Assembly Standing Committee on Public Safety

Good morning. We will begin today's Public Safety Committee hearing. We don't have a quorum yet, so we'll start as a Subcommitee, call this meeting to order. We would like to begin with some housekeeping items. First we have the bills that are off calendar. Those are two bills pulled by the author, AB 2138 Ramos and AB 2209 Sanchez. Then we have the consent calendar, but we will wait, dispense with that once we have a quorum. Okay, we'll begin with the item.

We're going to begin first before the two authors here. I'm going to present our first bill because of a witness issue. So, Mr. Vice Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Start with item number 22, AB 2882.

Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. I'm presenting today AB 2882, the Community Corrections Accountability Act sponsored by the Steinberg Institute and Californians for Safety and Justice. And we have some witness issues, so thank you for allowing us to go first, Mr. Vice Chair. This bill is.

It enhances existing planning reporting processes for our county correction system, delivering a safer and better California for all. The share of those incarcerated in California's county jails with mental health has steadily increased in recent decades. Today, 53% of county inmates have mental health needs, up from approximately 20% 15 years ago. Local budgets have not adjusted to meet all of the needs with its new jail population. Research consistently demonstrates that addressing behavioral health needs need to be our justice involved population, expanded upon helping reduce recidivism.

And if local budgets don't reflect these growing health needs of behavioral health, we will not see improvement in recidivism and over-reliance on incarceration. With us today are two witnesses from the Steinberg Institute and the UC Berkeley School of Public Policy to talk about the overarching issues and the outline of this proposal before us today. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. You both have two minutes, or correction, five minutes. Thank you.

Good morning, Vice Chair and Committee Members. Tara Gamboa-Eastman with the Steinberg Institute, a proud co-sponsor of AB 2882. The goals of public safety realignment were clear: reduce recidivism and improve the cost effectiveness of the criminal justice system by investing in evidence-based programs such as mental health and substance use treatment. While the responsibilities for carrying out public safety realignment lie with the counties, the state also has an obligation to ensure that this historic policy is being carried out effectively.

Since realignment, the jail population has changed dramatically. As has been mentioned, the number of people in the county jail with behavioral health needs has more than doubled. Now, more than half of the county jail population has behavioral health needs. More than a decade after realignment, we are facing both a very different jail population and a very different behavioral health funding landscape with reforms such as CalAIM and most recently, Proposition One.

As a result, we have critical gaps in information, including how public safety realignment is being spent overall and what amount is going to behavioral health services, how these dollars are or could be braided with other funding sources, such as using it to draw down federal matching funds and ultimately in line with the original goals of public safety realignment.

How investing these dollars can help meet the behavioral health needs of the jail and probation populations in order to reduce recidivism. This bill fills those information gaps while preserving county Independence. AB 2882 brings more information to the table so that counties can best leverage their local resources to meet their local needs. It does not dictate how they spend their dollars. Importantly, AB 2882 also gives more information to the state to meet its obligation of understanding the effect of the reform it enacted.

With 1991 and 2011 realignment, the state shifted some of its roles and responsibilities to the counties, but it didn't abdicate its right or duty to monitor this reform over time. AB 2882 is similar, though less prescriptive than existing data collection and transparency systems for behavioral health and social services realignment. For example, the Child Welfare Indicators project that looks at the child welfare system. AB 2882 represents more information so that counties and the state can ensure they are meeting their shared goals under realignment. Respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you.

Hi everyone, my name is Mia Bird. I am an assistant research professor at the Goldman School of Public Policy at UC Berkeley. Before coming to Berkeley, I spent about seven years at the Public Policy Institute of California as a research fellow, and while I was at PPIC, I conducted a lot of research on the effects of criminal justice reforms on outcomes in California. Today, I want to talk to you about a couple of those studies.

So one of the public safety realignment studies I co-authored with Ryken Grattet looks at the relationship between how community corrections partnerships allocated their realignment funds and the recidivism outcomes they experienced in those counties. The study drew on those first year realignment plans that were submitted to the Board of State and Community Corrections, which included all the funding allocations breakdown. So a lot of really rich information, as well as the kinds of programs and services the counties plan to use use.

So we characterize counties using those plans as either reentry focused or law enforcement focused. And what we saw is that those counties characterized as reentry focused, allocated about two times the amount of funds or the share of their budget to programs and services. And what this did is give us an opportunity to assess kind of whether that had any difference, whether that made any difference in outcomes, how they allocated that money.

And what we found is that people who were released from post release community supervision, those PRCs folks, we were able to match those released after realignment to very similar people that were released prior to realignment. And then we were able to look at the recidivism outcomes following realignment and whether they were different in those reentry focused versus those law enforcement counties. And what we found is that they were, in fact, different.

We found that re-arrest and reconviction rates were about two percentage points lower for those individuals released to those reentry focused counties. So those counties that spent more on programs and services had lower rearrest and reconviction rates. And we did this adjusting for any different.

15 seconds.

Oh, wrap up. We did this adjusting for any differences in characteristics over time and across counties. So I'll just wrap up by saying that information on funding is really important to assessing how we can improve criminal justice outcomes. Looking at those allocations and learning from them over time is a really important component of how we make better evidence based practice.

Thank you. We're gonna pause for a minute. We're gonna take roll. We might have a quorum now.

[Roll Call] Quorum is present.

A quorum is present. We'll continue. Anyone in support, please come up. Name and organization, please.

Danica Rodarma on behalf of Initiate Justice and Smart Justice California in support.

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

Good morning. Dylan Elliott on behalf of the California State Association of Psychiatrists in support.

Good morning. Gia Chan with the California Consortium of Addiction Programs and Professionals in support. Thank you.

Anthony DiMartino on behalf of Californians for Safety and Justice, proud co-sponsor.

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

Trent Murphy with the California Association of Alcohol and Drug Program Executives in support.

Grecia, Reséndez, with the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice in strong support.

Esteban Nunez with the Anti Recidivism Coalition in strong support.

Good morning. Robert Bowden from LSPC. All of us are here in support.

Good morning. Thank you. Anyone else? Okay, opposition, please come up to the table. You have five minutes.

All right, well, thank you, Chair, Committee and staff. Ryan Morimune with the California State Association of Counties, also on behalf of the Urban Counties of California, Rural County Representatives of California, here in respectful opposition to AB 2882. Counties are keenly aware of the rising behavioral health needs within our communities, which includes the justice involved population, and have long advocated for additional and sustainable funding and resources to prevent individuals from coming in contact with the criminal justice system in the first place.

Unfortunately, we are in opposition to the approach AB 2882 is taking. For counties, this bill conflates the larger issue of behavioral treatment with a specific 2011 realignment population and the subsequent funding stream guaranteed to counties pursuant to AB 109. This measure appears to be targeted at behavioral health treatment needs as if it's the only and primary approach to alleviate all public safety issues, but again focuses on the reline population, which is only a subset of those in the delrical jurisdiction.

And then lastly, this bill doesn't acknowledge both the multiple sources of revenue that counties must braid to provide direct behavioral health services in and outside county facilities. Nor does it recognize major recent initiatives that are aimed at capturing much of this data and also aimed at the same intended goal. And so this includes implementation of CARE Act, CalAIM, Justice Involved Initiative, or most recently Proposition One, which are in their infancy, have not begun yet.

Ultimately, counties are struggling to keep up with all the mandates and any attempts to undo the structures guaranteed through 2011 realignment only makes it more difficult. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members. Corey Salzillo on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association. Without denying the role that behavioral health issues play and treatment play in realignment of the offenders we're talking about here, this bill alleviates these matters and the role of non governmental entities within the realignment construct and lessens the focus on key public safety duties like housing and supervision. Let's be very clear.

The original intent of realignment, as told to you by the people who are sitting up here, who negotiated and worked on and have lived under realignment for the better part of 13 years, was to shift responsibility for offenders from state systems to the counties and provide funding for those key tasks. And while this bill perhaps doesn't move funding directly, this clearly sets the stage to redirect money promised for custodial and supervisorial duties to other purposes.

The bill and the methods continue the state's long and frustrating tradition of saddling counties with former state responsibilities while trying to maintain strict control over how counties implement the systems for which the state has seen fit to relinquish liability. If we want to talk about alternatives or what we need to do in this space, then maybe we should talk about other alternatives. Maybe we should talk about sending some of these folks back to state care. The prisons are at historically low population rates.

We're not talking about that. I know this is one bill, but I think we ought to have a realistic reckoning of what's at bar here. As long as counties, though, are obligated to serve these populations, any effort to redirect funds or set the stage, therefore, to redirect control oversight, even for pursuits as worthy as improving behavioral health outcomes, ignores the original purpose of realignment and threatened public safety.

Good morning. Danielle Sanchez, on behalf of the Chief Probation Officers of California, respectful opposition today and appreciate the conversations with the Member thus far. The organizations represented here do so with our firsthand experience of having sat with the state in talking through what this massive realignment of this scope would look like and what those impacts would be for public safety and how we bring together the locally responsive resources needed to best serve that population.

The changes in the CCP membership proposed in this bill, coupled with the changes to the plans as well as the reporting requirements, does in fact represent a redirection of public safety planning and funding. The population in which the CCP developed plans for it requires locally responsive, multidimensional approaches that have to look at treatment and resources, as well as safety risk, criminogenic factors, and court orders to balance that accountability and rehabilitation.

All of these factors, in addition to behavioral health, impact our ability to supervise these populations safely and successfully. Repurposing this planning process will have the impact of subordinating public safety to one of only many of the realigned needs. The role of behavioral health is not lost in the focus in the justice involved populations we serve.

Those collaborative approaches already exist and are happening locally, but it's important to recognize that the behavioral health needs of the justice involved population is also not singularly contained in the CCP funding or planning. So we remain committed to developing local plans that address all of these multitude of safety, treatment, and rehabilitative needs. But we must not do so and must not erode one service delivery aspect to meet another. For those reasons, we urge your no vote today.

That was exactly five minutes. Thank you, guys. Anyone else in opposition, please come forward. Name and association. All right, seeing none, we'll bring it to the Committee. Any questions? Ms. Reyes.

It appears that the big issue is bringing in more people, specifically on mental health, and the opposition has to do with the redirecting of the funding to bring these people in. Is that my understanding?

Through the Chair, ma'am. The bill focuses on discussions about planning and who's on the CCP. The challenge is that it's hard to imagine there's any goal here other than what some of the proponents have written about in a recent report that says we need to put more money into behavioral health. So we're not, we don't disagree with the importance of behavioral health and treating such. The challenge is it's not a just as easy as saying we need to focus more on behavioral health.

The funding streams that have been wrapped up in this were carefully crafted over months, if not years. There is a very transparent local process, and this just sets the stage. And I hate to use, I would say this is not a slippery slope argument, but there's no other way this can go in our opinion.

Yeah, I think that the crux of it is just that, is this bill is really about reporting oversight, goal setting and planning, and the fear is what the next bill could be. But that's not the bill here today. That's the hypothetical down the road. We just want to make sure that we have an opportunity to take an eyes wide open look at what we're doing, what we're spending, and goals and outcomes, and then, you know, future legislatures can discuss whatever they want to do next. But it's one bill at a time.

Ms. Reyes, do you have any other?

Thank you.

Okay. Ms. Nguyen.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So just to clarify, both to the author and to the opposition, this is really just a report. There is in no way funding being taken away from public safety. It's more of just a report out to see where we can possibly make some changes, add to take away or whatnot. But no way taking money away from public safety.

Correct. If there ever are changes, it would come back in another bill, another state budget. You know, this is the first step to take an eyes wide open look at this system, what it's doing, what it's potentially lacking related to behavioral health, and move forward from there.

And through the Chair. I would I'll just say two things. One, the proponents are asking for more data, but they seem to think they already have a lot of data to make the case and they cited a bunch of statistics in their open. And two, I will just read you from the sponsor's report a recommendation mandating a percentage of public safety realignment funding be allocated to business behavioral health care.

In light of the growing behavioral health needs of California's incarcerated population, and to align with the original intent of the legislation, counties should increase funding for behavioral health. That's their report.

Sorry, one more question. So one of the areas where I kind of do take a bit of a pause is that I want to make sure individuals that are in the behavioral health world, because they're working with a different type of population, and that the training, the collaboration, the partnership would be there, from what I'm hearing, is that the proposed. Is that this would then go to other organizations to do the work, to do the mental health? Is that what I'm hearing? Because it's just based off of what he read.

Yeah. Thank you for the question. The opposition raised concerns about fundamentally changing the CCP makeup. It adds two roles to the kind of broader advisory body, which are the managed care plans that do enhanced care management under CalAIM, which provides services to people in the jail and probation population so that they can work with the public safety partners to make sure that they're leveraging available dollars, as well as CBOs who do these services for the same reason. The voting changes on the Committee are.

It only gives more of the same people who are already there votes. Right now, the Board of Supervisors can choose whether the Department of Social Services, mental Health or SCD can get a vote. This would just allow all three. They're already the existing partners, but the counties would maintain all of the discretion to craft their own financing plans.

They don't have to make any changes, but just report out on how they're spending their money and how they're reducing recidivism if their daily jail population is going down and what the connections to care are.

So it's not taking away work from our officers, it's not eliminating officers or taking away their jobs, their positions. It's more of a partnership and collaboration.

Yes.

The way I see it, added value added services, added resources.

Yeah. May I through the Chair? Yeah. Thank you. So while a certain percentage is not codified or guaranteed, I think we do need to pay attention to the clear composition changes and the chair. It ensures that a chair is also a community based representative, which, as its current law stands, is the chief probation officer, who is held accountable, who is held responsible by both our local county boards of supervisors and the public. So I would like to note that.

Yeah, I just would echo that statement. And I think the key pieces are the repurposing and reprioritization. So while the bill maybe does not directly say a certain number of dollars will move, it does change the makeup of the Committee and the voting members. It makes changes to what the goals of realignment are. So it shifts that from what was developed in 2011 and then it changes some of the reporting.

But I think those things kind of combined create the scenario that this does represent an actual reprioritization of what the original 2011 realignment was created for.

Okay. Any other questions from Committee? Okay, moving a second, Mr. Zbur. You may close.

Thank you. Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

All right, please take the roll.

AB 2882 by Assembly Member McCarty. The motion is do pass to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

That measure is on call. Needs one more vote. We'll let you know.

Okay. Miss Dix, Miss Dixon, leave. There she is. Miss Dixon. Item number three. AB 1896.

Good morning, chair and members. Thank you. I'm here today to present Assembly Bill 1896. AB 1896 will remove the requirement that a juvenile is triggering offense. Qualifying them to be committed to a secure youth treatment facility must be the most recent offense for which the juvenile has been adjudicated. I introduced this bill last year as AB 1582. The sponsor and I have worked diligently with stakeholders and Committee staff to address concerns. Judges should have the perspective of the individual's whole record, not just the last crime committed.

AB 1582 allows judges flexibility in their disposition to tailor the outcome to best fit the need of the juvenile to have the highest chance of being rehabilitated. We have made it a goal in California to reform the criminal justice system to focus on rehabilitation. However, this has not been true for juveniles. Judges should have perspective of the individual's whole record, not just the last crime committed.

In order to more fully consider the juveniles rehabilitation needs, AB 1582 is needed to get to the true intent of SB 823, which is fostering positive youth development, promoting public and community safety, and offering fair and flexible terms of commitment. Judges should have the perspective of the individual's whole record, not just the last crime committed. AB 1582 alleges judges flexibility of their disposition. Oh, I think that's the repeat.

So. Excuse me. My primary witness to speak in support of the bill is Joe Koller with the Orange County District Attorney, Attorney's Office. You may speak. Thank you.

Thank you, assemblywoman, and thank you, Committee. My name is Joe Kohler, and I am an Orange County deputy District Attorney. I've been a prosecutor for 13 years and specialized in juvenile law for over half of my career. On behalf of Orange County District Attorney Todd Spitzer, I ask you for your yes vote today. I first appeared before this committee in April of 2023, asking you to vote yes on AB 1582 to remove 875 a two from the welfare and Institutions code.

In that testimony, I highlighted how the existing welfare and institutions code has an irreconcilable conflict with the rehabilitation of youthful offenders, the meaningful adjudication of criminal conduct, victims rights, and the constitution of this state. At that time, the bill received two yes votes, with the balance abstaining. Following that hearing, I met with and engaged in comprehensive dialogue with those in opposition to the original bill. What is before this Committee today is a collaborative effort amongst juvenile justice stakeholders.

AB 1896 no longer seeks to remove 875 a two from the welfare and Institutions code. Rather, it attempts to expand the code related to youthful offenders commitment criteria and eligibility. Doing so preserves the procedural safeguards coveted by the original bill's opponents, but it also allows for the meaningful adjudication of criminal conduct which comports with prosecutors ethical obligations and the Constitution of this great state.

The addition of 875 sub b, sub three to the Welfare Institutions Code reconciles the roadblock of 875 a two by codifying that subsequent adjudications of youthful offenders will not interfere with their current SYTF commitment. It reinforces existing law related to a minor's baseline period of commitment and local rule of court 5.806 and of great importance to prosecutors, victims and community members writ large. It allows for the meaningful resolution of subsequently adjudicated petitions.

A failure to take this action will have the unintended consequences, in my opinion, of negatively impacting California's youth. It will promote net widening and juvenile transfer motions. It will prevent the meaningful and successful rehabilitation efforts in our juvenile justice system and will negatively impact the victims of crime. Current law is intended to prevent commitments to secure youth treatment facilities on stale or previous juvenile adjudications, but it should not be utilized as a function to turn a blind eye to criminal conduct which has lasting impacts.

Existing law interferes with the adjudication of unsolved crimes and does not allow for the resolution of criminal conduct committed while a youth is at a secure youth treatment facility. Under the existing law, should prosecutors elect to file and adjudicate new petitions following a youth's commitment to an SYTF that minors potentially no longer eligible for continued commitment to the only facility a court has deemed appropriate for that youth and their rehabilitation.

Those in opposition to this bill have stated that they are unaware of a juvenile being expelled from SYTF on the basis of new petitions, but I can assure you it has happened across the state and goes into the calculus of every prosecutor's filing decision. Those in opposition to this bill have stated prosecutors should simply dismiss cases in order to preserve a youth's commitment to SYTF. I have had to do that as well, but where's the justice for the communities that you all serve in that result?

The cases that I'm referring to are not limited to low level misdemeanor behaviors or institutional rules violations. They can include, but are not limited to, residential burglaries, grand thefts, possession of firearms, sexual battery, domestic violence, child abuse, sales of narcotics, and assault with deadly weapons. The resolution of these cases and victims rights should not be weighed against where a youthful offender is being rehabilitated.

I do not believe that we should operate a juvenile justice system where the meaningful rehabilitation of a youth cannot be reconciled with the preservation of victims rights. If approved, AB 1896 would further the goals of the juvenile justice rehabilitation system. By maintaining a youth's continuity of services, it will reduce net widening and preserve the rights of victims of crime. Importantly, the significant amendments 21582 presented in 1896, articulate that youths will not see their baseline period of commitments increased.

It will not increase the number of youth committed to SYTF, and it will not promote net widening. For these reasons, I respectfully ask you for your yes vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else in support, please step up. Name and association.

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

All right, anyone else? Okay. Anyone in opposition, please come up to the table. I don't know if I have enough chairs for that and you're all going to have to share five minutes.

Do we have four minutes or five minutes?

You have five minutes.

Okay, thank you.

Go ahead. Thank you.

Good morning. I'm Grecia Resendez with the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, CJCJ, here in opposition of AB 1896, this bill will undo sound precedent that disallows new charges to be filed for minor 707 B offenses. For minor non 707 B offenses, it will entrench youth deeper in the justice system, contradicting juvenile realignment. It punishes youth for responding to confinement in traumatic living conditions. CJCJ has investigated these inhumane conditions at a national, state, and county level.

We help organize statewide networks to address our serious concerns about safety in SYTFs and juvenile halls. Our youth justice system is deeply shifting from decades reliance on DJ Jane to a county based commitments in SYTF. These facilities are meant to be trauma informed and rehabilitative. Instead, we are seeing problems given this rapid shift, and every county that created an SYTF placed them in their juvenile halls, which are prison like and are not meant for long term commitments.

SYTF should be providing intensive programs and services, but they are not. They have simply become a place where youth are doing time and many facilities are experiencing staff call outs and vacancies, and youth pay the price by suffering long periods of isolation. This background is relevant as one of our primary concerns of AB 1896 is that it provides the prosecution and ability to file charges for behaviors in the halls that are often closely linked to sides, to closely linked to life. Inside these facilities.

Youth will be punished for responding to inhumane living conditions, and now more than ever, youth need those safeguards in place. As Los Angeles juvenile halls make the news for horrendous living conditions. I am here to let you know that they are not unique. I am in constant communication with partners across the state, and we are deeply concerned about the conditions inside all SYTF facilities, and for that, CJCJ is in strong opposition. Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Alejandra Gutierrez. I'm a policy attorney with the National Center for Youth Law, and I'm here testifying today in strong opposition to AB 1896. AB 1896 will cause harm to youth and secure youth treatment facilities, also known as SYTFs, by encouraging prosecutors to file charges against youth for in custody behaviors.

When the Legislature passed SB 92 in 2021, it expressed a clear preference in welfare and Institutions Code section 875 e two that in custody behaviors and infractions that do not rise to the level of 707 B offenses shall be addressed by alternative means. The Legislator made clear that they should be resolved through probation's internal disciplinary processes and by a judge through the statutory six month court review process.

AB 1896 would be a giant step backward because it would authorize prosecutors to file charges based on low level behaviors. This was not permitted when the division of juvenile justice was open, and it should not be permitted now. The Legislator got it right in 2021. low level behaviors should be addressed in restorative ways that advances a youth's rehabilitation.

Recent amendments state that prior to filing a criminal charge based on in custody conduct, the prosecution may consider the extent to which the conduct is a manifestation of the needs for which the youth is an SYTF and the extent to which the conduct is related to the nature of the in custody environment. Consideration of these factors by prosecutors should be mandatory, especially when the in custody environments frequently are not healthy, safe, or conducive to true rehabilitation.

The legislative intent of realignment can only be preserved if prosecutors are required to consider these factors. We stand with other advocates who are opposed to changing the longstanding rule that disallows further prosecution of youth for minor behaviors while in secure youth treatment facilities. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else in opposition, please step up. Name and organization. Mr Lackey, you move the bill. Motion to move the bill. Copy. Move the bill. You can go and come up. Noted. I'll second that.

Robert Bowden, on behalf of LSPC. All of Us or None. Strongly opposition.

Amelia Rogers, Ella Baker Center for Human Rights. Strong opposition.

Danica Rodarmel, on behalf of Initiate Justice and La Defensa, in opposition.

Felipe Kelly with the Ella Baker Center, in strong opposition.

Ana Ramirez on behalf of Silicon Valley De-Bug. Also in strong opposition.

Cortese with Silicon Valley De-Bugs, strong opposition.

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

Sarayes Corsa with Silicon Valley De-Bug and San Mateo County Participatory Defense, in strong opposition.

Romaine Hunter, Silicon Valley De-Bug in strong opposition.

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

Melissa with Silicon Valley De-Bug and California Families Against Solitary Confinement, in strong opposition.

My name is Kerry Arzate. I'm system impacted and I'm a director with Prison from the Inside Out, and I strongly oppose this bill. Thank you so much.

Good morning. Alicia Montero, California United for Responsible Budget, in strong opposition.

Raymond Goins with Silicon Valley De-Bug, System impacted, now strong opposition.

Laurie Valdez with Silicon Valley De-Bug, strong opposition.

Alicia Chavez with Silicon Valley De-Bug and we oppose this bill.

Raj Jayadev with Silicon Valley De-Bug, strong opposition of this bill.

Sharon Watkins from Silicon Valley D-Bug, strong opposition.

Charice Domingo with Silicon Valley De-Bug and The California Participatory Defense Network, in strong opposition of this bill.

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

Lena Dinh, LSPC, in strong position of this bill.

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

Thank you. Any others outside waiting for opposition? Good. Thank you. Committee, questions? Mr Zbur.

So thank you for coming today. I'm sort of perplexed by what is driving the need for this bill. You know, I think you said that you have taken amendments that result in no increase in the period of confinement. The purpose of the confinement is about rehabilitation. The current system already has goals and procedures in place to review behavior and deal with it in the facility. These are less minor conduct than what they were confined to the facility for. So what's the whole point of this?

Is it just to continue to have proceedings against these youth in the facility? I don't understand what's driving this.

Let me refer to my witness. Go ahead, sir.

Thank you Assemblywoman. In addressing that issue, I would like to highlight that subsequent adjudications are not reserved for low level or institutional violations. Opposition made a comment that under 875 sub f it was for behavioral violations and non 707 B offenses. That is not what the code says. It says for behavioral issues and institutional violations. It is silent as to new substantive law violations. I think there's a lot of dialogue between prosecutors and defense attorneys as to what that specifically means.

The code was very silent to that and has left it open to interpretation. That being said, the goal of the juvenile justice realignment was to foster positive youth development and have trauma informed care for those youths. So what's driving this right now is that under the existing law, should a youth have a case that is not resolved prior to their commitment to a secure youth treatment facility, our only remedy to maintain their continuity of care as a prosecutor is to not adjudicate that case.

And by not adjudicate, I mean dismiss righteous violations of the law to preserve their commitment to SYTF. So, frankly, a prosecutor is making a decision of public safety, victims rights, and rehabilitation when they are deciding to file a charge or adjudicate it once that youth has been committed to the secure youth treatment facility.

So the purpose of this bill, and I apologize, it is technical, for those who aren't in this practice area, is to reconcile the fact that youth who are committed to a secure youth treatment facility were sent there for a very specific reason, because it was the only place where they could be committed and receive the intended rehabilitative services designed by the court. Now, what this bill does not do is increase the length of time they're committed to an S YTF.

In fact, it codifies that their baseline cannot be increased based off of subsequent adjudications. So they will not be doing extra time as a result of this. So, respectfully, it informs the court of a clear sight picture of this youth's conduct, and that can materially impact their individual rehabilitation plan and get them before the court sooner than once every six months as codified under 875.

Yeah, but it's a whole procedure that you're sort of interrupting there. I mean, I just don't understand what the goal of all of this is. They're already in the most rigorous program. They're already in a program that's focused on rehabilitation, that's being reviewed every six months. What is the point of it to just really, is it just retribution to have another proceeding since you can extend the period of time under your law? I just don't understand what the point of this. I mean, these are youth.

They're youth that are in a rehabilitation program that actually has periodic reviews of what's happening within the program. The point I thought of the program was, according to what I read, was that you're giving the facility, and I recognize that these facilities are not anything close to perfect or close to meeting the objectives. But the point is, I thought you're supposed to be giving the facility the period of time necessary to try to rehabilitate these youth.

And then you have another proceeding that is injected in the middle of this period where the result is keeping them in the same facility and not extending the term. So I just, it just seems like a pointless. A pointless exercise to me. I guess the other thing is, it looks like there's clearly provisions in the law to deal with what the condition is of that youth at the end of the confinement period.

So I guess one last question is, I understand there were a number of amendments that the committee staff asked you to consider, and I was wondering, like, why those were not considered and those were rejected.

Absolutely. To get back to one question that you followed up on with respect to what's the point? Victims of crimes should not be told that their case should be dismissed to preserve the commitment of a youth to a secure youth treatment facility. I've had to have conversations with the victims of crime and tell them that if we adjudicate this case that materially impacted your family, this youth could be expelled from a secure youth treatment facility. And that is a public safety concern.

The goals of juvenile justice are threefold, and they are fundamentally different than that of Superior Court adult prosecutions. Everyone who engages in juvenile justice is imbued with a responsibility under 202 of the Welfare Institutions Code to look at public safety, as well as the successful rehabilitation of the youth and finding terms and conditions which will facilitate that. Now, prosecutors and defense attorneys disagree over what is in the best interest of the youth, but that's the goal.

And so I think that this bill reconciles victims rights, which is a cornerstone of the constitution of the State of California, with the due process rights of a minor offender.

Yeah, I asked what the amendments were suggested and what those were and why they were rejected.

My apologies. With respect to the amendment. With respect to the amendments suggested by the Committee, I would like to highlight that the second iteration of this bill was round-tabled with a primary opposition group, and we came to consensus on some very clear language that preserved the intent of 1582, but also provided some exhortative language for prosecutors when deciding whether or not to file subsequent charges based off of in custody conduct. And it was carefully crafted with respect to the words used.

And when those amendments were offered to my office and Assemblywoman Dixon, we recognize that we were no longer able to reconcile our position with those in opposition to the bill based off of those recommendations.

What were they?

Specifically, there was a context of the word should, admonishing prosecutors to make certain considerations with respect to filing subsequent adjudications, and the committee asked that that be changed to May.

We conceded that term, but there was also a request that any subsequent adjudication within this subdivision not be utilized in any purpose moving forward. And that is something that I think conflicts with prosecutors discovery obligations, specifically moral turpitude issues on future cases, and something that we could not agree to.

Yes. Do we have a motion, Miss Reyes?

The questions by my colleague are very important questions. I noted in the author's statement that the purpose of your bill was to comport to the overall SBA 23, which set up the. The funding for this, and set up the s ytfs of fostering positive youth development, promoting public and community safety, and offering fair and flexible terms of commitment. The juvenile justice realignment in California that was long fought. We knew there was something wrong. We couldn't continue the way we were going.

And it wasn't until, as you said, 823, that we finally aligned the rehabilitation mission of the state's juvenile justice system with trauma informed and developmentally appropriate services supported by programs overseen by the state's Health and Human Services Agency. So this was a long process to finally get us to where we are. An imperfect system, but got us to where we are. It seems that what we're trying to.

If we're saying there's not going to be an increase in whatever sentence is given, then I go back to the questions of my colleague as to why. Why is this being introduced? Initially, I thought, because you're right. Not all of us are in this system. We don't understand criminal justice or the criminal justice, the penal code or. This is something new to many of us, so it requires more studying on our part. My question then, for me was, well, what happens if that juvenile.

If there is a disciplinary issue while they're there, if a crime is committed? Well, within the very terms it says, for disciplinary infractions or other in custody behaviors, any infraction or behavior shall be addressed by alternative means, which may include systems, a system of graduated sanctions for disciplinary infractions adopted by the operator of a secure youth treatment facility and subject to any relevant state standards or regulations that apply to juvenile facilities generally.

So if there is an issue, it's dealt with there, and it's already in the code. So we're trying to take it out of the operator's purview, and we're saying now we want to be able to file additional cases against these juveniles. I know that there was an attempt to answer as to why we need this particular bill, why we're trying to open this up, and I've got to tell you that I still do not understand. I know that one of the initial comments was.

And you talked about it also that there was a meeting with opposition. You've talked about collaborative effort with all the opposition. I don't know who the collaboration was with. To be able to come to this, to the language of this bill. The purpose of the bill is still, in my eyes, is still unknown. I don't know. You talked about the victims, and certainly we want to be sure that we protect our victims and there are lots of things that we do.

There are lots of cases that are dismissed anyway by our Das for whatever reason. This is a decision that is made based on a system that we have. So I'm going to ask the question again that my colleague has asked is, what is the purpose this bill? What is it that of you intend to make? What is it that our juvenile justice system needs? How is it going to improve by passing this bill or a bill like it?

Certainly. And I'm going to go back to first and foremost the victims rights. And when prosecutors are adjudicating cases, electing to file them and resolve them, we need to all be mindful of victims rights. It is codified in our constitution and dismissing them is not an appropriate solution. So what I'm attempting to do.

Can I stop you for a moment?

You say it's not an appropriate solution, but it is one of the solutions and that you as a prosecutor will make on any number of cases. Is that not true?

Yes.

That is incredibly vague, because every case is different. And we have to look at every case individually from ability to prove the charge and what the judicial and righteous result is for all parties with respect to what this bill is going to accomplish, functionally, it will get the.

I'll stop you for a moment. When you're making that decision based upon what you're going to accomplish, if you know that by filing those charges that nothing different is going to happen, and in fact, you may, your actions may take that juvenile to a different facility or something that is different, then that is a decision, an informed decision you make, and then you notify the victim. This is what the problem is.

These are the factors that we're considering in making our decision, and this is a decision we're making.

Absolutely and very well said. Additional things it is attempting to accomplish. If a minor has a previous case, let's say, for sexual battery or spousal abuse or partner abuse, and that case is unadjudicated prior to their commitment to a secure youth treatment facility, there is certain types of treatment programs available to that youth that a court should be able to impose upon them for their meaningful rehabilitation.

But without that adjudication, I can assure you that a defense attorney worth their assault will object and oppose any terms and conditions related to sexual behavioral therapy, or batterer's treatment programming, or substance abuse, unless they're adjudicated. And I faced that argument day in and day out in my practice, and I think this is going to be able to inform the court of the clear scope of conduct available to them.

Additionally, if cases are unable to be adjudicated, I am confident that we will see an increased effort in youth being transferred, or attempting to be transferred to Superior Court, for I would say, the less severe 707 B cases.

Thank you. Assemblymember.

The decision to if you have two potential cases, one is a 707 B, and another is something else, then the prosecutor is going to make a decision on which one to prosecute based upon existing law. Is that not right?

That is correct.

All right. Thank you.

Thank you for your questioning. We have a motion and a second. You may close.

Thank you chair. And thank you members. I respectfully ask for your aye vote it is a technical bill. A technical matter to make sure that the juvenile incarcerated individual is given the proper rehabilitation program meriting on the cases that he was adjudicated on. So thank you very much.

Thank you. I missed most of the testimony, but we did offer some amendments to you. They were not accepted. Therefore, I would be voting. I'll be recommending a no vote on this. Please call the roll.

On AB 1896 by Assemblymember. Dixon. The motion is due pass. [Roll Call]

Okay. That measure fails. Thank you. Next author. Mr Berman.

Ms Dixon. You want to. You want a recommendation or a reconsideration? Ms Dixon, would you like a reconsideration?

Yes or no? Would you like reconsideration?

Yes, I would appreciate that. Thank you.

Roll call on that request.

On reconsideration of AB 1896. [Roll Call]

Mr Berman, thank you for your patience. That motion fails for reconsideration. Thank you for your patience. Mr Berman, you may proceed.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and colleagues. It's been a pleasure and an honor spending quality time with you here. I'd like to start by thanking the Committee Consultant for their work on the bill, and I am happy to accept the amendments outlined on pages four and five of the analysis. As amended, AB 2176 prohibits juveniles who are detained in juvenile hall from being denied access to an equitable education.

The bill aims to ensure incarcerated youth are not excluded from school because of punishments or policies imposed by officers at the jail and thus denied their constitutional right. Chronic absenteeism significantly hinders student achievement. A study from the University of Chicago found that each week of absences per semester in ninth grade is connected to a more than 20 percent point decline in the probability of graduating from high school.

Court schools run by county offices of education have raised concerns about high chronic absenteeism caused by interventions and punishments imposed by peace or probation officers at the jail. For example, last year, Attorney General Bonta found that Los Angeles County juvenile halls routinely failed to transport youth to school. Likewise, in 2021, then Attorney General Becerra found numerous inappropriate policy decisions and delays kept students out of school.

Research shows that denying access to education increases recidivism and violence in juvenile halls, and it impedes youth's successful transition back into the community. There's a growing consensus in California that educational health is social health. Accordingly, we must do more to strengthen the rights of incarcerated children to access an equitable education with their peers.

The amendments that I accepted, as outlined in the analysis, removes a significant provision from the bill to address opposition Youth Law Center's concerns, and I'm committed to continuing conversations with all stakeholders to further address any concerns that have come up in the last 24 hours. I appreciate all of the stakeholders who have engaged with my office and look forward to continuing to work on the policy.

With me today is Dr. Mary Ann Dewan, Santa Clara County Superintendent of Schools, and Megan Baier, Legislative Advocate for the Association of California School Administrators. Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. You have five minutes for your witnesses combined. Please begin.

Great.

A motion; a second. Please.

Thank you, Chair and Members of the Committee for allowing me to speak today. I'm Dr. Mary Ann Dewan, Santa Clara County Superintendent of Schools. We are pleased to co-sponsor Assembly Bill 2176 in partnership with the California County Superintendents and deeply appreciate Assembly Member Berman's commitment to protecting incarcerated students' rights to an equitable education. Unfortunately, too many youth in court schools throughout the state are denied this right. More than a dozen court schools in California have chronic absenteeism rates higher than 25 percent.

In one county, the chronic absenteeism rate was 88 percent, which means that 88 percent of students were absent more than ten percent of their school year. Education is a constitutional right in California. However, multiple investigations and lawsuits clearly demonstrate that youth are being denied access as a disciplinary tool by some probation departments, often for minor infractions or to punish entire cell blocks when a single youth has misbehaved. Education is critical to the rehabilitation, well-being, and reintegration of incarcerated individuals, especially youth.

Research shows that denying access to education increases recidivism, violence, and suicidal ideation among incarcerated youth. Assembly Bill 2176 would ensure that educational access is prioritized in juvenile detention facilities and that there are meaningful avenues for youth and oversight agencies to seek relief when rights for education are denied.

My gratitude to this Committee, the advocates, the juvenile justice lawyers, and equity groups who have offered amendments to help ensure that it achieves our goal of guaranteeing access to education for youth who are incarcerated. I urge you to join the Santa Clara County Office of Education and our allies in supporting AB 2176, and I ask for your aye vote.

Hello, Committee and Members. Megan Baier with the Association of California School Administrators representing our 17,000 members. I won't repeat the sentiments of the Assembly Member and the Superintendent, but, you know, a point that I'd like to raise is that education is compulsory in California and it actually is a crime for parents if they don't make sure that their students get to school.

So, you know, with that same sentiment, we think it's incredibly important to make sure that students who are incarcerated are fully present and able to go to school as often as possible. They need their education to successfully return home. And with that, we'd ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Any others in support, please line up and state your organization and position only.

Simelia Rogers, Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, in support.

Philippe Kelly with the Ella Baker Center, in full support.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Derick Lennox, on behalf of the 58 County Superintendents of Schools, proud to support.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Sam Nasher, on behalf of the of Los Angeles County Office of Education, in support. Thank you.

Robert Brown, LSPC, All of Us or None, in support.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Erin Niemela, on behalf of the Court Appointed Special Advocates, also in support. Thank you.

Raymond Goins, and I support education over all incarceration every day.

Tremaine Hunter. I support.

Thank you. Do we have opposition?

I'm sorry. Margo George, on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association. We want to thank the author for working with us, and we're reviewing the amendments. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair Members. Similarly, not in opposition, but somewhat in between. Danielle Sanchez with the Chief Probation Officers, we don't have a position, are engaged with the author on this. Obviously, educational supports for youth in our facilities is incredibly important, and there's a whole host of considerations around this. So we look forward to reviewing the amendments and working closely to make sure that youth can stay meaningfully engaged in their educational pursuits. Thank you.

Opposition? Yes, please proceed.

Good morning, everyone. My name is Christopher Middleton. I'm a Staff Attorney at the Youth Law center. We want to start off by thanking the Assembly Member for adopting our amendment and averting the harm that potentially would have happened with the prior hearing language. I thought it would be first off to start where we agree, and we agree that equitable education for young people who are in juvenile court schools is a priority.

However, I think the current language in the bill falls short of actually fulfilling that priority. First, the WIC 8509 A provision includes the immediate threat language that's utilized in title 15, section 1370 that governs the minimum standards of juvenile court school or juvenile facilities in general. And specifically, that is language that we are attempting to address as part of the of BSCC revision process because of how vague it is in determining a scope and limitation on how long that immediate threat can last.

Encoding that language here as a bill potentially makes that process harder. With WIC 8509 B, the use of packets appears to be codified here, and we just want to highlight that while it is a reality that in court schools the use of packets is a practice, we don't want it to be flagged as a best practice.

It's been the subject of numerous litigation, including by the federal DOJ and their statement of interest in Charles F. who specifically highlight the problems that packets pose as a replacement for education, specifically with young people who are entitled to special education. And we know from our report that there are a disproportionate number of young people who are entitled to special education in court schools, and we don't feel like it's appropriate to identify packets as an appropriate tool and resource to utilize in court school facilities.

We also just want to highlight that another issue around disability law that needs to be addressed in this bill, if it is to go forward, is in WIC 8509 D. The definition of juvenile isn't broad enough to reflect the fact that youth who are entitled to special education in California are entitled to receive education until their 22nd birthday unless they receive a diploma.

And so the cutoff age of 18 just doesn't fully encompass the number of young people who are actually inside the facilities, which becomes increasingly more common now that we've closed DJJ and there are potentially older youth who are still receiving a high school education who are receiving special education services. And for these reasons, we are not able to support the bill as it stands in its current form. But we want to thank the Assembly Member for putting forward this bill and addressing this issue.

We know from doing our research that there is a number of complicated factors and systems that ensure whether or not young people are able to attend school. I think at the end of the day, we all agree that access to equitable education has to be a priority. We feel like the current language doesn't accomplish that goal, but we look forward to the day that we have that language in front of us and we're able to support it.

But today isn't that day and so we must respectfully oppose.

Thank you. Do we have others in opposition? Please come forward and state your organization and position.

Hi there. Rachel Bogwat, ACLU California Action. We're not in opposition, but we are registering concerns about the bill as in print. We've worked with a coalition of juvenile justice advocates, including folks who represent directly and young people in the system. We have been working with the author's office to share those concerns and appreciate, really appreciate, you putting it forward at such an important issue. Just request that the author's office continue to work in good faith with advocates to continue to amend and improve this bill.

Thank you.

Thank you. Questions or comments from Committee Members? Yes, Miss Rayes and Mister Lackey.

I've already moved the bill, but the comments made by the opposition are very important comments. And I know that the author will continue, continue to have those discussions.

Yeah, thank you. I just have a very simple question. We heard some discussion about allowances, but would disease or illness qualify as an immediate threat?

I would think so, yes.

Okay. Thank you.

If it's a severe disease that is actually like COVID was.

Like COVID was.

Like COVID was.

Thank you.

Or might still be.

Might still be is correct. Thank you.

Thank you, Vice Chair Alanis.

Thank you, Mister Chair. For the opposition, you brought up a special education. Do we have numbers on that? Of people, those who are incarcerated?

I could get the percentages for you. I actually, our organization worked on a report. I don't have it in front of me right now, but I know that while there's been a decrease in the overall number of young people, we didn't see a proportional decrease in the number of young people who are identified as students with disabilities. And so we know that there's an over representation at the national level.

The data that we found confirmed that there was an overrepresentation in California schools. But I don't have the raw numbers for the schools in front of me, but I could pull it up.

Okay. I'm just curious for the author's sake and stuff that was brought up. I know we're talking about just California here, but I don't know if the Ma'am, Doctor, if you would like to comment on that.

Yeah, just generally in California, we see about 10 to 15% of students enrolled in the schools across the State of California that are identified as having a disability and have an IEP. I would add that it's important to note that the needs are also on a full continuum and that a very small number of students would actually be eligible for services through age 22.

Thank you. And I'll be supporting this.

Thank you. I also think it's important to note that when the opposition started to speak, they thanked you for taking their amendment. So that shows your goodwill and continued effort to work on this. We have a motion to second. I'll be supporting this. No further questions.

Please call the roll.

On AB 2176 by Assembly Member Berman, the motion is do pass as amended to the Appropriations Committee. Mccarty?

Aye.

McCarty, aye. Alanis?

Aye.

Alanis, aye. Lackey?

Aye.

Lackey, aye. Nguyen? Reyes? Ting?

Aye.

Ting, aye. Wilson? Zbur?

Aye.

Zbur, aye.

Thank you, colleagues. That measure passes. Thank you. Next author, Mister Ta, along with Mister Alanis. This is for the swatting one.

Yes, sir.

Please begin, thank you. Item number 13.

Good morning. 10 Members of the Committee. I'm here to present AB 2609, a measure to protect innocent victims from the increasingly prevalent act of swatting. I want to begin by thanking Vice Chair Alanis for ordering this Bill which will be reflected in the amendment. Swatting is the act of making a forced claim of assisted emergency in order to have police officers and other emergency responders pass and respond.

It often involves claims of extreme personal harm or duress, such as an active shooter in an effort to have police, special weapon and tactics SWAT team and other law enforcement personnel sent to a location. This is where the term gets its name. When law enforcement respond to a report potential threat, it often involves the redistribution of public resources. Unaware of what this report was for law enforcement may break down doors and enter a building.

Often private residents with weapons draw. This poses a serious threat to the safety of the innocent victim of the false report. These responses to false reports also takes critical resources away from real emergencies where lives are actually at stake. We have witnessed and increase in swatting in recent months, including an instance where it has been used as a political tool to attack candidates and public officials. Earlier this year, our own California lieutenant Governor was swatted.

This inspired me to order AB 2609 to address the issue of swatting by ensuring that the penalties are appropriate. AB 2609 would address the widespread swatting issue by granting prosecutor the provocative to prosecute swatting offenders as misdemeanor or felonies based upon the individual circumstance of the case. AB 2609 will allow discretion in sentences based on the seriousness of the fact regarding a swatting event.

Furthermore, AB 2609 will ensure that the victim also compensates for any costs incurred, such as the destruction of the front door and property due to the law enforcement responding to the alleged threat. Any person, including public servants, can easily be the target of swatting, regardless of position or party. This crime wastes public resources, leads to unnecessary damage and puts innocent people directly in harm's way. Any one of us or our families could be the next target of swatting.

Swatting is used to not only harass or hurt others, but also as a weapon against politicians and their families. Swatting is not only a threat to public safety, but is being used to attack our democracy. I'm honored to introduce my Assemblyman Juan Alanis, Cindy De Silva with California District Attorney Association and Ryan Sherman from Riverside Sheriff Department.

Thank you. Good morning Mister chair and Mister Vice Chair. I'm honored to be here to speak in support of Assemblymember Ta's measure and thank him for bringing this to our attention. I understand there's policy differences on whether or not things should be charged as felonies, but sometimes misdemeanors just aren't commensurate with the harm that could happen or actually does happen. So this measure gives that possibility to prosecutors and to courts to charge it as a felony under the correct circumstances.

I would point out that this swatting business is aimed not just at civilians. You know, if an ex-boyfriend wants to get against an ex-girlfriend or there's some sort of brawl between people, they can use it as a way to make their lives difficult, but they are using it against politicians on both sides of the aisle. Our lieutenant Governor, of course, Marjorie Taylor Greene on Christmas Day, Rick Scott of Florida, various other people that I'm sure we haven't even heard of.

The way that prosecutors decide, good morning. The way prosecutors decide to charge a wobbler as either a misdemeanor or a felony is gonna depend on a number of things. For example, we'll look at the person's rap sheet, do they have a number of prior arrests, especially for similar conduct? Also, the level of danger involved in this case. Could this case, based on the type of emergency reported, have caused tremendous damage?

And thirdly, and most importantly, whether it did cause that tremendous damage, as an example of tremendous damage, and I can leave it obviously to Mister Sherman and Assemblymember Alanis to talk about it even more so, but I would point out the Breonna Taylor case in Kentucky, which was not a swatting case, but it was a case of an actual search warrant.

And the arguments pointed out about the dangers inherent in serving search warrants is that people, occupants on the inside, if they don't hear the knocking and announcing that type of thing, they may be liable to think they're being robbed. Guns get pulled out, gun battles result whether or not they think it's a robber or law enforcement, people become panicked. And there's all kinds of reasons that we have a special weapons and tactics team in order to help make things safer, but sometimes things get escalated.

Furthermore, as Assemblymember Ta discussed, lots of money gets charged to these agencies. And I realize I'm getting up on my time here, so I'll just point out that even as a felony, it would still be AB 109 eligible, it would still be probation eligible, and it still requires the special intent to harass renoi. Thank you.

So I'm happy to present AB 209 with obviously Assemblymember Ta. I just want to let you guys know about swatting. As far as my experience, it's a thing and it doesn't just, it's a funny thing for some kids who are doing it, or the people that are doing it and whatever acts are doing it. But you gotta also remember you're displacing neighborhoods.

I've been at calls where I've had to unfortunately move people out of their houses, displacing them and their kids. I've had to have resources that were committed to certain cities now in rural areas, including vehicles that are used for special weapons and tactics. And so this is a very serious issue. It's becoming more popular, unfortunately. And so I ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Very briefly Mister chair Members, Ryan Sherman with Riverside Sheriff's Association support along with a lot of other POAs that are all in the analyses. Just wanted to mention that in these swatting incidences, if somebody is actually hurt and injured, that could then potentially, you know, trigger that, because or it should, I believe, trigger the an examination of whether a felony would be acceptable at that time. So with that, I'd ask you for an aye vote. Thank you.

Any others in support, please line up and state your organization and position only.

Lieutenant Julio DeLeon with Riverside County Sheriff's Office in support.

Dillon Lesovsky with the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department in support.

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

Thank you. Opposition. Please come forward. Any groups in opposition?

Behalf of Silicon Valley Debug.

We have opposition here first, so you can just wait a second. Okay, please proceed. You have five minutes in between yourselves.

Thank you. Good morning, esteemed Members of the Assembly Public Safety Committee. My name is Alicia Montero. I'm the statewide coordinator at California's United for Responsible Budget, and I'm here today to voice my strong opposition to AB 2609. I firmly believe that this proposed legislation is not the solution to our concerns about public safety. Instead, it represents a step backward in our efforts to build a fair and humane criminal legal system. I would like to start by addressing the misguided belief that harsher penalties deter crime.

Research spanning numerous years has consistently shown that the threat of long sentences does little to prevent individuals from engaging in criminal behavior. The severity of a punishment is not a significant factor in the decision making process. In light of California's current budget crisis, AB 2609 is fiscally irresponsible. It is estimated that the state spends roughly $4.5 million each day to incarcerate individuals in county jails across the state.

By expanding the scope of criminalization, this Bill would only add to the strain on our already overwhelmed criminal legal system, diverting much needed resources away from more effective approaches to promoting public safety and addressing the root causes of crime. I would like to highlight the findings of a published article by Elsa Chen, assistant Professor at the Department of Political Science, Santa Clara University. Her research on the application of California's three strikes law revealed racial and ethnic disparities, particularly in cases involving wobbler offenses.

Black and brown people are disproportionately affected by harsh sentencing policies, with wider disparities in the sentencing of wobbler offenses compared to non-wobblers. AB 2609 will exacerbate these disparities. Finally, it is essential to recognize that California incarcerates a higher percentage of its population than almost any Democratic country in the world.

Instead of resorting to punitive measures that only serve to perpetrate cycles of harm and incarceration, we should be investing in strategies that address the underlying factors driving crimes, such as poverty, inequality, and lack of access to mental health and substance abuse treatment. In conclusion, I urge you to reject AB 2609 and instead focus on proven solutions that achieve real safety for Californians. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Two minutes left.

Thank you. Margo George, on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association in respectful opposition. This is not needed, although it's addressed, I think, to the high-profile political cases that we read about in the news. Primarily, this is an offense that's committed by children and teenagers. And actually, I had a party at my house where the board teenagers with the adult company, decided to call the police and, you know, say there was an emergency.

Lucky for us, they, the dispatcher had the presence of mind to call back and check and see if it was a real emergency, and we were able to, you know, have them not send anyone out to the house. So we were very lucky. But this is something that is primarily done by teenagers and children. It should not be a felony. Having a felony will not stop or deter people who are doing it for political purposes. So we respectfully ask for your no vote.

Thank you. Any others in opposition, please line up and state your organization and position only.

Danica Rodarmel, on behalf of Initiate Justice and Smart Justice California, in opposition.

Alicia Montero on behalf of Silicon Valley also in opposition.

Simelia Rogers Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, in opposition.

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

Philippe Kelly with the Ella Baker center, in full opposition.

Ashley Chambers with the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in full opposition.

Leena Dinh, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, in opposition.

Robert Bowden, LSPC. All of us or none in opposition.

Eladio Cortez with Silicon Valley De-Bug, in strong opposition.

Sarait Escorza, with Silicon Valley De-bug and San Mateo county participatory defense, in full opposition.

Tremaine Hunter, Silicon Valley De-bug. Strong opposition.

Raymond Goins, Silicon Valley De-bug. In strong opposition.

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

Ignacio Hernández, on behalf of the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice and opposition.

Okay, questions or comments from Committee Members? Mister Zbur.

So thank you for presenting the Bill and for the witnesses that are here. I guess, you know, when I looked at the staff report, one of the things that jumped out at me was I didn't see any data that indicated that this was like some kind of increasing set of circumstances. There's no data to look at whether or not this is increasing. These are fairly Low level sort of activities.

And I have a, you know, I have a concern about elevating was essentially a call to 911 with some inaccurate information to a felony charge, and especially without anything in the record that indicates that this is a huge problem in our community. I mean, this isn't like retail crime where we can walk into a store and see all the cabinets locked up.

I mean, I've heard nothing from my constituents or anyone in my community or law enforcement in my area district that I represent telling me that they're having huge problems with people calling 911 with information that's not factual. So anyway, I'm just wondering if you can tell me, like, what kind of data you're relying on to justify a change in the law.

And when I look at the law, there are consequences for this kind of activity and they become more significant depending on the kind of false report that's made. It does include jail time and fines. It seems like even in these high profile matters, which are the ones that everyone points to, the law enforcement can use those tools, and those are ones that would result in, I think, the public understanding that that kind of behavior is not permitted and is punishable.

So what kind of data do you have that shows that this is some big problem?

Data is not something I actually have on the matter. But I would point out that I think that it's a proactive measure as opposed to a reactive measure trying to get ahead of a problem that appears to be spreading nationwide.

So in that respect, I could defer to the author on this, but I think it's a question of seeing that it is starting to happen and trying to make it so that our Legislature already has something on the books for any incredibly unfortunate event that somebody dies or something very, very significant happens. I forgot what else I was going to say on that, but I'll turn it over to the author at that point.

Yes. You know, I really appreciate your concerns. I mean, like, if you ask about our data, you know, in California, you know, we, you know, in the recent months or years, I mean, we're all aware that it is no secret that crime, you know, happened everywhere. And I think that this is one of the issues that, you know, all of us, we have to deal with and, you know, one of the highest ranking political profile it already, you know, involved, you know, had and incident.

So that's why, you know, I think that really inspired me to introduce the Bill and, you know, my joy, author, Senator, he's only like former, you know, law enforcement officer. So I think he understands the issue, you know, a lot more than me.

I'd just like to allow the opponents to respond to my question and then. Thank you.

Did you want to engage? You want to repeat your question, Mister Zaber?

I was just commenting that I didn't see. I don't see any data out there that justifies making changes and what is fairly Low level activity. And I just don't know. I just wanted to give you an opportunity to just comment if you'd like.

Yeah, I just want to say one. Preparing for, for testimony today, I looked for the data and I couldn't find any showing that there was any increase. I haven't heard of any increase, so I wouldn't know. But it was something I looked for if I could. I recall my train of thought. Now, as for the concern about juveniles, the juvenile system, as Mister Kohler was testifying earlier this morning, has far different remedies.

And of course, juveniles have a lot of options for different diversion programs and things like that. They would not be going to either county jail or to state prison or to any of these other. Well, nobody.

No, I understand that, but I didn't ask that question. I was asking about the data that's out there.

I was just trying to give the opponents an opportunity to respond.

So. Okay.

Thank you. We already have our chance with you. Yes, yes. I asked the chair for one of my wish. No, we already asked the question for you and for the opposition. Mister Ting, just question to the opposition. So the Bill, as now I believe written is it just gives the option of either a misdemeanor or felony. And just wanted to go through why you're opposed to the. Given the judges that discretion.

Because existing law makes it a misdemeanor up to a urine county jail and existing law already makes it. Knowing a false report of an emergency that is likely to cause death or great bodily injury is already a felony. So this is not necessary. It's already covered by existing law. You know, that's part of our opposition, that this is redundant and unnecessary. And the analysis actually points out it conflicts with existing law. So this is amply covered.

But would you also, would you be opposed if it was expanding more? I mean, death and bodily injury are pretty extreme. As public, as public servants, you see what happened with January 6, you see with public servants now there's much more harassment going on. Would you be also opposed if it expanded that definition? I mean, because, you know, I mean, sitting up here on the dais, we all get death threats, things like that.

But there are a lot of other calls that we get that are not death threats.

I appreciate that that is an unenviable spot to be in at the California Public Defenders Association. And as a public defender for over 30 years, I, too, received threats. I just don't think that this is necessary. This is already covered. There's no need to expand it. And the particular high profile cases that Jack Smith, the special prosecutor, you know, et cetera, the judge in the various Trump cases, those are not instances where someone would be deterred by changing the law.

And theoretically, they could already be prosecuted if they were happening in California under existing 148.3 of the penal code.

Okay. Also, right now, this provision covers adults and children. If the author restricted it to adults only, would that change your opinion of the matter? No.

I think that that would help, certainly that if it did not include minors. But you still have the issue of.

You know, you have to speak into the microphone.

I'm sorry, what?

You have to speak into the microphone?

Yes, I'm sorry. Certainly that kind of amendment would be helpful. But you still have the issue that this is already covered. So why is this necessary? And the analysis indicates that it would conflict with existing law. So why do this if it's already something that is covered and would conflict with law that you already have? But yes, to your question, an amendment restricting it to adults only would deal with part of our objection curb may have other objections that would not be cured.

Okay, so just going back to the author and the supporters, was there a reason that you didn't just amend the current language as is? You know, the opposition talks about that. There already is statutory language in there. You could have just expanded that current statutory language. And also, I think opposition brought up really good points about this primarily happening with children. Is there a reason you didn't segregate children versus adults? So you want to respond to. No, no.

I see a lot of people looking each other, so someone could just answer my question. That'd be great. Yeah, I believe that my office, we, we're willing to open for any input, but I think that the language of the Bill is really reasonable because if we don't come up with any standard law, I mean, it continue to happen. And in reality, that even we lie or we do not agree with the Bill that I introduced. It's going to be a big concern for everyone.

But you have a current felony provision in the current statue. Is there a reason you didn't just choose to do a slight expansion of that language to cover some of these situations that you're trying to describe. It's basically, you could have taken a scalpel, and now you're just kind of going with the bazooka. So I'm just trying to figure out why I need to look at, I need to look at it again. But I think that right now, I think that I agree with the landweb.

Yes. Yes. I think, look, I mean, I think opposition brought up some very excellent points. There seems to be potential room for compromise. I don't think the Committee hearing is a time for that. I'm not ready to support. I cannot, you know, I came into this hearing very open minded to understand what the situation is, but I can't support the Bill as is.

I think you have some work to do, and I think, and I think there is room for you to get what you want done. Even within their arguments, they still may not support it, but I think it'd be a much sounder argument to someone like me. Thank you, Assemblymember Wilson.

Thank you to the author for bringing this Bill forward. I understand, really your intent. The concerns that I have, which, based on the discussion, I, too, like my colleague, were trying to be open minded and consider arguments for see if there was a pathway to support.

My concern goes to what was noticed in the analysis was a comment from opposition, the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, and it was noting that the current law makes, and I'm going to read from here, current law makes the distinction between the level of punishment connected to the crime should be proportional to the seriousness of the crime, and that there are two levels of distinction currently listed, whereas this, by making a wobbler, is saying that someone who did not, that did not cause bodily harm could be equated to someone who did.

And that was at the discretion of the judge. And I'm all for judicial discretion and at times supported bills related to that. But in this regard, it's totally wiping away that distinction, and it should be proportional. I hadn't heard yet, you address or those in support, your witnesses in support, address that issue of proportionality and why we would turn that principle on its head and negate that as it relates to this Bill.

And so I was wondering, giving you a chance before I fully commit to a no or not supporting, I wanted to hear that. And then I'll add on something that my colleague mentioned is, you know, I think there's an opportunity, a pathway in terms of, for instance, people do repeated of this. And so there's nothing in here about negating like, well, for repeat offenders, then saying, okay, now you're rising, even though you haven't caused harm, you're wasting resources.

You know what you're doing now that rises to a felony. There's nothing like that. It's just automatically giving it to judicial discretion.

Yeah. I really appreciate your common. And I'm willing to take an amendment from the Committee. My office really open for it. Yes. And willing to take an amendment. Yes.

As it relates to that. Okay. Was there anything from the experts that in regard to that part?

Yes, Madam Chair. Through the chair. Madam Member, I think with the current law is misdemeanor, regardless of the mitigating factors, I believe. And so

Regardless of. Say it again.

Regardless of the mitigating factors. Correct.

I believe that currently swatting the most it can be is a misdemeanor. No, no.

Okay.

It's felony. If you, especially if you cause bodily, if it results in bodily harm. So if you just call. Right. If you just call. If you just make a call, right. No one's injured. That is a misdemeanor. If you make a call and someone is injured, that is a felony.

Thank you. Thank you for the correction.

But this makes it so that no matter what, it could be either one or another. And I think when I think about judicial discretion, we do have bias within our criminal justice system. We know that. And so when we're giving discretion, are we gonna find trends where certain people who do things a certain way, are they targeted more to get the felony for not causing bodily harm than others? And that's what I'm concerned about.

And so I don't, based on this, I don't think I would be able to support today, but I would to the author is, I encourage you to stay in this space because I think there is opportunity to deal with what could potentially be perceived as rising. I don't see rising in California, but I do see rising in other states.

And so we don't want that to get to California and making sure we're very clear that it's unacceptable and having penalties related to, if you're doing it often, if it's a common thing versus somebody, just a youth, one time pranking, but if it's something you're doing regularly, there might be more opportunity versus just those two scenarios where it's either misdemeanor or felony for these related. But there might be other ways to have punishment to be able to prevent this from happening in the future.

Thank you. Thank you. We have a motion in a second. See, no further questions. I'm not certain if I can't support the Bill right now, but I have heard and I concur with some of the issues that Mister Ting addressed. So I'm not sure if you have it today, but I think this is something that if it doesn't pass, I will support reconsideration. And we could take a look at working at this down there.

I don't want to prejudge the vote right here, but just want to make that commitment. A motion to second. Would you like to close? I respectfully ask for your. I go. Yeah. Okay. Thank you.

Please call the roll. On AB 2609 by some Member Ta. The motion is do passed to the Appropriations Committee. Mccarty no. Mccarty no. Alanis. Lackey. Lackey, aye. Win. Reyes not voting. Reyes not voting. Ting no. Ting no. Wilson? Wilson not voting. Zbur. Zbur no.

That measure fails. Would you like to ask for reconsideration? Yes, I do. Yes. We'll have a motion. A second. Make the motion. Second by Mister Ting. I support that.

On reconsideration of AB 2609. Mccarty. Mccarty. Aye. Alanis. Lackey. Lackey. Aye. Reyes. Reyes. Aye. Ting. Ting. Aye. Wilson. Wilson Aye. Zbur. Zbur. Aye.

Thank you. Okay, that measure passes. That motion passes for reconsideration. Next author is Mr. Maienschein. We have item number 17, AB 2739. Please begin.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. It is good to see you sitting there. AB 2739 seeks to ensure all guns carried illegally are treated the same under the law. Under current law, carrying a concealed weapon without a permit is a crime and is deemed a public nuisance. The firearm that is illegally carried must be surrendered and destroyed.

However, the same rules do not exist for openly carrying an unloaded handgun in public or carrying a loaded firearm in public. AB 2739 declares both of these crimes a nuisance and subjects the firearms to existing surrender and destroy provisions. Additionally, AB 2739 applies the same surrender and destroy statutes to firearms used in crimes for which a defendant is granted misdemeanor diversion. AB 2739 focuses solely on the firearm.

It does not create a new crime, does not increase criminal penalties, or interfere with a defendant's ability to be granted diversion. It also does not infringe on the rights of law abiding gun owners as any firearms subject to AB 2739 are firearms that were carried in violation of California law. This Bill is a common sense measure that targets irresponsible gun possession. I respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you. Support, please come forward.

Cindy de Silva.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members. Thank you. Moira Topp here on behalf of San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria, and the City of San Diego in strong support.

Motion and second. Go ahead.

Okay. On behalf of the California District Attorneys Association, in support.

Thank you. Seeing no others in support, any opposition to this Bill?

No opposition. We have a motion and a second. Questions or comments from Committee Members? Mr. Lackey.

Yeah. My only frustration with this particular bill is that it reinforces the focus on the instrumentality and it makes it... It infers that the gun is evil. Right. Are we going to start doing this for vehicles that are used as instrumentality in a crime and destroying vehicles? I think it's a distraction. The focus being on behavior. And that's what worries me.

So I'm not in a position, I'm not going to vote against this because I don't really see the harm other than I think it sends the message that's a distraction. And we need to be focused more on behavior instead of instrumentality. So I will not be in a position to support it.

Thank you. Mr. Zbur.

I just want to thank you for this bill. I think it's a great bill. It's one of the things that I think is a hallmark of the kinds of laws we pass here in California, which make me feel a lot safer. And I think members of my community will feel a lot safer once this bill is in effect. So I want to thank you. Strongly support it.

Okay, thank you. You have a motion and a second. Would you like to close?

Yeah. Thank you very much. You know, we'll agree to disagree on that point I think Mr. Lackey raised. I think this is the only thing this can do is improve safety. It's well thought out. It's common sense. It doesn't in any way, I believe, change ultimate responsibility. But I do think it certainly changes the percentage risk members of the public have any time they go out in public of being a victim of gun violence. So with that I respectfully request an aye vote.

Okay, thank you. We have a motion and a second. Please call the roll.

On AB 2739 by Assembly Member Maienschein, the motion is do pass to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

That measure passes. Thank you.

Next author, Mister Gipson, you have two measures. Your first will be AB 2913.

Thank you Mister Chairman.

It's still morning. Yeah.

Thank you. Good morning Mister Chairman and Members. Thank you for allowing me to present Assembly Bill 2913 the California Homicide Victim Family Rights Act. This aims to create a procedure for family Members, specifically a designated person for homicide victim, to request that the law enforcement conducts a review of an open, unsolved homicide case file. If the review provides an investigative lead, then the case will have a full re-investigation.

Solving gun crimes can be an important part of providing or preventing, excuse me, preventing gun violence. And it can help provide closure to victims family. Many of you may or may not remember. My son in April 5, 2005 he and his fiance was walking down the street in Los Angeles, stopped to talk to Gary. Gary was 52 years of age. A drive by shooting took place. My son was shot in the back twice, his fiance shot in the leg.

Gary, who was sitting in the car was killed. Another man who was working on his car was shot in the hand. And the reason why I referenced that situation is because Los Angeles Police Department worked quickly, expeditiously. I want to think, because one, I'm a former police officer and I make no qualms about that, but I also want to think because I was an elected official, that the detectives stayed on that particular case.

It took two years because the individual perpetrators left California and went to the Midwest. But it was the determination of the detectives who stayed on the case, apprehended, extradited those individuals back to California where they're waiting trial. I refer to that particular point because a lot of family m embers go through anguish, depression, because they need hope. They cannot find who killed their loved one. And so not everyone will serve as elected official. Not everyone will serve as a former police officer.

California statewide cases clearance rate homicides have been at or under 65% for the last 10 years, meaning that over a third of the homicides go unsolved statewide. The available data tells us a consistent story. California needs to do more to solve homicides, especially in communities hit hardest by gun violence. Grieving families often want more information. They want more information to give them hope about the status of their loved one's case.

But there is no uniform process around that the state and that the state families to hold onto when trying to deal with an unsolved situation.

What this Bill seeks to do is set up a process, a procedure, so that loved ones who have, who missed their loved ones who was taken away from them, can have a process they can look forward to and go through that process, even including and not limiting to evidence that will help reopen a particular case that will lead to an arrest and a conviction. And so that's what this case is all about. It's about giving hope to those families who suffer on a daily basis.

Every Christmas, every birthday, every holiday, there's an empty chair being missed at a home gathering. Because closure is not given. And closure can be given when a case is continued to be looked at, investigated, and hopefully leads to an apprehension, an arrest, and also a conviction. With me to provide supporting testimony would be a representative from ally, from youth alive, and also a brave mother who I happen to know, Mattie Scott with Brady United, who will testify.

Thank you. You have five minutes between yourselves.

Good morning, Chair McCarty and others. My name is Janiesha Grisham,. I'm 24 years old and I'm a violence prevention educator for teens on target at Youth Alive in Oakland, California. A little background. My role is basically to create a space for students and youth in our community to talk about some of the violence that happens unfortunately to them and in our communities. We want to teach them that their voices do matter and their negative experiences should never hold them back.

I had the privilege of being a student for TNT while I was in high school, and that space that I was provided is something that I will never forget. It made me want to be an example that you should and can use your story to spark change in your community, which is why I'm here today in support of AB 2913. Prior to joining TNT, I lost my brother, Christopher Jones, on December 31, 2010. And unfortunately, my brother's killers were never caught.

I'm here speaking out today for families who never received justice. And that's all they want. They want justice. Countless of times I have heard mothers, siblings, nieces, nephews just speaking out in anguish about how they have no answers. They're waiting for a phone call from somebody and just want somebody to talk to, to get information on how they can close the case and get answers for their loved one.

So many Instagram posts counting up the day since they've heard from a detective or have any information in general. And yeah, these experiences are why I am in support of this Bill. This Bill would give some families a second chance at potentially getting answers and finding peace and getting closure. There is no harm in taking a second look at a case with fresh eyes if it can give loved ones closure. That's why I'm asking you to support this Bill.

It would mean a lot to families like me, myself, and the youth that I support in our communities. Thank you for listening.

Thank you. Next witness.

Good morning, Chairman McCarty. My name is Mattie Scott.

Can you bring it a little closer to the mic? Sure. You can pull it to you. The microphone. There you go.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Mattie Scott. I am the President of Brady California statewide chapter of Brady. I come to. I came to the gun violence movement after my youngest son, George C. Scott was shot and killed July 17 1996. One day before my grandson, his six year old son's birthday. That was my grandson's birthday present, me having to tell him, your dad has gone to heaven.

George was only 24, and he was the father of two young black boys, now black men who have had to live without their father and who are now fathers themselves. Almost 30 years later, the case remains unsolved. My story, George story and his son's story are not unique. Too many families in California have lost their loved ones to homicide.

And far too many, mostly black and brown families, wait year after year, never getting answers, even though having closures is incredibly important for healing and breaking cycles of violence. I know because I have been victimized over and over again for almost 30 years with my son's case, never getting a call from anyone for years to tell me anything about my case. I have to fight my way through this unjust system as a victim. AB 2913 will change this for us.

Mothers, fathers, and all who are impacted. Family Members of murder victims should have the right to request the law that law enforcement conduct an unsolved homicide case filed review to determine whether a full reinvestigation could result in new leads. Under AB 2913 a new a law enforcement agency would be required to review an unsolved homicide case when they receive a request from an immediate family member or a homicide victim.

The case file review will be conducted by a different person than the original investigator to bring a fresh set of eyes to the case. If the case review decides that reinvestigation of the case would result in probative new leads, the law enforcement agency must conduct that reinvestigation. My son and my family and many California's families deserve justice and closures. This Bill will work to make that happen. I know thousands of mothers that I sit here today that's not able to be here, that I represent.

That's in my organization, healing for our families in our nation. And that's that mother's in charge across this nation, where our cases just sit in a cold as a cold case. This should not be. This should not happen. 2913 would make the difference. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Other witnesses, please line up on the side and state your position and organization.

Cassandra Whetstone, volunteer Moms Demand Action in support.

Danica Rodarmel on behalf of Smart Justice California in strong support.

Sarah Whetstone volunteer with Moms Demand Action in support.

Alden Masson, volunteer with Moms Demand Action in support.

Jillian King, volunteer and survivor Moms Demand Action in support.

Dressa Cooper, volunteer Moms Demand Action in support.

Mary Louversetto, volunteer with Moms Demand Action and support.

Laurie Herbert, volunteer with Moms Demand Action in support.

Flair Senchna, volunteer with Moms Demand Action in support and gun violence survivor.

Mary Lou Thompson, volunteer with End Gun Violence Club, Rossmore support.

Yara Judah, volunteer with Moms Demand Action in support.

Marilyn Dijkstra, gun violence survivor, volunteer of Moms Demand Action in support.

Shirley Lewandowski, volunteered with Moms Demand Action in strong support.

Tammy Shaw, volunteer with Moms Demand Action in support.

Cheryl Davis, volunteer with Moms Demand Action in support.

Suzanne Lander, volunteer with Moms Demand Action strong support.

Allison Libertor, volunteer with Moms Demand Action in support.

Diana Honig, volunteer with Moms Demand Action in strong support.

Kathy Maloney, volunteer at End Gun Violence Club of Rossmore. Strong support.

Julie Chapman, volunteer with Moms Demand Action in support.

Amy Siropian, volunteer with Moms Demand Action in support.

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

Thank you, Mister chair Members. Corey Salzillo, on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association, regretfully in opposition to this Bill. Certainly let me say at the outset that ensuring we do our utmost to obtain justice for victims is a top priority of law enforcement. But I think we have to talk about the logistics of what this Bill contemplates and some of the realities of how cases are investigated and how resources are prioritized.

This Bill unfortunately creates a pretty rigid process and statute with little room for flexibility to address the particular realities of a specific case or the investigating agency. This effectively triggers an automatic review if a family member or a similarly situated person files an application and notwithstanding the lack of clarity of what a similarly situated person means or refers to.

This effectively moves a case review under this Bill to the front of the line without regard to available staff, fiscal resources, and other law enforcement priorities, and it requires that the review be completed within 90 days, with only the possibility of a single 45 day extension. And there's the only limitation on a repeated review under this Bill would be that it can be done every five years, subsequently to the initial case review.

It's also worth noting that, as was mentioned, the Bill says that the person or the persons who perform the case review shall not have previously investigated the underlying murder. This is problematic for small agencies who may not have multiple staff members who can be assigned to this role, and it will be problematic for large agencies who may have more staff resources, but all relevant staff members may have participated in the original investigation in some form or fashion.

The analysis points out many relevant logistical issues, not the least of which is that the timing contemplated by this Bill could be exceedingly close to when the original investigation started or has sort of reached a point of that hurdle of not being able to proceed or proceed expeditiously. And so, for those reasons, happy to answer any questions, but unfortunately, we're opposed to the Bill. Respectfully, to the author and prominence. Thank you.

Thank you. Others in opposition.

Lieutenant Julio De Leon, on behalf of the Riverside county sheriff's office, in opposition.

Okay, jo other Members in opposition. Do we have any questions or comments from Assembly Member, Assembly Member Reyes?

Thank you, Mister Chair. To those of you who have lost family members, thank you for being here. You provide a different perspective on these unsolved crimes. Without a doubt, everybody. Second, everybody should have that opportunity to have their case closed to the author. And we spoke briefly before. I do hear and accept the comments made by the opposition regarding the logistics of it all.

Having different eyes look at it is a good thing because it's somebody else who has not looked at it, but if it is a smaller agency, they don't have others to look at it. Something to consider. The timelines, also investigations, as we know.

I may not be in law enforcement, but my sister's retired from it, and I know it takes a long time to get through a process from a person of interest to finally making them a suspect, to making it at some point a cold case. Finding that balance between the two, I think, is extremely important. The other thing that was mentioned, not in the testimony now, but in the analysis, is that the information that is uncovered isn't provided to the person who's requested this new review.

And some of this is information that would not normally be discoverable through a public records review. So I'm concerned about the information being given. I will support this Bill. I think families absolutely deserve to have closure and to be given the hope to be given the dignity that they deserve to know that this is something that is being looked at.

But the comments made by opposition, I think, are extremely important in putting together a Bill that is going to accomplish exactly what you want to do, but not providing the extra burden that can't be withstood by an agency.

Madam Chairman?

Yes, Mister?

Thank you very much. And let me say I appreciate the comments of the assemblywoman and also the opposition. We do have an opposition letter brought to my attention, and we stand willing, ready and able to work with the opposition to try to close the gap on some of the issues in which you brought up. I've never been a detective, so I don't know how to speak to that.

But I know that it's a partnership, and I believe that there are so many families who are hurting just looking for bringing closure to these unsolved cases. And so this, I believe, is a stepping in the right direction. And I'm open enough to one sit down at the table with you and try to hammer out, you know, some reasonable amendments to this Bill you want to talk about.

Hi, Megan Simmons with Everytown for gun safety, proud sponsor of the Bill. Thank you so much for your comments. One of our intentions with this Bill is to actually help improve relationships between law enforcement and communities that are most impacted by gun violence. So with that, we would love to sit down with all of you and find some amendments. And very, very welcome.

Yeah, I'm sorry. I'll be very, very quick. I do appreciate the fact that we actually have a Bill on the floor that looks like it has a good chance of surviving, that has a victim focus. Regrettably, we don't have enough of that, but I'm very thankful for that.

Thank you. We have a motion and a second and Mister. Mister Lackey.

But I do believe that the opposition, as was also fortified by my colleague across the table there, that we need to fortify resources and these smaller agencies. It's hard to manufacture resources with such a serious matter because everybody wants to find a solution and the intent is never in question. So we need to, as you continue to progress through with this, with this measure, try to instill some kind of fortification of resources in these smaller agencies so that they can realistically accomplish the goal.

Okay, thank you. You like to close?

I will be supporting it, though. Thank you.

Yes, Mister Chairman. I just want to respond to Mister Lackey's concern. We're open to carve outs of small agencies moving forward in this Bill. And thank you very much for your comments. Assembly Bill 2913 will create a uniform process around the state for families to request further review of an unsolved case. Ultimately, this Bill will provide clarity and closure of the death of a loved one.

Assembly Bill 2913 is sponsored by Everytown, Brady, Youth Alive and also supported by Moms Demand Action, smart justice, and so many others, including and not limiting to organizations within my district. I respectfully ask aye vote.

Thank you. Thank you. We have a motion and a second, please call the roll

Roll Call

Measures on call next up we have Mister Hart. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, bud. Yep. Got a little excited, so.

Thank you.

Thank you AB 2419, item number 11. Mister Gipson.

Again, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Members. Thank you for allowing me to present Assembly Bill 2419, which is an emotional Bill. This Bill provides that a search warrant may be issued for or on the basis of communication in furtherance of a solicitation of a minor once a child for prostitution. The issuance of a search warrant is a key tool used to collect admissible evidence to help combat human trafficking, especially the trafficking of a child.

The search warrants would be only used if the evidence that's on a cell phone or communication device has messages pertaining to human trafficking. Communications regarding the possible trafficking or solicitation of a child is not currently listed as a grounds for an issuance of a warrant. Not grounds for an issuance of a warrant. Current law permits a search warrant to be issued when the property or things being seized constitute evidence shown that a felony has been committed.

The law currently has stripped away law enforcement of the same investigative tools when investigating the solicitation of a minor for an act of prostitution, a misdemeanor violation. According to the California Child Welfare Council states human trafficking is a $32 billion industry involving over 100,000 children in the United States. California consistently ranked number one in the nation. Ranked number one in the nation of human trafficking cases reported to the National Human Trafficking Hotline.

And according to the FBI, three out of the nation's 13 highest child prostitution areas are areas in which we represent. It's Los Angeles, San Francisco, and San Diego. Members, several of you represent those particular areas in your district. My office have met with the opposition and we are planning to continue to have conversation moving forward on strengthening this Bill and making this Bill better as we move forward.

This Bill is not, I want to repeat, this Bill is not going around current law on the process of obtaining a search warrant. This Bill is not- underscore not- taking resources away from survivors. Members, these are our babies. The future of California. We need to protect them at all costs. On January 8th, 2022, Tioni Theus, a resident of the City of Compton, living in my district, 16 years of age, was a victim of human trafficking. Her mother did everything she could to protect her child.

Her mother reported was a paraplegic, paralyzed from the neck down. Again, she did everything she could to protect her child, but yet her child was pulled into human trafficking at 16 years of age. Her pimp, the predator, the person who did these horrible things, shot Tioni in the neck twice, threw her body out on the 110 Harbor Freeway in Los Angeles at the Manchester on ramp like trash. Like trash. A few weeks prior, something similar to happened to another young lady.

There was a reward of $150,000. In Tioni's case, the State of California put a $50,000 reward. The County of Los Angeles put another $50,000 up. The City of Los Angeles put up $10,000, bringing the total $110,000 as reward for the arrest and the apprehension of her assailant. By instilling this Bill, we can add tools that will help apprehend and arrest sex traffickers who seek to devour our children, our babies.

This is why Assembly Bill 2419 will help the City of Los Angeles City Attorney who has boots on the ground and who have their hands on the post. We are currently positively influenced change to making sure that our babies, our children are protected. I'm happy to present as a witness in support of this Bill, the City Attorney from the City of Los Angeles, Hydee Feldstein Soto, who will speak and support and advocate on this Bill.

Thank you. You both have five minutes.

Thank you. Thank you very much, Assemblymember. Good morning, Members, and thank you for allowing me to testify here today and give me the opportunity to speak in support of Assembly Bill 2419. I am very proud to have worked with Assemblymember Gipson to introduce this critically important tool to our law enforcement efforts. I want to emphasize something that Assemblymember Gipson said. This Bill is not about creating a new crime. This Bill is not about arresting children. This Bill is not about immigration consequences.

Under the California Penal Code, we are already required as prosecutors to take immigration consequences into account and to attempt to avoid them in charging. What this Bill does is it takes solicitation of a minor and utilizes it as a prevention tool for trafficking. Today's law requires actual harm to the child before you can wind up going in for a search warrant on a felony basis. This Bill would stop just shy of that.

It allows us to interrupt the pipeline of offenders to the child and allows us to step in and prove up a case without putting the child on the stand, without re-traumatizing the original victim. For those of you who know me, you know that sex trafficking of our children, starting with the notorious track- it's called a kiddie stroll- along the Figueroa corridor in Los Angeles, has been a priority for me since I assumed office. California is an epicenter, as I think the Assemblymember pointed out.

And my city, just a few miles south of City Hall, has been notorious as the most trafficked stroll west of the Mississippi. Let me also say that our current law doesn't match what happens in our streets. We have had an initiative since last July. The initiative has been focused on disrupting the johns, on arresting and bringing to justice the predators, and on providing services and rescuing the children.

I am proud to say that between July and January, my office, with our service providers, helped 60 minors get off the Figueroa quarter and to a place of safety where they can heal. This Bill gives us a tool where we don't have to wait for the harm to happen. We go into a judge, it is a scalpel. It is surgical. This isn't suddenly getting an arrest. This doesn't authorize the search and seizure without a search warrant.

We have to sit down and we have to do a probable cause under penalty of perjury. We have to describe the materials with particularity. I read in the opposition that communications is too broad a phrase. Well, in order to get a search warrant, you have to describe exactly what you're going after. It has to be a particular cell phone with text messages that show the threat, force, or coercion necessary for human trafficking.

So to give you a very concrete example, if you have an encounter between a john or a predator and a minor on the street, law enforcement today doesn't have a tool beyond asking the both of them if we can search their phones. There is no child on the street who is more afraid of law enforcement than they are of their own pimp. There are way too many stories of our kids running around and being brought up, brought back and beat to a pulp.

And so what this does is it allows law enforcement to go into court and appear before a judge and persuade them to let us look at the telephone to see if we can find the text message for fraud or coercion that says, don't you dare answer this question or you'll never see your family alive again. And it is that evidence that we need in order to create the case for fraud, force, or coercion on human trafficking.

You have 1 minute left.

I actually would prefer to take your questions and not waste your time. How's that?

No, I'll defer. Okay. Anyone else in support, please come up to the mic. Name and association?

Randy Perry with Aaron Read and Associates, on behalf of PORAC in support.

Ryan Sherman with Riverside Sheriffs' Association, California Narcotic Officers' Association, California Reserve Peace Officers, Deputy Sheriffs' Association Monterey County and Placer County, and the POAs of Arcadia, Burbank, Claremont, Corona, Culver City, Fullerton, Murrieta, Newport, Nevada, Palos Verdes, Pomona, Riverside, Santa Ana, and Upland. All in support. Thank you.

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

Madam Chair and Members, Andrew Antwih here on behalf of the City of Los Angeles. Los Angeles City Council took unanimous action to support this measure.

Thank you. Anyone else for support? Okay, seeing none. Opposition, please come up to the table. You will have five minutes.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. My name is Duke Cooney on behalf of ACLU California Action. We are in opposition to AB 2419. I do like to thank the author's office for meeting with me and discussing some of our issues with the bill. While we are sympathetic to the sponsor's stated goal of pursuing child sex traffickers, AB 2419 does not accomplish that goal and instead raises privacy concerns. The current language is over broad and has no definition for communications.

And what that does is it potentially opens up to every person's cell phone, computer, or other electronic device to a search covering well more than the communications found in the amended statute. Since sex trafficking is a felony, the police can already seek a search warrant for evidence of sex trafficking. AB 2419 represents a further erosion of a statute that was narrowly drawn to protect citizens' privacy.

The continued amendments to Penal Code Section 1524 are an example of how a limiting section over the years is continually weakened and expanded beyond its original intent. For those reasons, we are in respectful opposition of AB 2419. Thank you.

Okay, next witness.

Margo George on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association, in respectful opposition. And we thank the City Attorney and the author's office for meeting with us. We certainly are in sympathy with their goals. However, if, in fact, they are going after human traffickers, which is a felony that is already covered, and that can be done. If, in fact, they're going after 647 B misdemeanors, that leaves either the minors or the customers or Johns.

So with the minors, threatening to take their cell phones away to look for evidence is very scary for them because most of them are minors, are runaways, are LGTQ plus youth who have fled abusive homes or been kicked out of their homes. And the last thing they want to do is have the authorities go through their phones looking for their families and their contacts. So this, if it's trying to threaten the Johns with, we're going to take your phones and embarrass you.

There's unlikely that the customers that are driving up and down the street are going to be having text messages with young people that they don't even know, since the transaction is in public. And truly, you know, this, you know, is a tragic situation.

And if someone wants to do something about it, then instead of further terrorizing the victims with the police and driving this from one part of town to another part of town, or to a different town or underground, then provide services for them. Provide places for them to live, mental health counseling, substance abuse treatment. All of these are things that truly help the young people. There was, for a long time, a very successful project. I don't know if it's still in existence.

The Larkin Street Project in San Francisco that provided resources to young people. I am from Oakland, and we have the example, which was highly publicized, but probably not totally unique, of a 16 year old minor who repeatedly had sexual contact with police officers, which resulted in the suicide of one officer and the actual dismissal or leaving of the Chief of Police. So encouraging more law enforcement in this way by expanding the search warrant provision is both unneeded and harmful. We respectfully ask for your no vote.

Thank you. Any others in opposition, please line up. Name, position only.

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

Thank you. No others in opposition? Questions or comments from Committee Members? Mr. Zbur.

So I want to thank my colleague and our Los Angeles City Council City Attorney, who I have great respect for. I had a number of questions, and I have a lot of concerns about this. The first, I think, is the standard seems to be very loose.

And so I'm wondering, it basically expands the grounds on which a search warrant can be issued to include when property or things to be ceased consist of evidence that tend to show crime of communications and furtherance of solicitation of a minor. So what would trigger, for example, seeking a search warrant from either a John or, I understand this includes minors as well. So what would be a fact pattern that would cause you to seek a search warrant of that person's phone?

The fact pattern actually is neither the John, it's actually the pimp. If what you're doing is you have a predator on the street who is running 5, 6, 10 young people on a kiddie stroll, the control is in the phone. That's why I said the legislation doesn't match what we're seeing in the streets.

I'm asking for sort of the facts that you would actually consider when you are seeking a search warrant. Is it the fact that you see a person on the street that you believe is a John and that there are kids around him or people around. I mean, what's the fact pattern that will trigger you getting a search warrant?

There is a situation on the street. There is a situation with an undercover officer. We have young officers who are in their early twenties who look like they could be 12, 13, 14, and it is not a crime because the officer is not a minor at this point. We have situations where we have repeat offenders. There's a number of circumstances where the telephone, as an instrument of control of the young person is something that we would want to be able to view.

We cannot prove human trafficking because we don't have fraud, coercion, or force. What we have is a voluntary transaction on the street. The fraud, coercion, or force is in the text threat that comes in from the pimp. And so if the officer suspects that that's what's going on, that is a circumstance where we would go before a judge. And we wouldn't grab the minor on the street.

By the way, Federal Rule of Evidence 1161 provides that you can't use evidence of a commercial sex act against the victim. So this is not about the minors or prosecuting the minors. But we would be able to go to court and get an order to let us go to the carrier and get the text messages in question so that we can build a case ultimately up the food chain against the predator.

I know because you've been in the nexus of the LGBT community that you've heard of the term "walking while trans." Have you heard of that?

I have.

So what prevents a peace officer from suspecting that a trans person walking around is a minor, who may not know whether they're minor or adult, and basically going through and just basically saying, "I see that person. That person's walking on the street, I'm gonna get a search warrant on that phone because maybe that person's being sex trafficked." I mean, where are the limitations on what you can do to invade someone's privacy? And let me just finish.

And I think the other thing that I'm concerned about is really some of the points that have been raised in these letters, which are LGBTQ people are way overrepresented in the homeless population. They are way overrepresented in living on the street.

Many of them having information where their phones could be just confiscated and their LGBTQ status is now made public allows, I think, law enforcement to just really go after people in the LGBTQ community without any restrictions on the limitations on whether you can get a search warrant and really violate privacy rights. So I am wholeheartedly against sex trafficking. Wholeheartedly.

I think what you're trying to get to, I'm just, like, really concerned about the fact that this gives police very, very broad authority or law enforcement broad authority to seek search warrants that invade the privacy of a lot of people that aren't doing anything that is wrong, and it's not victimizing the kids. And I don't see any protections in this bill at all. And the other thing I'm going to say is I'm really disappointed in the City Council of Los Angeles.

I think the fact that they supported this unanimously is a testament to the fact that we. We don't have a single LGBTQ person serving on the City Council, and this is a reflection of that. It's a hugely disappointing thing that, basically, these issues and the impact on the LGBTQ community of things like this have not been considered.

And I don't, I know both of you care about the LGBTQ community. But I don't sort of see the protections that I would expect there to be to really respect the community and the vulnerability of what LGBTQ kids go through and the fact that this could be used in, I think, very, very harmful ways.

Assembly Member, may I respond to that?

Yes.

First of all, thank you. And I do share your concerns for all of our communities, but especially the LGBTQ plus community. We only have two shelters for LGBTQ youth in all of the City of Los Angeles. And I've been working on that because, at this point, it's very difficult to find places, even for kids who want to be rescued. I want to go back to what is the limits. Number one, you have to prove probable cause.

This is not simply you get to go out and arrest because you woke up this morning and you see someone walking around who you would like to shake down. You have to go to court. You have to submit evidence under penalty of perjury. You have to describe the items to be seized with particularity. You cannot utilize evidence that isn't within the search warrant as to the purpose of the search warrant.

And so by putting this language into the search warrant statute, we're not modifying 547 B. We're not doing anything to the crime. We're simply saying we get to go to court. And the interest in protecting our minor kids... And, yes, I understand that there are a number of minor children, not just LGBTQ, but children of color. Okay. Children all over our city who have had negative encounters with law enforcement.

But let me also assure you that they've had many more negative encounters with the predators who are trafficking their bodies on a daily basis all over our streets. And so this is a tool to allow us to investigate so that we're not going after the minors, we're not going after the bottoms, okay. We're not going after the street pimps. It gives us the tool to go up the food chain, to get at the profiteers and the predators.

Yeah, I guess I'm saying I want other people to have an opportunity. But, you know, the establishing probable cause is a very subjective thing. And when you've got law enforcement coming in and describing a set of facts that described in one way can sound very much like some set of circumstances occurring, but could be very, very innocent. And, you know, this bill doesn't limit the cell phone records of the minors. It goes after both the minors and the adults. Does it?

No, but that's why I said Federal Rule of Evidence 1161 prevents you from using the evidence of commercial sex against a minor. You can't introduce it at trial. You can't use it against the minors.

But you're invading the minor's privacy through their cell phone. You're not limiting. This doesn't limit your ability to get the communications from the minor's cell phone?

No, it does not. No, it does not.

I have concerns about the bill. I won't be supporting it today. I really appreciate it. I have great respect for both of you. But I think this is something that's very harmful to the vulnerable communities who are living on the street, including LGBTQ people, people of color. I just think that it is a, it's a huge invasion of the privacy of folks that are very, very, very vulnerable. And I just want to thank you for being here today.

Thank you. Questions, further questions? Ms. Reyes?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I thank my colleague from North Hollywood for his comments. Those are extremely important comments. And he was very specific at the very beginning in asking for the fact pattern. That's important. And I think that in determining how you get a search warrant, he's absolutely correct. It is trying to describe this fact pattern to a judge to show probable cause for the search warrant. I don't think his question was answered in a way that... For me it was satisfactory.

I don't know if it was satisfactory to him about the fact pattern that is used. When we talk about our youth, we want to protect them. And you say it's not our youth. It's not the young kids, the young children that we're after. It's the Johns. It's the human traffickers. But the effect to them is... It's much greater than it should be.

It's our former foster youth, our foster youth, our LGBTQ youth that are most affected when we're talking about human trafficking, according to statistics that we hear over and over and over again. One of the comments that was provided in the analysis is that an amendment that could be taken is that if the goal is to find evidence against sex traffickers, then the amendment would be that it should only be evidence in furtherance of sex trafficking of a person under 18 years of age. This is on page six. Is this an amendment that was accepted, was rejected, is being considered?

Let me just jump in. Thank you very much. Senate Bill 1332 by Holly Mitchell, chaptering number 654 basically states that no minor under 18 can be charged with anything that they are being accused of because of their age. And so that is already in statutes. That's already in law right now. Again, that was Senate Bill 1332. Does that answer address your question?

If it is a proposed amendment, if you feel that it is already covered, is there harm in including it as an amendment?

No.

Let me just...

Is this something that will be considered then?

Yes, absolutely. And we're still, we're willing to work with the opposition, and we've heard concerns from the Committee Members, especially Mr. Zbur, regarding this. And we want to, our intent is to making sure that a cell phone, and I just want to describe this, a cell phone that's given to a child for prostitution. The child, 9 times out of 10, doesn't own the phone. The phone is given to by the predator or the pimp. So therefore, if law enforcement rolls up and asks for the phone, she or he cannot surrender what's in the phone.

And you have to show, again, not only probable calls to justify asking a magistrate for a search warrant to go into the phone that will connect the dots in the phone based on the communication that leads to an arrest and to an apprehension that shows clearly that there's been communication by the John or the pimp, whatever you want to call it, with a minor child, that clarifies that child is being trafficked.

And I understand, if I may, Mr. Chair. But we're not saying that it is only a search warrant for a phone that does not belong to that minor. We're saying for a cell phone in the possession of that minor.

True.

So your example of the pimps or the Johns ownership of the phone, that were the only thing we're looking for, then that would be in the bill, right? That this is limited to only a cell phone for which the ownership is not that minor child. That is not in the bill?

No, that's not the language of the bill because we don't know whether the phone was gifted. Ownership is a very tricky concept. It is really the limitation when you go into the privacy considerations that you're both correctly raising is that you have to specify the type of information that you're seeking and the purpose for which you're seeking it. It's not a fishing expedition.

You don't get to grab a cell phone and start calling a child's parents, who may have kicked them out and put that child at further risk. That is not permitted. As part of the search warrant, you have to say what you're looking for, what the purpose of it is and how you're going to use it, and what it is that you intend to seize. And we are looking for evidence of fraud, threat, or coercion or trafficking or pimping or, you know, you sometimes... A fact pattern.

You will get a direction on a phone because we've now, as I said, we've rescued over 60 minors. They'll get a direction. Show up at the corner of Gage and Figueroa. There'll be a yellow Volkswagen. He'll give you $100 for a specified act. That's in the phone. We go and we see the yellow Volkswagen. We can't really do anything on solicitation. There's no harm yet. And we can't go get a search warrant without understanding what's in the telephone. We send an undercover decoy. Okay.

And a pimp. And this happened, actually, two large men came before our two undercovers and said, "Choose up," and threatened them. Okay? Can't deal with the pimp because our undercovers are, by definition, not minors. So solicitation of someone who is not, in fact, a minor, is not even a misdemeanor. If we had a basis on which to go get a search warrant for their phones, we would find other circumstances where they may well be trafficking minors. And so it is an investigative tool that, unlike the loitering statute, doesn't target the victim. It is intended to get information on the traffickers.

When you're talking about getting a search warrant, if I may, we're not talking about a period of a week. From the moment that you decide that you need to get a search warrant. How much time are we talking about? You're getting to a magistrate.

Sorry. This is Travis Austin with my office, who actually prosecutes these cases.

And thank you, Assembly Member. The search warrants...

Oh, sure.

Mic.

Thank you. Closer to you. Thank you.

The search warrant could be applied for immediately by law enforcement and...

And, excuse me, that's why you still have the minor there waiting for the search warrant to be signed by the magistrate?

There are instances in which that could happen when you have the minor detained for investigative purposes. And we see that happen often with DUIs, driving under the influence, when there's a refusal, a search warrant could be obtained almost immediately. With respect to prostitution, however, many times there is no arrest involved, and there's a citation for a future court date for the John. And the search warrant could also be obtained at a later date prior to the John's future court date while the case is still being investigated.

I will tell you my biggest issue with this, and I think my colleague best described it, is that it would allow police to seize a victim's... And we're talking about victims when we're talking about those who are being trafficked... A victim's personal phone and obtain a search warrant to obtain, to sweep up all their messages, phone calls, and emails. And it is described in the opposition, one of the opposition letters, in a fishing expedition for evidence.

Since many minor victims have fled abusive homes or have been disowned for being gay or transsexual, these searches could put them at risk of further harm. That is of great concern, and it is something that I think cannot be taken lightly. I understand the purpose of the goal of the bill, but I also have to voice this very strong concern. The words that were used were "victimizing and terrorizing the victims."

I can absolutely see how the victims would feel terrorized or victimized over and over again because of this process. It's of great concern to me. If the bill does get through, it is something that I would want to see corrected before we get to the floor. This has to be addressed. It is a serious issue. Whether it's anticipated or not anticipated, this is a serious issue. And I would agree with my colleague from North Hollywood on that.

Okay, thank you. We have Assembly Member Wilson, and then Mr. Zbur will get back in line. And Assembly Member Nguyen. No.

Sorry. I recognize that, I think my colleague had a follow up question on the same lines. And so a lot of what my colleague has said I support and agree with, so I won't rehash that. And I think you answered a key question for me as it related to the evidence being confined to what you're asking for.

I do think they're... My overall concern, which gave me caution, and I wasn't sure where I was going to be on this bill prior to the discussion, was how broad it was and the right to privacy. And a lot of times, in the effort to be proactive when it comes to criminal justice, we trample on that right not just for the criminals, but for people who are not doing criminal activity.

Especially when, as my colleague stated, when you think about the LGBTQ plus community and how, a lot of times, they are regarded from policing, from police officers or law enforcement, in a very over sexualized way, that puts them in the category as it relates to prostitution or things. Things that they wouldn't be doing in any way, shape or form. And so I don't want to get them caught up into that, nor do I want to trample on the rights of people who aren't doing anything wrong.

And if there is a possibility already in existing legislation and existing laws that deal with felony and allowing search warrant for that, I still yet don't understand the threshold needed to lower the threshold so low as it relates to that. So that is my concern. And so definitely you can address it, and then I'll yield to my colleague.

I'm hoping I can persuade you, Assembly Member, because a lot of the breadth that was read into the record is in the existing law. We didn't change a word. I mean, when the property or things to be seized, et cetera, all we did was there's an existing grounds for the issuance of a search warrant, again, with probable cause before court, but it requires sexual exploitation or possession of matter depicting sexual conduct of a person under 18.

So if the child has, in fact, been harmed and there's an actual sexual act, that's the basis for a search warrant for the communications. All we have done is we have said when it is a minor and there is the solicitation behavior from a predator or a customer, then we would like the opportunity to go to a search warrant. We didn't change the first part of the statute at all. We added paragraph three of subdivision b of Section 647, which is Legalese for solicitation of a minor for prostitution.

Through the Chair.

Yes.

Real quick follow up on that. But how would you know that there's been solicitation of a minor without obtaining the cell phone records?

The solicitation is typically observable on the street or it is words spoken to a decoy officer. There's a lot of different interactions that will tend to show solicitation without necessarily rising to the level of the actual physical act.

Thank you.

Mr. Zbur has one quick follow up question.

I think my questions were along the lines of what my colleague said. But I think one of the concerns I have is you described fact patterns, obviously, where this could be used as a tool, where you've got a John who is preying on children and on people. Right? And you have used the cell phone records, and it's provided the evidence of doing that. The problem with the bill is that there doesn't seem to me...

I don't see anything that limits the ability of law enforcement to use it against people other than this, the probable cause standard, which is very loose and could very easily be met for people that are LGBTQ that are basically just walking around.

It's a... There are all kinds of studies that sort of show that trans women, especially trans women of color, are much more likely to be arrested for solicitation, even in cases where they are not, because of subjective ideas that law enforcement has about who they are and what they're doing. So what I worry about is this doesn't seem to prevent a case of... You basically said, okay, it's got to be very specific. It's got to be. I'm looking for a phone.

I'm looking for a phone that may have evidence of communications related to solicitation. You don't have that information until you've gotten the phone. And you have to have described some set of standards to convince a judge to allow you to just grab these kids' cell phones. And some of them are, well, we know that LGBTQ kids, and LGBTQ kids of color in particular, and trans kids in particular, are overrepresented in the homeless population are more likely to be, much more likely to be preyed upon.

But those facts, by themselves doesn't mean that those kids are necessarily victims. And you're sweeping in all of these folks and depriving them their privacy, and I don't see any safeguards in that. So while, you know, I really. I agree that the goals that you're trying to meet in terms of protecting vulnerable kids are worthy ones.

I just think that this is a huge invasion of privacy for people that are not only the people that are victims of the people you're trying to protect, but you're victimizing kids that are not those victims by basically giving law enforcement a tool to come in and take their phones and violate their privacy when the circumstances are so subjective and there aren't any guardrails of this law. So thank you.

Okay, I think that was more commentary than a question. Further questions here?

Move the bill.

Motion and a second. Mr. Ting.

So, yeah, I'm struggling with the bill because of my colleague's comments from Hollywood. I think that, I don't think there's anyone up here who doesn't want to help your office get the tools they need to find fight sex trafficking of minors. I mean, there's no one up here who's for that. The question is, and I see the bill is a very simple bill.

It's just adding that little section to the search for section. As you're hearing the sort of the feedback from the Committee, how would you structure some of these guardrails that are of, you know, significant concern? Because I think we all want to give you the tools you need to have to fight child sex trafficking. We're just trying to... I'm struggling with, again, just the concerns that my colleague has raised.

I'm happy to take specific suggestions, but I will just tell you that I think the safeguards are in the bill. Communications is defined in the penal code. If it would help to add the word electronic in front of communications so that it ties back to the Electronic Communications Act, that's not a problem. So the guardrails for a search warrant are our time honored tradition for due process. This is how we search everything. It's no different. It doesn't target LGBTQ plus. It doesn't target heterosexual kids.

It just says kids. We want the ability to protect minors, our sons, our daughters, our children. Last week, my office prosecuted a 50 year old man who had actually been out with a 14 year old girl. She's now in a place of safety. We were able to convict the individual without re-traumatizing the child, but we have to have access to the tools to do that. We specialize in vertical prosecution. We specialize in child sex abuse.

We protect more Latina and African American girls along the Figueroa corner than any other law enforcement agency, and we deliver them to service providers. There should be some letters from service providers in the file who we work with, Journey Out, SISTAHFRIENDS, and a number of other service providers who look at our work and understand that what we're doing is protecting the kids. We need this tool if we are to continue to be effective. Please.

So, for me, I'm willing to give you a courtesy vote to get out of Committee so you can keep working, hopefully, with my, our colleague, in hopes that by the time it reaches... When it reaches the floor. Cause the next destination would be the floor, that you could get the bill into a fashion that we could support. I think this is too important an issue to say, let's just pass on till next year. So I do want to give our colleague from Carson A little more time to work on the bill.

And the City Attorney's Office to work on the bill to, you know, try to get the guardrails that... I'm also very concerned if, I think, those guardrails aren't there. I think those of those concerns aren't met, I don't know that I would be able to vote for the bill on the floor.

Okay, Mr. Gipson, we have a motion and a second with some suggestions and directive to you to keep working on this. I also will support this today and encourage you to keep engaging with the Members, even though you go straight to the floor.

First of all, let me say. I'm sorry...

Yes, please close.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Members. I thank you all for your robust, the robust conversation, you know, having dialogue in this matter. I want to thank the City Attorney for, one, for working collaboratively with me. We want to strengthen this bill, and we want to make this bill better.

The cell phone may, in fact, be the lifesaver for a minor child, and what contains may be the example, the information to take that child off the street from being further victimized by her or his John. And I understand my colleague from West Hollywood, when it comes down to LGBTQ plus, have been, you know, perpetrated, have been, you know, used and pointed out, singled out, a whole nine yards. And I have written copious notes, sir, and I will take...

I will come to your office, each one of your office, and making sure that your concerns is, in fact, addressed in this business. But I would also ask that you give me time enough to do that. Because this is the venue, this is the place for that dialogue, and I have heard you clearly. We don't want to victimize other people who are innocent. We don't want to victimize trans or anyone else, but we want to make sure that we save lives. Tioni Theus. She's gone.

I can't unring that bell. 16 years old, and her parents did everything. Her mother did everything she could to try to save her life, and the John shot her twice in the neck and threw her out on the street like trash. I don't want that to happen to any child in this state. California leads the nation when it comes down to human sex trafficking, but we must do everything we can to protect our children. And this, I believe, is a step in the right direction. With your input, we can make this bill better, and it'd be something you'd be proud of on the floor. I respectfully ask for a strong aye vote.

Thank you. We have a motion a second. Please call the roll.

On AB 20 419 by Assembly Member Gipson, the motion is do pass. [Roll Call]

Okay, that measure passes. Just to note, it is noon. We are going to hear one more bill. We think it's a quick bill. I don't want to jinx that, Mr. Hart. Quick bill. And then we will take a break for lunch and our caucus lunches. Respect the Democratic Caucus, Republican Caucus lunch, and reconvene at 1:30, across the hall, room 127.

Move the bill.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Real quick, Mr. Hart. We're going to adopt the consent calendar real quick. If you can just hold tight. Okay. We have a motion by Mr. Alanis on the consent calendar. A second by Mr. Ting. Proposed consent calendar: AB 1832, Blanca Rubio, AB 1888, Arambula, AB 2621, Gabriel, AB 2730, Lackey, AB 2759, Petrie-Norris, AB 2818, Mathis, AB 2822, Gabriel, AB 2833, McKinnor, AB 2944, Waldron, AB 2974, Dahle, AB 2985, Hart, AB 3014, Irwin, AB 3029, Bains, AB 3042, Nguyen, and AB 3092, Ortega.

On the consent calendar. [Roll Call]

Consent Calendar adopted. Thank you, Members. Mr. Hart, AB 3077. Item number 33.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm pleased to present AB 3077. Under current law, judges may consider a defendant's psychiatric diagnosis when evaluating if the defendant is incompetent to stand trial and eligible for mental health treatment. Data shows that 2 to 6% of the population suffers from Borderline Personality Disorder and is known to be treatable with a combination of psychotherapy and medication. Despite the availability of effective treatment, individuals with borderline personality disorder are excluded from these provisions.

This exclusion is not data-driven, perpetuates harmful stigma about the disorder, and limits access to the necessary mental health treatments so individuals can recover their mental health. AB 3077 will add borderline personality disorder to the existing list of psychiatric diagnoses that judges may consider when evaluating if defendants are competent to stand trial. Speaking in support of the Bill with me today is Harry Bruell, the CEO of PathPoint, and Courtnie Thomas, the Senior Manager of Operations and Special Projects at California Council of Community Behavioral Health Agencies.

Thank you. Please begin.

Good afternoon, Chair Members and Staff. Thank you for your time. I'm Courtnie Thomas with the California Council of Community Behavioral Health Agencies. We're a statewide advocacy health service organization representing members. One of whom you'll hear from, provide behavioral health services to over 1 million Californians and growing. CBHA is proud to be the sponsor of AB 3077.

To echo some of Assemblymember Hart's comments is. Brderline personality disorder, or BPD, should be considered by law in the same manner as the diagnosis that are currently covered, which include bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, and other mental disorders. BPD is no more dangerous than the mental illnesses previously mentioned. The exclusion of BPD from Incompetence to Stand Trial or IST eligibility perpetrates harmful stigma about the disorder and limits access to care for people at high risk of suicide. For this, we ask the community to vote aye.

And thank you for allowing me the time to express our commitment and like to turn it over to Harry.

Thank you.

Hi, thanks for the opportunity to be here Chair. My name is Harry Bruell. I'm CEO of PathPoint a behavioral health agency in Santa Barbara in Assemblymember Hart's district. I'm also a father. My daughter Taya died when she was 14 of suicide. We believe she had borderline personality disorder, but she never got a diagnosis because of the stigma around borderline personality disorder. So she never got the treatment that might have saved her life.

I have a letter here from a woman named Joanna who had borderline personality disorder. Went through the court. She wrote, "Sitting in a cell would not have fixed my problems. Therapy is the single most important factor that created real change in my life." Here are four reasons to support the Bill. The first is there's no scientific or medical rationale for excluding borderline personality disorder. Number two, the two other conditions that are excluded are essentially defined by criminality.

BPD is not and is no more dangerous than the conditions that are eligible. Number three, BPD is treatable and reduces the risk of recidivism through treatment. And number four, the exclusion of borderline personality disorder perpetuates stigma and limits access to care. Last year, this Committee Supported AB 1412, a very similar Bill sponsored or authored by Assemblymember Hart, that removed similar language from the Mental Health Diversion Program. The Governor signed that into law. Thank you Committee, for supporting that.

We hope now, and I urge you to support AB 3077 to help save the lives of people like my daughter Taya, and to reduce suffering for people like Joanna. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support, please come forward.

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

Thank you.

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

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

Thank you. Questions or comments from Committee Members? Oh, sorry. Any opposition? There's no list of opposition. Any opposition? Seeing none. We have a motion. A second. Committee Members. Seeing none. We already have that. Please call the roll. Reyes and Wilson.

On AB 3077 by Assemblymember. Hart. The motion is do-pass to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

Thank you. That measure passes and we will recess until. Yes, add-ons breifly. We're going to have to come back anyway. Yeah, we'll come. We're going to recess. Come back at 1:30. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members, good afternoon. AB 3021 will require police officers, prosecuting attorneys, or investigators to clearly identify themselves and explain the rights of individuals being interviewed, questioned, or interrogated prior to engaging with the family member of someone who's been killed or severely injured by a peace officer. In the aftermath of incidents involving police violence, families of the victim are often approached by authorities under the guise of an interview.

Family members are told to go to the precinct, not given information about the State of their loved one, and often lie to about the incident as they are interrogated. While the family Members is distressed and worried for their loved one, law enforcement officers use this opportunity to coerce information about the victim's past in order to paint a narrative about the victim or build a case against them.

Initially perceived by families as isolated incidents, it has come to light that this practice is a police interrogation tactic promoted by a private entity named Lexipol. Lexipol offers instruction to 95% of our law enforcement agencies on techniques to extract information from families with the aim of protecting officers from legal repercussions and criminal allegations. Such tactics not only inflict harm upon the victim and their family, but also erode trust in law enforcement.

The relatives of individuals affected by police violence have a reasonable expectation of transparency and information about the circumstances surrounding their loved ones welfare without encountering, deceiving and threatening information. Opposition might suggest that rushing families through these interviews and misrepresenting their rights is crucial for obtaining honest information about the victim. However, statements by the co-founder of Lexipol and firsthand stories shared by affected family members, vividly illustrate that police officers are not conducting these interrogations to solve a crime.

We draft this Bill to be narrow and straightforward, with the ultimate goal being to protect victim's family members who are taking advantage of at a very vulnerable time by this unethical practice. So I'm happy to work with any of the opposition who want to help us thread the needle here. AB 3021 does not create any new rights, but by putting in a few moments between the incident and interrogation, we can empower families to exercise their rights and interactions with police officers when they are most vulnerable.

With me to provide supporting testimony is Jim Shulman with Silicon Valley De-Bug and Ed Little with Californians for Safety and Justice. Thank you.

Thank you. You have five minutes to split among your witnesses.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Assembly. My name is Jim Shulman and this was my daughter, Diana Marie Shulman, who at the age of 19, was shot and killed by the San Jose Police Department outside my home in San Jose on August 14, 2014. I arrived that day around noon to find dozens of squad cars and yellow tape blocking the street. I was stopped and questioned by an officer who said a woman from my home came out with a weapon and was shot.

When I asked how she was, I was told she was on the way to the hospital. The officer suggested we get out of the heat and go to the station to clear things up to find out what happened. Thinking and hoping she was simply wounded, I complied, assuming I'd be given answers about her status, and was taken to an interrogation room at the San Jose police station. The officer began recording basic information about who Diana and I were.

Shortly later, he was called out by a plainclothes officer who also confiscated my cell phone. I was left alone for about 2 hours when two detectives arrived and began extensive interrogation. I was questioned about her mental health history, family problems, and any suicide attempts. Desperate to understand what had happened and how she was doing, I answered every question and regrettably shared crisis episodes that occurred during her life. After about 25 minutes of intense questioning, they asked if Diana was capable of violent behavior.