the necessary prenatal care while in our carceral system. With me today in support of this is Stephanie Flores from the SE justice group and Paradise Oakley.

Thank you. You both have five minutes.

Good morning. My name is Stephanie Flores and Essie justice group leader. SE Justice Group is a national nonprofit organization that harnesses the collective power of women with incarcerated loved ones to end mass incarcerations to communities. So I'm here in strong support of AB 2527 because I know firsthand the importance of this Bill. I am a formerly incarcerated person, and I was pregnant at the time of my incarceration. I spent months at Elmwood Correctional Facility.

It was my first time being incarcerated and my first time being pregnant. I feared for my baby's health every single minute I was inside. The food was unhealthy. It was horrendous. Everybody knew not to eat the meat. The milk was spoiled. And every now and then, if I was lucky enough, I'd be able to secure an apple. I mostly lived off of peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, which met my Caloric needs, but definitely not my nutritional needs.

Trying to stay hydrated was nearly impossible, and all that was available was an overflowing water fountain with a rotten spout that had physical debris floating in it and a foul order that came from it. I would be so thirsty that after brushing my teeth, I would sip a sip of the sink water, just hoping it would alleviate my thirst. I knew that the water was not safe to drink, and I worried that it would make me or my baby sick.

My stress levels were through the roof the entire time. I feared so deeply for my unborn child's health and safety that I took a plea deal, knowing that I was innocent. These are the sacrifices we as parents make for our children. So shortly after I was released, I learned that I had developed Placenta Previa, which is a condition that causes your placenta to rip from your stomach lining, preventing the fetus from getting oxygen, and that causes heavy bleeding.

I also found out that I suffered from polyhydromnias, and at 36 weeks, I was rushed to the ER for an emergency C section. All complications likely caused by the extreme amount of stress and the unhealthy conditions that I endured while at Elmwood. Nobody should have to endure these type of preventable situations, especially people who have increased health vulnerabilities like a pregnancy. This Bill is about meeting the basic needs of people who are pregnant and helps ensure that children have a safer and healthier start to life.

I strongly ask for your support of AB 2527. Thank you so much.

Good morning, Chair and Members of the Committee, my name is Paradise Oakley. I'm an Essie Sister and a fellow with the Solis Policy Institute. I'm providing my testimony as an expert witness with a positionality as a black birth worker and community organizer. I'm speaking in favor of AB 2527 to ensure that incarcerated birthing individuals have their rights and freedoms protected in an environment where there's limited autonomy.

I've been a full spectrum birth worker since 2021, primarily focused on the birthing justice experience and its impact on black women. I've seen firsthand the impacts of having an advocate support your rights and freedoms make a huge difference in the birthing experience. It is crucial for birthing people to get adequate water for proper hydration and access to all food groups to support proper nourishment for health and safety for both humans. Inadequate access to these increase the risk of preterm birth, low birth rate and miscarriage.

It's also important to recognize that racially oppressed racial groups have higher rates of postpartum depression and stress due to the lack of care and support after the baby is born, making placement in solitary confinement especially harmful due to the long standing impacts on mental and physical well being. AB 2527 meets the intersections of harm that birthing people are facing inside while trying to bring their child earthside.

Outside of jails and prisons, women are experiencing a maternal care desert due to the lack of hospitals offering labor and delivery services. This Bill ensures that women inside get their basic human needs. In the prison policy initiative reports that the US is the first in incarcerated of women. In total of 191,000 women and girls are incarcerated in these facilities and half of them are incarcerated in local jails. Of that, 84,000 women incarcerated in local jails have not been convicted of a crime and are waiting trial.

Over 3000 women were pregnant when they went to prison and 68% of these women had no health care at the time and over half of them only received prenatal care in prison. I urge the community to vote in support of AB 2527 and thank you for listening to my testimony.

Thank you. Anyone else in support, please step up.

Margot George of the California Public Defenders Association in support. Thank you.

Danica Rodarmel on behalf of Initiate Justice in proud support.

Stephanie Estrada on behalf of California Latinas for Reproductive Justice in support, thank you.

Betty McKay Essie Justice Group strongly opposed.

You get a do over.

Okay, can we do like a rewind? Yeah, rewind, rewind. My true identity, Betty McKay Essie Justice Group, but I'm like 20,000% strongly for this.

Thanh Tran Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, strong support.

Ruth Salady, Essie Justice Group, strongly support.

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

Minerva Campos, Essie Justice Group in strong support.

Chris Lodgson, Anti-Recidivism Coalition, strong support.

Jack Castello, Member of the Anti-Recidivism Coalition, strong support.

Mark Sanders, Member of the Anti-Recidivism Coalition and Missing Our Mom in strong support.

Jeronimo Aguilar, here on behalf of Legal Services for Prisoners with Children in very strong support. Thank you.

Good morning. Henry Ortiz on behalf of Legal Services for Prisoners with Children and the Sacramento All of Us or None chapter, in strong support. Thank you.

Darcie Green, Essie Justice Group and Solís Policy Fellow, strong support.

Janet Hughes, Essie Justice Group and Solís Policy Institute, strongly support.

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

Linda Wanner, with the California Catholic Conference in strong support.

Olivia Christian, with Essie Justice Group in strong support.

Joanna McDonald, with Essie Justice Group strongly support. Alicia Benavides on behalf of Drug policy Alliance in strong support and as a mentor to the Police Policy Institute's team running this Bill.

Alicia Benavidez on behalf of Drug Policy Alliance in strong support and as a mentor to the Solís Policy Institute's team running this Bill.

Kobe Pissati with the California Psychiatric Technicians Association, in support.

Thank you. Anyone in opposition, please step up.

...

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. Although I'm not sure this was ever a fair fight, it certainly isn't now. I don't know how I can compete.

You thought the vote would work?

Respectfully here in opposition to AB 2527. Look, just to be clear, we're not opposed to ensuring that pregnant persons have water and nutrition. So let's just get that off our chests and out of the debate immediately. Our issue with those portions of the bill are more procedural.

Specifically that should be dealt with via regulation. Title 15 of the California Code of Regulations already requires pregnant people to be provided a balanced, nutritious diet approved by a doctor.

And provides they shall receive two extra eight ounce cartons of milk or a calcium supplement if lactose intolerant. Two extra servings of fresh fruit. Two extra servings of fresh vegetables daily. The regulation also allows a physician to order additional nutrients as necessary.

And that's just the highlight. I'm not saying right or wrong, but is there science on 120oz of water? The analysis points out 84 to 96oz of water is the recommendation of the medical group. Should we put in the statute 120oz?

Even if that's the science today, what's the science tomorrow? Is that really what we need to do here? So that's our issue with those portions of the bill. Again, more procedural.

More on the policy though we object to the blanket restriction on the use of solitary confinement or restrictive housing units for pregnant persons for the entirety of their pregnancy plus 12 weeks postpartum, or any number of situations where these types of housing assignments may be the most appropriate and safe for the person, other inmates, staff.

But this bill just says you can never use it if the person's pregnant or 12 weeks postpartum without regard to security, without regard to safety of the person who would be put in the restrictive housing unit.

Without regard to the facility overall, what's going on in that facility? Again, it's just a blanket ban without any discretion or flexibility whatsoever. So for those reasons, we are respectfully opposed to this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else in opposition, please step up. All right, we'll turn it to committee. Mrs. Nguyen.

Thank you. Mr. Chair. Thank you for bringing this bill forward. And thank you for testifying. I had no idea that was happening to pregnant women incarcerated. And there is absolutely no excuse for that. They deserve the best nutrition, the best water, all of that because they've got a person growing inside their belly.

If there's no funding for that, we're going to have to try to figure out how to make that work. I am 1000% supportive of that. My only concern is the solitary confinement.

I remember when I was pregnant twice. I wasn't fearful of myself, but the folks around me. And my understanding is that sometimes if you are in a position where it's a threat to your baby or yourself, that maybe being in solitary confinement is a good thing because you're protecting yourself from those around you and the baby as well, too.

And I wanted to know if maybe you can speak on that and why that's being taken away. So I see it completely different. I see it as it's an opportunity to keep you safe and the baby safe from those around you. But not sure if there's something else different that's in this bill.

Yeah. Thank you. And I appreciate you. As someone who's carried three children to term, 120oz of water isn't too much. As we know. It's really hard to keep yourself hydrated when you are feeding two people at once. So I think even if it's a little extra water, it's not a wasted expense.

So I think that the water and meal requirements, I hope that we're all in agreement on that, for sure. I also would say that, yes, this could have been done by regulation, and it wasn't. So here we are. But on the point on solitary confinement, and the analysis really does touch on this, but happy to share more information because we have it. There are incredible studies on the harm to pregnant people when they are in solitary confinement.

It is incredibly stressful to be isolated in that way. And you heard that the psychiatric technicians who work in our prisons were here today because they see it.

They see how harmful that is. And so for someone who is, and we know that cortisol levels and stress, and this was cited in the analysis, do affect the pregnancy, they do affect the growing fetus. And so it is really critical that we provide safe and healthy conditions and that solitary is inconsistent with that.

And I will say that we have not heard from anybody. And many pregnant people who have been incarcerated support this bill because they don't feel like they would have been safer in solitary confinement. But if someone felt that way, we would obviously be open to hearing that.

And the focus of this bill is absolutely ensuring what is safest for our pregnant incarcerated folks and for the growing child that will one day be with us.

Any further? No, Mr. Ting. No. Ms. Wilson.

Thank you to the author to bring this bill forward. When we think about the amount of resources that we have to give to children once they enter this world and to make up for the harms that could have happened to them while even they were being carried.

I think that's part of why this bill is extremely important, because there's already things stacked against a child that is born of someone who's incarcerated while in prison or even post being out.

And so to ensure that they have the healthiest of environments, even if their parent couldn't be in the healthy of environments, is extremely important. The only concern that I had when reading it, because I do understand solitary confinement and very much concerned about that, and have supporting other bills related to reducing that for all, is the restrictive housing in terms of being able to provide safety for someone.

I am not that familiar with restrictive housing units, but it does specifically call those out as distinct and separate from solitary. And so that might be something to consider going forward of is it the same, and should that be specifically included in there, but not familiar with it? So just as an FYI, but otherwise, I'd like to move the bill.

Thank you.

Thank you. Ms. Mose, did you want to answer any of those comments? Closing?

Yeah, perfect.

Anyone else? All right, I would like to bring out a few things. I'm very concerned with your stay that you had in the facilities, with talking about the water not being safe to drink. You were talking about the drinking fountain. Are you talking about that water was not safe at all?

Not at all.

And is that your personal beliefs, or was there, like, a study that was made that said, this water is not drinkable? Was it something they were handing out water bottles for?

Well, when I was there, it was a very strong feeling. And after you taste it, you just know. Not even after drinking it from the faucet, after brushing my teeth, I felt comfortable, but I felt like it's something I needed to do.

And when I started working on this bill, there has actually been so many studies that have came across that actually talk about how contaminated the water is and how many contaminants are actually found in the water supply.

There's actually a bill that had passed where there has to be. It's like a basic human right to have access to free, clean water for everybody in California. But that bill does not include any incarceration like facility. So that's something that worried me as well, after realizing how bad the water was inside. And I was like, okay, why hasn't there been anything done?

There is actually a lot of reports that I found about lawsuits coming from various parts of California where people are actually dying and people are having to file lawsuits against facilities because they're losing their lives to know, to having to drink this water that they're know. And it's actually really sad.

If I may. Mr. So I cited, the ACLU, did do a study that showed that there was water was not safe.

I'm assuming that water is not safe for the whole community because the same pipe that's going to the facility is the same one that's going to the community. There's no separate water supply going to.

No, but I believe there's also pipe issues within the institutions themselves, if I'm correct.

Okay. And then for the opposition, you were talking about the safety of the pregnant person, if you can elaborate on that a little bit.

Mr. Chair. Yeah, I mean, I think Assemblymember Wilson pointed out there's a distinction in the bill between solitary confinement and restrictive housing unit. And in either situation it may be the case, as you know, someone who's worked in a custodial environment, that there may need to be a placement of a person who is pregnant in an environment that is considered solitary confinement or that is considered a restrictive housing unit.

That may be for the safety of the pregnant person and it may be for the safety of someone else. Just because you're pregnant doesn't mean you can't have ill intentions and break the rules.

Again, I understand the assertions about the science and the impact of solitary confinement, especially on sort of the mental behavioral health status of someone who's pregnant. I'm not arguing that, just like I'm not arguing that 120oz is the wrong number. I'm saying putting in statute is the wrong approach.

What I'm saying on the solitary confinement or restrictive housing is you put in statute a blanket band. Never a person is pregnant once that pregnancy is detected, six weeks, eight weeks, 10 weeks, whatever, from that point until 12 weeks postpartum, you simply cannot put that person in a solitary confinement setting or restrictive housing setting, irrespective of anything else that may be going on in the facility or with that person or other incarcerated persons. That's our concern.

Thank you. Go ahead, Ms. Reyes.

Thank you. My apologies for arriving late. I think in general, the bill is very important to protect a pregnant woman. But I absolutely agree as I was reading it, my only concern was that if we have a complete ban, I would imagine there would be some circumstances that for the protection of that pregnant woman, there would have to be some way to get around a complete ban. And I would ask that that dialogue continue.

May I, Mr. Vice?

Thank you. Yes. No. And I hear what you're saying, and I absolutely am committed to that. And perhaps we could look at a way to partner with the psychiatric technicians in the facility or someone to make sure we're protecting the pregnant person in their whole capacity. So haven't had those conversations, but happy to have them going forward. Thank you.

Yes, please.

Thank you, Mr. Zbur.

I just want to ditto my colleagues' comments immediately.

Thanks. Thank you.

Any others? Okay, so I'll summarize everything up here. So obviously, I have the same concerns that the Sheriff's Association has as well, putting these restrictions on there. We imagine in our heads that a pregnant person is somebody who's clean, not off drugs, and is the storybook kind of pregnancy.

But that's not the case that I've seen. We're talking a pregnant woman that's in custody. That doesn't just happen to normal pregnancy or people in pregnancy.

So sometimes I know that sometimes further protection, that may need to happen as well. And then you also have gang issues. Maybe somebody's wanting to go after them because she's pregnant with somebody else's baby and they don't want that.

That's the reality of it. The other thing or the other issue I may have is with the water going back to the water, is there an enforcement? What if we can't prove the 120 or whatever was given to them?

Is that something that's factored in the bill as well? And these are just questions that you may have or may have to work on later. I'm thankful that you said you're going to be working with the opposition, and I look forward to seeing the further outcome on this. So with that, you may answer and you may close.

Thank you. Mr. Vice Chair. Yes, I think that we all share the same goal sitting here today, which is to ensure that pregnant people are protected. That they have the ability to control their own reproductive lives by giving their bodies the healthy nutrition that they need, by ensuring that they are healthy and safe and that we're not putting them in extreme isolation, which is, to be clear, a form of torture.

So I hear what the Committee Members are saying about ensuring that we're protecting people when needed. And I think that's critical because, again, I think we all share the same goal, which is to protect these people in all settings.

And so with that, I'm committed to making sure that we further refine the bill to ensure that it is as protective as possible so that we can all feel good about the work we're doing. And with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you and I need a second. Yeah, not that kind of second. Okay. We have a motion and a second. Go and take roll.

On AB 2527 by Assemblymember Bauer-Kahan. The motion is do passed to the Appropriations Committee.

[Roll Call]

Mr. Ting, you want to present for Assembly Member Rendon. Speaker emeritus, please begin.

Thank you. Happy to present AB 2546 on behalf of Speaker Emeritus Rendon. The Bill broadens the definition of military weapon to ensure long range acoustic devices are subject to California's public review and transparency protocol for acquiring military grade weapons.

The trademark term Lrad for a long range acoustic device is exclusively manufactured by the San Diego based Genesis, Inc. This means other manufacturers who produce similar technology under different names might circumvent the preapproval process required for law enforcement agencies to purchase such devices. AB 2546 aims to use generic terms instead, ensuring that all manufacturers of similar technologies undergo the local City Council on Board of Supervisors approval process for the acquisition and use of the weapon.

The process ensures a local community has the opportunity to weigh in on the local police acquiring these weapons and their use. Respectfully ask for. I vote on AB 2546. I also have Obed Franco with genetic corporation. Yes.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Committee Members. Thank you for the opportunity to testify to support AB 2546. Again, my name is Obed Franco with public policy advocates here on behalf of Genesis. We support AB 2546 and we just want to thank Speaker Emeritus Rendon, the author, for his leadership and appreciate the Committee's consideration of our support for this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Others in support. Any opposition, please come forward. Questions? Comments? We have a motion to second. Assembly member Nguyen. Assembly Member Wilson. Questions or comments from Committee Members?

I do, yeah. There's a portion of this Bill that I have deep concerns over and the definition of portable acoustic hailing devices. I do know that there are devices that are designed to be a form of a weapon, but there are also devices that may fall into this description that I have two in my hands here that are used to communicate. They're public address devices.

These happen to be two of those devices that may fall under that definition, and I don't think that that's the intent of the language. I would certainly hope not. But I would ask that that be looked at a little closer and tightened up so that communication devices would not be considered under this provision.

Seems reasonable. Obviously, I can't speak for the author, but that seems like a very reasonable request, which I'll communicate back to the.

Speaker emeritus, just to make it clear. That's why I'm not in a position to support it until that's clarified.

Okay, no more questions. We have a motion. A second, would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

On AB 2546 by Assembly Member Rendon. The motion is do pass. [Roll call].

Okay. Please call the roll.

The measure passes. We're going to go back now and do the consent calendar.

We have a motion and a second from Mr. Lackey and Ms. Reyes. The proposed consent calendar: AB 1959 Grayson, AB 2040 Waldron, AB 2120 Chen, AB 2307 Davies, AB 2321 Ortega, AB 2475 Haney, AB 2541 Bains and AB 2740 Waldron. We have a motion and a second. Please call the roll.

On the consent calendar. [Roll Call].

Consent calendar's adopted. We're going to go through and do any add-ons and lifting of calls and vote changes. Madam Secretary, please go through all the measures.

AB 1800, Item number 1, was pulled by the author. Item number 2, 1848 was pulled by Committee. Item number 3, AB 1898 by Assemblymember Flora. [Roll Call]. Item number 4, AB 1959, was on consent. Item number 5, AB 2040, was on consent. Item number 6, AB 2120, was on consent. Item number 7, AB 2307, was on consent. Item number 8, AB 2321, was on consent.

Item number 9, AB 2336, by Assemblymember Villapudua. [Roll Call]. That measure had previously passed. Item number 10, AB 2420. This measure was on call by Assemblymember Lowenthal. [Roll Call]. That measure passes. Item 11, AB 2475, was on consent. Item number 12, AB 2527 has been dispensed with. Item number 13, AB 2541, was on consent. Item 14, AB 2546 by Assemblymember Rendon. [Roll Call].

Item number 15, AB 2740, was on consent. Item number 16, AB 2766, by Assemblymember Low. [Roll Call].

I'll come back to you, Ms. Reyes [Roll Call]. On AB 2766, [Roll Call].

That concludes the hearing. We'll adjourn.