Assembly Standing Committee on Public Safety

Good morning. We will call this meeting to order as a Subcommitee. We do not have a quorum just yet, but we will begin with today's business. First, a couple housekeeping items. We have two bills pulled by the authors this morning. AB 1873 Sanchez and AB 2790 Pacheco. We won't do the consent, so we wait for that. Yes. All right, we'll begin again as a Subcommitee, but we'll have a busy agenda today, so we'll start with our authors and our presentations. The first on the list is assemblymember Low, followed by Gabriel and Davies.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and colleagues, for allowing me to present Assembly Bill 2814 with respect to package theft. The likelihood is that many of you have had your packages stolen from your doorstep and or had friends and neighbors also had packages stolen from your curtilage of your homes as well too. This bill helps to ensure that prosecutors can help enforce while making sure that we are protecting our communities and not over correcting as well too.

I know that this is an issue that we've heard from many constituents in our communities, and I hope that you'll support this bill today. With me is Mr. Rubin with the County of Santa Clara District Attorney's Office. Respectfully asked for your aye vote.

You have five minutes. Please begin.

So there are about 119 million packages stolen a year. I've also seen estimates of over 200 million. It's probably one of the two most underreported crimes next to unlawful attempts to use people's credit cards. How many people here just sitting down have had packages stolen from their porch or from their house? I see at least one. I see at least one individual who has.

If that's just an accurate percentage of the group here, that's very unusual because about three out of every four Americans have been victims of package theft. And, although we call it package theft, it's often called porch piracy. It's often called a version of burglary. And it's not like most other thefts in three different ways. First, this bill would punish entry onto the curtilage with the intent to commit theft. An entry onto the curtilage invokes much greater feelings of a violation of personal security in much the same way that a burglary invokes outrage and continuing feelings of a breach of personal security.

It's also much more likely to result in violence, not just violence perpetrated against the person coming on to the home, because when you have someone doing that, it becomes much more likely that the homeowner seeing this person breach their privacy come on to an area that the US Supreme Court has recognized for many, many years as an area of special protection. They go out and they will take the law into their own hands. They will go out and they will fight for their packages.

You just have to go on YouTube and look at the videos to see how many people will end up doing that. People who see this, especially people who've been repeatedly victimized, it's very frustrating. And that frustration is shown when they see someone coming up to their home and they take action. And then thirdly, because this offense is so common and really the consequences are so de minimis, it encourages both lawlessness and an even greater failure to report.

The less the enforcement, the less the consequences, the less the likelihood the crime is reported. The less the crime is reported, the more the crimes increase. Moreover, in every way, in every way, this crime disproportionately impacts impoverished neighborhoods, often communities of color. Because unlike in well off neighborhoods where they can potentially have gated communities, where people can afford private security forces, where they can spend money to take other measures to deter this type of crime, impoverished communities don't have that luxury.

The folks who want to take advantage of the lower costs that they can obtain by using online shopping, they have to arrange for packages, if they want to be sure that those packages get to them, they have to arrange for other measures. They have to go to, like, another store where they probably can pick it up. But that adds costs. That adds cost.

Even if it's just the cost of having to take public transportation, even if it's just the cost of having to pay for gas to drive to this other location. And that's very disruptive of their lives as well. Plus, package thefts raise the costs for everyone. You know, being able to have packages delivered to your home, whether that's medicine for folks who can't leave the house or other critical products, that's a huge benefit to be able to have it come to your home.

And when it's taken, who eats the cost of the theft? Sometimes it's the person who is waiting there for the package. But often it is the seller. And the seller will often reimburse the person who has lost the package. But these are not just big corporations. These are hundreds of thousands of small companies that have to eat the costs every time a package is stolen.

Anybody else in support, please come up and state your name, organization, and position only.

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

Mr. Chair and Members, Jolena Voorhis on behalf of the League of California Cities in support.

Good morning. Sarah Pollo Moo with California Retailers Association in support.

Good morning. Meg Holtman with the California District Attorneys Association in support.

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

Hi. Natalie Boust on behalf of the California Business Roundtable in support.

Seeing no more support, do we have opposition? Please come forward. Please begin. You have five minutes to split amongst yourselves.

Okay. Good morning. My name is Matt Sotorosen. I'm here on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association. I've been a public defender for 25 years in California. We respectfully oppose the creation of this new crime for several reasons. First, this is an end run around the intent of the voters. California does not need to imprison more people for nonviolent property crimes. It's been demonstrated that we cannot incarcerate our way out of what has been perceived as a concern in our neighborhoods.

Proposition 47, the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act, was passed a decade ago overwhelmingly by the voters, with 60% of the vote. AB 2814 would undo the healing of scars of mass incarceration. For example, this bill would make stealing of some groceries off of a porch felony. And they need not remind the Members of this Committee that having a felony conviction can have several adverse impacts on a person.

Their ability to get a job, to get student loans, to ability to vote, take away their Second Amendment rights. They could lose a professional license or permit. Not to mention the savings from not subjecting Californians to prison or lengthy jail sentences for nonviolent theft offenses allows California to refocus millions of precious tax dollars on much needed services for our communities. Also, other states have tried this with limited success.

For example, Texas was one of the first states to pass a similar law in 2019, and this has been the Texas experience. There have been over 100 persons charged in Texas with felonies under this law, and none of them have been reported to be part of an organized crime ring. Many people charged were homeless, said they were looking for money for food.

When citizens were asked about this law, they said comments like a lot of the resources that go into finding someone who's stolen a package could be reallocated to better use somewhere else. Finally, making this a nonviolent property crime a felony is not good policy, and making it a wobbler, as it's written, does not mitigate against its harm.

My experience of 25 years of appearing with people accused of felonies in California State is that wobblers are often charged as felonies, and a person who's accused of a felony is less likely to get out of jail. And when a person's in custody, the data shows, even for two or more days, they can lose their housing, their employment, their pets, their cars can be towed in their absence.

There's an immense amount of pressure placed on someone who's incarcerated and accused of a felony to plead guilty to a crime, even if they're innocent of that crime. And under our current speedy trial rights in California, it can take up to three months to exercise your right to a jury trial. We simply do not need to create another felony for nonviolent property offense in California. We respectfully ask for a no vote on AB 2814. Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. My name is Mica Doctoroff. I'm a Senior Staff Attorney at the ACLU of Northern California, here today on behalf of ACLU California Action. While we understand and appreciate the goal of preventing and addressing package theft, this bill will not accomplish that goal. First, we do not believe this bill is necessary. Under existing law, a person can already be prosecuted for entering the curtilage of a home with the intent to commit a theft.

Depending on the circumstances, a person could be convicted of trespassing, attempted grand theft, attempted petty theft, or attempted receiving stolen property. Given the availability of existing laws, we do not believe a separate crime is necessary. Second, we are concerned that AB 2814 could be used as a tool to discriminate against houseless people, people with mental illness, and people of color.

In particular, we fear that the bill could be used as a pretext for arresting people against whom law enforcement or property owners are explicitly or implicitly biased. It is not difficult to imagine a situation in which homeowners in a predominantly white and wealthy community notice, either through their own observations or their neighbors' posts on a site like Nextdoor, that a small group of black teenagers is walking from house to house and pausing on the porch of each home before moving to the next.

The homeowners become suspicious and call the police, who then arrest the teenagers. As it turns out, the teenagers were leaving flyers for a local fundraiser and not intending to steal packages. Likewise, a situation could arise in which police officers arrest and detain a houseless person sitting on the front steps of a home simply because the officers notice a package on the front stoop.

Needless to say, had the group of teenagers been white or the houseless person been a businessman dressed in a suit and tie, their presence near the homes would not have garnered the same reaction. While these issues of discrimination and bias already occur today, we fear that the creation of this new crime will only exacerbate these problems. For this reason, we're in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Please line up for further opposition. Before we do that, can we please call the roll? We have a quorum.

[Roll Call]

Okay, do have a quorum. So please, state your name, organization, and position only.

Natasha Minsker, Smart Justice California, strongly opposed.

Barbara Chavez on behalf of the Ella Baker Center, oppose.

Melanie Kim, San Francisco Public Defender's Office, strongly oppose.

Alissa Moore, All of Us or None, in strong opposition.

Lawrence Cox, LSPC, strong opposition.

Taina Vargas, Initiate Justice Action, in opposition.

Roxana Gonzalez, Initiate Justice Action, strongly opposed.

Ed Little, Californians for Safety and Justice, in opposition.

Good morning. Carmen-Nicole Cox, ACLU California Action. Ahmaud Arbery and Trayvon Martin are not here today because someone thought they had the intent to do something. Thank you.

Tiffany Whiten with SEIU California in opposition. Thank you.

Okay, no others? Thank you. Questions or comments from Committee Members? Mr. Lackey.

Yeah, I think that this is long in coming. Very thankful because of this porch pirate situation has become a very serious problem. And I would like to be considered to be a co-author if that's permissible because I think that this is... The public well deserves this approach. Thank you.

Mr. Zbur.

So I just want to thank the author of this bill. I do think that this is an issue that needs to be addressed. I am concerned about the bill. I think not having sort of sufficient guardrails around it. I think the penalties are that can be imposed for fairly minor things are too harsh. And so I just wanted to, for me at this point, I think this needs a lot more work to refine it. And because of that, I'm going to stay off the bill today. Thank you.

Mr. Alanis.

For the opposition, you mentioned that there's already a crime on the books already where they can be charged with if they enter the home or the curtilage. Could you elaborate on that more?

Yes, of course. Under existing law, there are already several crimes that a person could be charged with. Depending on the circumstances, a person could be charged with trespassing, attempted grand theft if they are actually trying to steal a package, attempted petty theft, again, depending on the value of the property, or attempted receiving stolen property.

Okay. I just haven't seen that charge before. I don't know. It's an area available to the public unless they have "No Trespassing" signs out already. Would you like to comment on that, sir?

Yes. There are many different variations on trespass, but none of the variations on trespass allow for someone to be punished, either as a misdemeanor or a felon, just because they enter onto the property with the intent to commit package theft or theft. That is incorrect when they say that trespass can cover this situation.

I have no other...

Okay, thank you. No further questions? Thank you. Thank you. We have a motion and a second. Mr. Low, would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for aye vote in recognition that this similar bill has passed this Committee in the past. Thank you.

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

On AB 2814 by Assembly Member Low, the motion is do pass to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

That measure passes. Thank you. Next author is Mr. Gabriel. Yes. Before you, before you proceed, just one more bill that was recently pulled, and that was item number 18, AB 2499, Davies. 2406. Please proceed.

Thank you very much, Mister chair and colleagues. And I want to thank you to the chair and the Committee staff for their thoughtful assistance on this measure. I am pleased today to present AB 2432 which established a permanent source of funding for programs serving crime victims, modeled on the bipartisan federal Victims of Crime act, or VOCA, AB 2432 makes it easier for state and local prosecutors to hold bad actors accountable, support victims, and protect our communities in several important ways.

First, the enhanced penalties in this Bill will ensure that bad actors cannot evade responsibility when they defraud or exploit vulnerable Californians. They will literally pay for their crimes. Second, ensuring that bad actors are held fully responsible will enhance deterrence and help protect residents across our state.

And finally, and perhaps most importantly, AB 2432 will provide an essential funding source for programs that provide vital, and in many cases, even life saving services to crime victims in California, including victims of human trafficking, domestic violence, and child abuse. This year, California's crime victim service providers who provide critical support face a reduction of $170 million in federal funding, a cut of approximately 40%. This would be devastating.

In practice, this means fewer staff, longer wait times, less assistance, and fewer of the vital services provided by domestic violence service providers, rape crisis centers, legal assistance nonprofits, human trafficking nonprofits, and many others.

I'm proud that AB 2432 is supported by a broad coalition of prosecutors, victim services organizations, and criminal justice groups that include Attorney General Robanta, the California Partnership to end domestic Viola Violence, the coalition to Abolish Slavery and Trafficking, California Women's Law Center, Smart justice, and the Vetura and Santa Clara County district attorneys, among many others. It has no recorded opposition.

With me today to testify in support of this measure are May Rico, the Executive Director from Haven, which provide critical services to crime victims in Stanislaus County, and Evan Ackrion, the special assistant to the Attorney General on white collar and corporate prosecutions. Thank you, and I respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you. You have five minutes for your panel. Please proceed.

Assemblymember Mccarty and Members of the Committee. My name is May Rico, and I am the Executive Director of Haven in Stanislaw County, which actually includes Assemblymember Alanisa's district. And I'm here today to speak in support of AB 2432 establishing a new revenue stream for crime victims in California. Haven is a private nonprofit providing services to survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, and human trafficking in Stanislas County, including emergency shelter, since 1977. Last year, Haven helped over 2500 survivors of abuse and violence.

Funding for crime victim services in California has not kept up with increased demand. As we come out of the pandemic, more people are seeking help while our resources to serve them are shrinking. Nor can we retain the experienced staff they need when we can't keep up with competitive wages. In July of 2022, our funding included two housing grants and a legal grant, all funded by VOCA. Today, those grants are gone, knocking out most of our housing program and two thirds of our legal program.

Today, if someone calls us for help with a restraining order, it will take time to find someone who can provide legal assistance and even more time to get an appointment. When someone is hunting you, someone who knows all the places you'll go to hide, and all the people who will help you, that time matters.

Continue.

Please continue.

Two years ago, there was a good chance we could provide transitional housing assistance to anyone in our emergency shelter. Now we are very limited in the direct room assistance we can provide, and our master lease units are gone. Someone today in our shelter is unlikely to find their own housing in the four to six weeks they are with us. Crime victims in California deserve better.

They come to us because they are in a system that has already failed them, and when we can't meet their needs in a timely manner, they are failed again. They need to know when they pick up the phone, their call will be answered quickly. We can't ensure that without this funding provided by this Measure, your support on AB 2432 will ensure our life saving programs continue. Thank you, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you.

Thank you. Good morning, Mister Chair and honorable Members of the Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss AB 2432 with you on behalf of one of the co sponsors, Attorney General Rob Bonta. We'd like to thank the Committee Council for the detailed Bill analysis, and we applaud Assemblyman Gabriel for his authorship of 2432.

To add to both the authors and my co sponsors presentations, AB 2432 would establish a state level additional funding mechanism to strengthen crime survivor restitution, and it supports by creating a corporate criminal financial enhancement that California courts can levy on corporations following a criminal conviction of the corporation. On the more technical side, currently the default criminal fine in California is $10,000 per felony conviction for any defendant, whether it's an individual or corporation.

There are certain specialized criminal fines in certain areas, such as environmental and white collar, that create larger fines. The proposed enhancement in 2432 would apply to all corporate defendants and corporate defendants only, and it would supplement the existing financial penalty enhancement by giving the courts additional discretion to impose financial penalties that match the seriousness of the crime.

Whenever a corporation is convicted of a crime. This Bill will hold corporations accountable for criminal wrongdoing, but it still requires the prosecutor to prove criminal intent for each crime that's being charged and to create, and sorry, and to obtain a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt before the proposed enhancement could be sought. As mentioned earlier 2432 is a win win due to declining VOCA funding that is linked to federal prosecutions.

Attorney General Bonta recently joined a coalition of attorney generals representing 32 states and territories, urging Congress to provide critical support and services to victims and survivors of crime by taking steps to increase the VOCA Fund with short term bridge funding. As noted in the Committee's analysis, both the California administered VOCA funding as well as the California Victims Compensation Board are perpetually underfunded, leaving many crime survivors with limited support.

I'm happy to answer any questions, and we respectfully request your I vote so that the state may create supplemental state funding for VOCA and for the other California victim services by supporting prosecuting agencies with bringing these criminal cases forward on behalf of vulnerable California.

Thank you. Any others in support, please line up your name position only.

Natasha Minsker Smart Justice California and strong support.

Danica Rodarmel on behalf of Initiate Justice and strong support.

Taina Vargas Initiate Justice, action and support.

John Finley representing the Center for Community Solutions in San Diego speaking in support.

Cheryl Marcell CEO, Stand Up Placer and strong support.

Jamie Garrick on behalf of Sacramento LGBT center in strong support.

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

Holly Fleming, Children's Advocacy Centers of California, as well as Homebridge Victim Empowerment Support Team, Women Inc., Jewish Family Services in LA, Interface Childhood Family Services, Shelter from the Storm and House of Ruth in strong support.

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

Tunisia Owens, policy and advocacy manager at Family Violence Law center in Alameda County and the Gender based Violence Coalition of Alameda County, in strong support.

Good morning. Faith Lee with Asian Americans Advancing justice Southern California in support

Sarah Brennan with the Weideman Group on behalf of ValorUS, which represents a strong network of advocates, crisis professionals, volunteers and community partners that make up California's safety net for sexual violence survivors. We're proud to co sponsor AB 2432 ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Good morning. Magaly Zagal with Greenberg Traurig on behalf of the California Partnership, 10 domestic violence a co sponsor the Culturally Responsive Domestic Violence Network, co sponsor Casa Esperanza, Center for Domestic Peace, Family Services of Tulare County, Family Violence Appellate Project, Humboldt Domestic Violence Services and Next Door Solutions to Domestic Violence. Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Laura McMahon, I'm the Executive Director of Legal Aid in Marin and we strongly support this Bill. Thank you.

Lawrence Cox, LSPC strongly support.

Alissa Moore. All of us or None. Strongly supported.

Tannah Oppliger with Californians United for a Responsible Budget. Strong support. Thank you.

Lisa Mantero Moore with the Stanislaus Family Justice Center as well as the California Family Justice Network and strong support. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any opposition to this Bill? Doubtful. Impressive coalition of support. Seeing none, questions or comments from Committee Members. We do have a motion in a second. Mister Lackey.

Yeah, excuse me. I'd like to say first of all I need to be consistent in being a victim's rights advocate. Clearly their funding is in jeopardy and they're actually having a very difficult time at this environment right now. But my question to the author's desk and I kind of inferred it somewhat in our previous conversation, but what is the assurance that this money will go to the crime victim's circumstance and not be diverted to General Fund?

Yeah, you have my commitment on that. And right now the money is set aside specifically to do that. Yeah. I just want to thank you all. I want to thank the really in particular, thank the Attorney General's Office and also most importantly, all of the advocates who do the incredible work in our communities to help crime victims. That is difficult and challenging work and they make a real difference in the lives of a lot of folks across the state. So on their behalf, and on my behalf, respectfully request and aye vote. Thank you.

We have a motion. A second.

[Roll Call]

The measure passes. Thank you. Next author, Assemblymember Irwin, Item number 2, AB 1779.

Good morning, Chair and Members. I'm pleased today to present AB 1779, which returns authority to the district attorneys to join charges from multiple counties into one trial when prosecuting organized retail theft rings that have operated across multiple jurisdictions.

This morning I was honored to have the measure included in Speaker Rivas's Californians Together Against Retail Crime slate of bills. As my two witnesses will share more about, organized retail theft continues to plague our communities and its resulting financial impact burdens not only retailers, but also the average family trying to purchase goods.

While I'm proud to have revived this ability to join charges from multiple jurisdictions from the Attorney General in 2022, we have heard from the CHP at the Little Hoover Commission and from retailers that there are more multi-jurisdictional cases than the Department of Justice is willing to take on.

With district attorneys ready and willing to respond to their constituent concerns with multi-jurisdictional organized retail theft and our state budget investments building out their capacity for this specific purpose, it is an appropriate time to revive this tool for district attorneys. This Bill was amended last month to provide that DAs have the written agreement of other jurisdictions. Otherwise, charges occurring in a non-participating jurisdiction will be returned.

And additionally, this Committee has suggested on page 5 of the analysis an amendment to require a joinder hearing under Penal Code 954 be added to address constitutionality concerns. I accept this Committee's suggestion and in consultation with the Committee, have agreed to amend the Bill accordingly on the Assembly floor. Now I'd like to introduce my two primary witnesses, Ventura County District Attorney Erik Nasarenko and President of the California Retailer's Association, Rachel Michelin.

Thank you. Please proceed.

Good morning, Chair McCarty, Members of the Assembly Public Safety, Committee staff. I want to thank all of you for entertaining this important legislation. I, too, want to thank and applaud Assemblymember Jacqui Irwin for bringing forward this Bill. Last year in Ventura County, we were able to receive 17 million in organized retail theft prevention grant funding, 15 to our sheriff, 2 to the Office of the District Attorney.

We now have law enforcement and prosecutorial resources in Ventura County to combat the scourge of organized retail theft. We respectfully seek and ask your assistance in creating the legal framework that will allow us to address and combat these organized retail theft rings that occur in Ventura County and elsewhere. I want to emphasize that this is a sensible and cost-effective piece of legislation. Why is it sensible and cost-effective?

Because we have the ability to take organized retail thefts that occur in multiple counties and consolidate them into one action in one county, so long as there is the permission of the other DAs in those surrounding counties. I welcome the amendment. This is a longstanding practice in California penal code to seek the acceptance or buy-in of DAs wherein thefts or other offenses occurred, but it also preserves judicial economy. Rather than try the defendant in multiple locations, it consolidates the location into one venue.

And lastly, and perhaps most importantly, it also ensures and protects defendants' rights. Rather than face prosecution in multiple counties, they have one action in one county. So I encourage this body to vote in the affirmative and I want to thank all of you for considering the restoration of this important cross multi-jurisdictional piece of legislation. Thank you.

Thank you, next witness.

Chairman McCarty, Members of the Public Safety Committee, we've all seen the videos, individuals walking into a store, cleaning out a shelf full of products into a garbage bag and riding out on a bike. Or what about the thieves targeting essential items like baby formula, crossing county lines to steal from multiple stores while threatening a retail employee, knowing it would be more difficult to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, because prosecutors currently lack the authority for multi-jurisdictional prosecutions.

Retailers, retail employees, and California customers are frustrated with seeing retail theft and organized retail crime happening all around them. We must give our law enforcement and local prosecutors the tools they need to address these sophisticated crime rings and holds these enterprises accountable for their criminal activity. California prosecutors effectively utilized cross jurisdictional charging between 2019 and 2021, and while in 2022 the State allowed for the Attorney General the ability to continue prosecuting with this tool, the unfortunate fact is retail theft is so rampant that in order to deter it from increasing and ensure our businesses, employees and customers are safe from criminal activity, we need to restore the ability of cross-jurisdictional charging to our district attorneys. Through collaboration among the Department of Justice, district attorneys, and retailers across the state, I am confident we can begin to tackle the growth of retail theft ORC and begin to see safer retail environments throughout the state.

We support the amendments to address the concerns regarding the potential conflicts between neighboring counties to require the prosecutor to present written authorization and the recent amendments the author agreed to take on the Assembly floor. And this Bill builds on a number of legislative proposals as part of the Assembly retail theft package package that, taken comprehensively, could have meaningful impacts on stopping the growing threat of retail theft and organized retail crime in California.

And it sends a signal that the conversation around the issue of holding repeat offenders accountable for their criminal behavior is changing. AB 1779 ensures Californians that we will not allow criminals to circumvent the law by crossing county lines to avoid accountability for their criminal actions. For those reasons, I ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Any others in support, please line up. Your name, organization and position only.

Mr. Chair and Members, Jillian DeVors on behalf of the League of California Cities in strong support. Thank you.

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

Chair and Members, Danielle Sanchez on behalf of the Chief Probation Officers of California, in support.

Mr. Chair, Jack Yanos on behalf of the California Fuels and Convenience Alliance, in support.

Meg Holtman, California District Attorneys Association, in support.

Brenda Bass, California Chamber of Commerce, in support.

Daniel Conway, California Grocers, in support.

Natalie Boust, California Business Roundtable, in support.

Skyler Wonnacott, California Business Properties Association, in support.

Candace Chung, on behalf of Attorney General Rob Bonta, in support.

Bradley Schoenleben, Orange County District Attorney's Office, full support.

Mr. Chair and Members, Dan Felizzatto on behalf of Los Angeles County's District Office, District Attorney's Office, in support.

Thank you. Opposition, please come forward.

The California Public Defenders Association. We thank the Member for the amendment. We're considering withdrawing our opposition. Thank you.

Melanie Kim, San Francisco Public Defenders Office, in opposition.

Lawrence Cox, on behalf LSPC, strong opposition.

Alissa Moore, All of Us or None, in strong opposition.

Barbara Chavez with the Ella Baker Center, opposition.

Thank you. We have a motion and a second. Questions? A motion, a second by Mr. Ting. Mr. Lackey?

Yeah, I just wanted to thank the author and asked to be a co-author on this measure. And this is not the first time we've addressed this issue, so I'm thankful it's here again. And I think this time it has a good chance of getting where it needs to get because accountability needs to happen. So thank you.

Mr. Alanis?

I would also like to echo those comments and also ask to be a co-author.

Mr. Zbur?

Also want to thank the author on this. I know that she worked hard with the Public Safety staff and the Speaker staff on this Bill and it's been refined and want to appreciate the hard work that you put into this. So thank you.

Thank you. No further questions. We have a motion, a second. And you did recognize that your willingness to further clarify some of these before the next.

Yes, we're taking all the amendments.

Yes. So thank you. You may close.

Just respectfully ask for your aye vote.

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

On AB 1779 by Assemblymember Irwin, the motion is do pass. [Roll Call].

[Roll Call]

Consent calendar is adopted. Mr. Alanis, please present your measure item number six. Item number six first.

Yeah. AB 1845 thank you Mr. Chair and Members. I am proud to present AB 1845 today. I would like to start by saying my office has been talking to the opposition on this Bill and we are committed to continuing having good faith conversations attempting to address the concerns. My main goal with this proposal is to help vertically elevate misdemeanor cases like retail theft through the system.

Colleagues, we are having a lot of needed debate and discussion around retail theft. Obviously, we had a press conference just on it not too long ago. I hear often people say we need to simply prosecute the laws that are on the books already. While I do not want to trigger debate on the effects of current law today, what my Bill will do is provide the needed resources to vertically elevate cases pending based on current law.

As I have traveled up and down the state, I have spoken with various DAs and law enforcement officials who have told me they would love to focus on misdemeanor cases such as retail theft, but they lack the necessary resources to vertically elevate these cases on a wide basis. We can have all the laws we want on the books, but if we do not have the resources to move those cases in the courts, they are in fact ineffective laws.

We must continue to fund proven and successful programs like the organized Retail Theft Program grant program, a program that has proven to be successful in Stanislaus County, which I represent. I know the chair is working to advance other innovative solutions through other programs proven successful in other counties. And I have promised to take amendments to this Bill to support the chair's efforts through those proposals.

I want to thank the chair for his leadership, and I want to thank him and his staff for working so collaboratively with me and my office on issues like retail theft. To speak on success of the Organized Retail Theft Prevention grant program, I have the Stanislaus County DA, Jeff Laugero with me who will testify in support to this proposal. Thank you. Thank you. Please proceed.

Thank you Mr. Chair, Members of the Committee, I'm honored to be here today alongside Assemblymember Alanis in support of AB 1845, which will provide additional resources to agencies like mine in our ongoing effort to combat retail theft through vertical prosecution. Organized retail theft Vertical prosecution has been a successful strategy for Stanislaus County for several reasons.

Vertical prosecution allows our office to have organized retail theft crimes handled by a specialized prosecutor from the time the case is received in our office to case resolution. This has resulted in a significant increase in successful case outcomes. Vertical prosecution has expanded our ability to collaborate with community stakeholders and allowed for a more cohesive response to organized retail theft.

Through our dedicated organized retail theft prosecutor and DA investigator, we have cultivated relationships with agency ORT investigators, loss prevention officers, and local businesses, not just the big box stores, but the mom-and-pop shops as well. From these conversations, we have worked together to develop strategies designed to deter and reduce theft, effectively prosecute ORT offenders, protect employees, staff and shoppers, and to support consumers by ensuring needed products are available in their neighborhood stores.

Ultimately, vertical prosecution has improved the quality of the investigations and case outcomes specific to ORT. These cases can be complex and multi-jurisdictional, so having the right resources available to conduct the required follow-up and coordination between prosecuting offices is paramount to successful prosecution.

As Assemblymember Alanis has repeatedly stated, retail theft is not only a policy issue, but also a funding and a resource issue. AB 1845 builds on the success of other retail theft funding programs such as the Organized Retail Theft Prevention grant program, which we have successfully implemented and applied in Stanislaus County. Organized retail theft grant funding has allowed my office to implement our ORT strategy.

Without this grant program, we would not have had the money or resources needed to effectively combat Ortiz and enforcement of ORT crimes, as well as the affected businesses and consumers would continue to suffer. ORT grant funding has allowed us to dedicate a prosecutor and DA investigator, not just to prepare and prosecute these cases, but to engage the community and collaborate with our law enforcement, retail and community partners on effective strategies to combat organized retail theft.

I'd like to thank Assemblymember Alanis for authoring this Bill and for his continued support of the prosecutors who work every day to keep our communities safe. His collaborative approach to problem-solving is seen in Sacramento and at home at the local level. I hope this Committee will reward that effort by voting to advance this much-needed legislation for California. Thank you.

Thank you. Others in support please come forward.

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

My name is Ryan Sherman with the Riverside Sheriff Association, the California Narcotic Officers Association, River California Reserve Peace Officers, Deputy Sheriffs of Monterey, and Placer and Peace Officer Associations of Arcadia, Burbank, Claremont, Corona, Culver City, Florida, Marietta, Newport Beach, Nevada, Palos Verdes, Pomona, Riverside, Santa Ana and Upland. All in support. Thank you.

Mike Haltman, California District Attorneys Association in support.

Julianne Duvors with the Lead California Cities in support.

Skyler Wonnacott, on behalf of California Business Properties Association in support.

Daniel Conway, California Grocers, in support.

Sarah Pollo Moo, California Retailers Association in support.

Julian Kennedy, California's Chambers of Commerce in support.

Thank you. Do we have opposition to this measure?

Melanie Kim, San Francisco Public Defender's Office just acknowledging that the office, author's office has reached out and we're having conversations. Thank you.

Micah Doctoroth on behalf of ACLU California Action, we have opposed this measure, but we're also eager to hear about future amendments. Thank you.

Lawrence Cox, on behalf of LSBC opposition.

Melissa Moore, All of Us or None in opposition.

Thank you. Do we have questions or comments from Committee Members? Mr Zubr.

I just want to thank the author for bringing this Bill and want to thank you for really your leadership on this whole area of retail theft. I know that you've been engaged in all the discussions with many of the authors, and I think this is one example of really someone who is like getting into the details of the reforms that we sort of need to make sure that what we're doing is effective.

And so thank you for that. I'll be supporting the Bill today and I think I'm already co author. Thank you. If you're not, you will be. If I'm not, I'd like to be added. So thank you. Thank you Miss Wilson,

Thank you to the author, everyone, just follow-up questions. Given the fact that if there's enough impact of retail theft on a particular county, wouldn't you say that DAs would prioritize it already in terms of the resources? Because this resources is used for not just for the DAs, but, you know, the law enforcement agencies and money for them. So I'm just wondering, wouldn't they prioritize it anyway?

Do you want to answer that? I can speak to Stanislaus County. So our local agencies have received funding as well. And between working with the agencies and working with the businesses, we've been able to collaborate and come up with a strategy to address not just shoplifting generally, but we're talking about organized retail crime, so it has been effective. As the prosecuting office, we tend to be the umbrella and bring everybody together.

So the funding for the prosecutors and the resources really allow us to go out and have that dedicated prosecutor to bring the resources in the community together and to figure out strategies on how to deal with organized retail theft.

So are you saying then it would allow you to have better focus on that particular. Whereas if you would be pulled away for other issues, if this resource didn't exist

If the resource didn't exist, we would not be able to dedicate a person to the time and the effort that it does take to address organized.

Retail theft, like murders and other things would take priority over it and could derail.

Right. We've been able to have a dedicated prosecutor specifically for organized retail theft versus pulling them in multiple different directions.

Okay. And so you're finding that effective, and so you're saying, you know, other Das or other counties may not have the sufficient resources to be able to do that same thing. And since you're effective, you're saying, hey, we've been a pilot, so to speak.

Absolutely.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Mr. Lackey.

Yeah. I would just like to congratulate you on doing something a little bit different, because this particular grant program focuses on the upstream participants and not just the offenders themselves. So it's truly not, it's a substantive versus punitive approach to what needs to take, take place in this process of addressing this very, very threatening toxin to our economic system. So thank you for that, and it has my full support. Thank you, Ms. Reyes.

I also want to thank my colleague for a very thoughtful approach. I think that the dedication of at least half the time of a full time Deputy District Attorney to this particular issue, having that as the foundation to then apply for and receive the grant, I think is extremely important. It's such an important issue in so many of our, of our districts, and we all hear from our constituents, they want something done.

And I appreciate the approach that you put here and the amount of time, as we was noted earlier, that you spent with the Committee and with others to get it right to the point that you have so many people that are supporting it, and I think this reflects on you and the good work. Thank you.

Thank you. Any thought? Thank you. We have a motion. Motion. Motion by Assemblymember Nguyen. Second by Assemblymember Reyes. Further questions or comments? Seeing none, I did note that you mentioned our companion legislation. I appreciate you talking about how this funding could enhance the Fastpass program if it does pass later this afternoon. Thank you, you may close.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for those comments. It's teamwork, really. A lot of us here in this room working together to work on real solutions. So I'm very proud to be part of that. I'm really happy to be part of this as well. Obviously, we have proving data showing that this is helping us in our in Stanislaus County and hoping other counties can also be able to enjoy this as well. With that, I ask respectfully for your aye vote.

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

On AB 1845, Assemblymember Alanis. The motion is do pass to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

Thank you. Your next measure. We're good. Yes, we're good. Yes. Thank you. That's right. Thank you. Thank you, everyone. Thank you. Next, we have Assemblymember Sanchez, please proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And Members, I'm proud to present AB 1872, which will provide clarity to the illegality of using AI generated images for extortion purposes. The development of our artificial intelligence is moving at a record pace, and so are the dangers it poses to our most vulnerable populations. Of particular concern for these populations, especially minors, are sextorial cases involving AI generated images.

Sex torsion involves coercing victims into providing sexually explicit photos or videos of themselves, then threatening to share them publicly or with the victims family and friends if their demands are not met. Last year, the FBI issued an alert to warn the public of the growing use of AI by malicious actors to create manipulative images in videos for the purpose of ensnaring victims in sex stories schemes. These crimes can result in victims harming themselves or even committing suicide.

From October 2021 to March 2023, the FBI and Homeland Security investigations received over 13,000 of online financial six torsion of minors. The sextortion involved at least 12,000 victims, primarily boys, and led to at least 20 suicides. That is why I partnered with the Orange County Sheriff's Department introduce AB 1872 and help equip our prosecutors with the tools they need to crack down on sex extortion cases.

This is a reasonable measure that will make it easier for prosecutors to successfully convict criminals using AI to extort their victims for money or sexual images. I respectfully ask for your aye vote on this measure. And testifying with me today is investigator Heather Timmins with the Orange County Sheriff's Department.

Good morning, everybody. I'm investigator Heather Timmins with the Orange County Sheriff's Department. I have been a sworn deputy sheriff for 16 years and assigned as an investigator for the past five years.

I'm currently the senior investigator assigned to the special victims detail as well as the federal task force officer with Homeland Security assigned to the Orange County Child Exploitation Task Force. For the past two years, my caseload has primarily focused on possession, distribution, and manufacturing of child pornography, the luring of minor victims for sexual purposes, as well as what's commonly been referred to as sex torsion. In January 2024, the FBI issued a warning on the growing threat of sex torsion.

The FBI reports that in the six month period of October 2022 to 2023, there was a 20% increase in the reporting of financially motivated sex sort incidents. Just in my own experience working as special victims and working on the child exploitation Task Force, I receive a handful of sex sort cases a week. Primarily these are coming out of our victims are middle school as well as high school age. But I also do get adults that are being victimized as well.

The FBI is now reporting that the prevalence of sex sort in using AI generated fake images. That's kind of a newer thing that I'm seeing now. And the reason that this is so harmful is because a lot of these minor victims are not actually making a poor decision. They're not sending an explicit image where then they can look back and think, okay, well, you know, maybe I shouldn't have done that, but instead they're being victimized regardless.

And there's nothing stopping these images from being created and then these victims having to go to school and face consequences for something where they didn't even do an action to receive a consequence. To begin with, the availability of AI tools and AI generated images to create this type of material has been well documented in recent studies. The Stanford Internet Observatory found more than 3200 images of suspected child sexual abuse in the giant large scale AI open network database.

Users on a single dark web forum shared nearly 3000 AI generated images of child sexual abuse in just one month. That's 3000 images in one month, according to a recent report from the UK Internet Watch Foundation. A recent example of this was in the news at a middle school in Beverly Hills as well as we did have some news cameras recently in the County of Orange at Laguna Beach High School over AI generated child sexual abuse material.

Unfortunately, the advances in technology have made it so much easier for suspects to manipulate photos, to send them to others, and to simply just post them online for anybody to see. FBI has reported on financially motivated extortion, and offenders threaten to take. What they offenders do is they take these images that they've now created, these deep fake images, and then they threaten to release them to the public to post them online.

If these victims do not give them money, usually in the forms of gift cards or a lot of times what will happen to our female victims is they'll be sex sorted for more images, whether that be them actually having to create their own child sexual abuse material or more AI generated material.

Examples of sexsortion impacts that I've seen on these victims is that it's absolutely humiliating for these kids to go to school and know that these images have been circulated around campus, whether or not it's an actual image of them or an AI generated image. These AI generating images look so realistic that when you look at them, there's no way to tell if it's AI generated or if it's an actual image. So these poor kids, their self confidence is being ripped away from them.

Their ability to feel comfortable and safe at school is being ripped away from them. And even more importantly, their relationship at home with their family is just being forever altered due to this humiliation. And I know it was pointed out that over a two year timeframe, there was 20 suicides simply related to sexortion. And that's not even an up to date account of how many suicides there has been. And one suicide is too many.

But to say that 20 kids have taken their lives over sexortion is absolutely devastating to our society. AB 1872 makes it clear that extortion includes threatening to post, distribute, or create AI generated images or videos of another. So this Bill is so important because it's going to add another factor to keep these AI images from being able to be used to sextor people.

As an investigator who worked these cases day in and day out, I encourage you to pass AB 1872 and take the opportunity to send a strong message that those who victimize others and violate one's privacy will be met with consequence. And I also want to point out that as it. I got.

Your time's up. I'm sorry. If you could just wrap real quick.

Yeah. Okay. Please vote yes.

Thank you. Any other witnesses, please line up. Name, position, and I'm going to move the Bill.

Mr. Chairman, Members, Randy Perry, on behalf of PORAC and the California Association of Highway Patrol in support.

Hi, Dylan Hoffman on behalf of Tech Net in strong support.

Mr. Chair, Members, Shane Levine on behalf of the Association Orange County Deputy Sheriff's in support thank you.

Mike Holtman California District Attorneys Association in support.

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

Ryan Sherman with the Riverside Sheriff's Association support also the California Coalition of School Safety Professionals and the other POAs and DSAs previously stated. Thank you.

Do I have any witnesses in opposition? Go ahead.

Okay. Good morning again, Assembly Members. My name is Matt Sotorosen. I'm here on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association. I've been a public defender in California for 25 years, and I'm currently a public defender in San Francisco County. Have been for the last 18 years. CPDA understands the concern of potential abuse of artificial intelligence to harass and intimidate individuals. Also, as the parent of two teenagers, I'm concerned personally with harassment of young people, as was just referenced in the earlier testimony.

However, Assembly Bill 1872, as it is currently worded, raises a number of concerns. First, the proposed amendment to the penal code presents a constitutional issue because as it is written, it is vague. Artificial intelligence is a novel technology that's not easily understood by the average member of the public. The statute also fails to define the term as it is written simply as AI generated images or videos of another. Prosecutors, judges, and most importantly, juries would struggle to interpret and apply the statute in consistent ways.

Because the amendment fails to properly define and give notice of the prohibited conduct, it undermines fundamental principles of due process. And if the definition of AI that was included in the legislative analysis I read last night is any indication, this is not a term that is easily defined or understood. The second issue is that as the amendment is proposed, it is over broad. If passed, the mere creation of any AI image, any AI image would constitute a felony offense.

This could end up resulting in some bizarre scenarios. For example, if someone said, give me money or I'll create an AI image of you saving a puppy from a burning building, that would be a felony as it is currently written. Naturally, the import of this crime of extortion is that someone threatens to expose or impute to a person some type of deformity, disgrace, or crime. Also, this amendment is not necessary. Penal codes 518, 519, and 520 already cover this type of conduct.

The amendment that was passed in I think it was 2018 that created penal code section 518 covers this issue of sexploitation by expanding the definition of what consideration is to include sexual conduct. The medium by which somebody extorts or attempts to extort someone is not limited by the current statute. The potential fears raised by AI are not new. With each new technological innovation, from Photoshop to voice recordings to other technologies that manipulate manipulate likenesses, there is the potential for misuse.

In fact, adding and specifying and singling out AI could have the unintended effect of excluding the use of other technologies to extort from successful prosecution. And finally, to the extent that the issue sought to be addressed by this proposed amendment is the issue of sexploitation. Perhaps monies could be devoted to education programs to teach our young people about the harms of this type of conduct, rather than reacting after the fact in charging young people with felony crimes. We respectfully ask for a no vote on Assembly Bill 1872. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any members of the public?

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

Okay, bring it back to the Committee. I think Assembly Member Wilson had a question.

Well, I was about to say good afternoon, but I don't think we've made it there yet. I think wishful thinking. Good morning to the author. Thank you for bringing this forward. I understand the intent as it relates to extortion and incorporation of AI generated images. I do have some concerns that are consistent with the opposition. And so I have a few follow up questions related to that. It is broad and the analysis states as such.

And when you look at where you're amending, there's an A through E section, and this adds an F where it was numbers before. Why not relate the new section that you're adding to those other items so that AI could be considered as, as a potential of a way to express those? And I'm asking that particularly because a lot of times people view, as the opposition stated, it's better to be tech neutral.

But a lot of times people make the assumption of if it's AI, it's reasonable to assume because current AI technology, in some ways you can tell it's AI and not real, but for the most part, it has a real look to it. And so why not make it relate to the other sections versus it being on its own?

Sure. So we're happy to work with the opposition and continue to work on this bill. As you had stated, the intent is to make sure that we're, that AI is covered under the threat to extort an AB 1872. But I'm happy to continue to work with the opposition.

Yeah, I think that's extremely important because it is just as it is. It's very broad and it doesn't rise to the same level of all the other, the A through, so to speak, E. But if they were related to that in the broad sense, that a way to do this is not just stating it or it's to use AI to be able to express those, that seems like it would make more sense, but I think that's really, really important.

And so I'm not sure where I'll be. I might lay off and wait to see what as you work through that issue. But I think right now it is extremely broad and could have a lot of unintended consequences. So I'm glad to hear that you're willing to work with opposition.

Thank you.

Mr. Lackey.

Yeah, I want to say thank you. This is clearly something that's becoming widespread. And to me, the language is as explicit as the associated behavior. Some argument was, the same argument was used when using the term pornography. We all know pornography when we see it. And I'll tell you, this AI has become so good, so good, that it is very difficult. Not all AI is created equal. But I'm telling you, it is really remarkable how good it is.

And what also is very clear to me is the disgusting, hurtful, and demoralizing circumstances that have long lasting impacts to these victims. Once this has happened to you or your loved one, it doesn't disappear with time. It may soften, but this is a very, very hurtful occurrence. And we need to address it, because right now it's my argument that there's no prosecution that is really addressing this in a meaningful way. And it's time. It's time. So thank you for bringing this to our attention.

I see this as the modernization of Senator Leyva's Bill of 2019. AI is causing lots of anguish throughout the comments by my colleague about it being overly broad. The constitutionality is an issue that will have to be addressed, and I appreciate your willingness to work with the opposition. I think what you are trying to do, I think needs to be addressed.

And I appreciate that you're tackling this, but making sure that the language isn't so overly broad that we then run into constitutional issues will be important. Some say that this is already covered in law the way the law is already written. But I think addressing that is something that is valid. And I appreciate this bill. I will be supporting it today.

Thank you.

Ms. Wilson.

Just a follow up question. Has there been a case where someone used AI generated materials in extortion and they were not able to be prosecuted?

I have seen most sextortion cases unable to be prosecuted at this time. Just our District Attorney's Office is having a hard time bringing it forward. So I personally have not gone to court on a sextortion case yet.

Okay. So just in general. Just in general, they're hard to prosecute. So we haven't got factored in the AI portion yet. Okay. Thank you.

Okay, Mr. Lackey.

I just have a comment that I think a lot of reasons why we don't have a lot of case laws. There's no filing that takes place. And that's, that's the bigger problem. And that's why we, I mean, there is going to be debate, but debate is good. Debate is healthy and that's how we get good case law, as I mentioned before. And so I think that this, it's time for this to move forward. So thank you.

Okay, we have a motion a second. No further questions. Would you like to close?

Thank you for your consideration of this measure. I believe it is vital to help protect our most vulnerable populations from extortion cases involving AI images and video. I respectfully ask for your aye vote today.

Thank you. Please call the roll.

On AB 1872 by Assembly Member Sanchez. The motion is do pass to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

Measure passes. Next measure. Item number 16, AB 2209.

Thank you, Mister Chair and Members. AB 2209 is a critical measure that will allow California to better combat the devastating fentanyl crisis plaguing our communities. Fentanyl is a deadly drug that is extremely lethal in very small amounts. It is 50 times stronger than heroin and 100 times stronger than morphine. It's wreaking havoc across the nation, claiming countless lives and tearing our families apart. In California, fentanyl-related deaths have skyrocketed.

We must do everything we can and use every tool in our belt to tackle this issue head-on. California's current sanctuary state policies create a significant roadblock in our fight against this poison. AB 2209 is a common sense approach that adds felony fentanyl dealing and trafficking to the list of offenses exempt from sanctuary state protections. This provides law enforcement more flexibility and discretion to do what they need to do within the bounds of other laws to address this fentanyl crisis.

By empowering law enforcement to better communicate with federal authorities to remove these high-level fentanyl dealers from our streets, we can create a safer environment for everyone. This isn't a partisan issue. In a poll last year, San Francisco voters, 70% actually, of them, said they supported denying sanctuary state protections for felony fentanyl dealers. Imagine what would happen if we polled that question statewide.

I think it's time we listen to our constituents and our communities who are rightfully concerned with how things have become and do something about it. That's why I've introduced AB 2209 to completely exempt felony fentanyl charges from state's sanctuary state protections. Testifying with me today is Ray Grangoff with the Orange County Sheriff's Department.

Thank you. You have five minutes.

Great. Thank you, Mister Chairman. And thank you, Assemblywoman Sanchez, for authoring this very important Bill. The California Values Act, or SB 54, restricted the ability of law enforcement to fully communicate with our federal partners. And that's why much of law enforcement opposed the measure, because it violated really the best practice of open communication amongst law enforcement to address shared threats, threats like the fentanyl epidemic. For us in Orange County, the negative consequences of this law was quickly evident.

For example, due to the restrictions in the law in 2019, the most recent full year with a pre-COVID jail population, OCSDR Department was prevented from notifying ICE on the release of 1015 inmates who had an immigration hold placed on them. Of those inmates, 238 were re-arrested for new crimes in Orange County, including charges of assault, battery, rape, robbery, drug crimes, and many others. These numbers only reflect individuals arrested on new charges who returned back to the jail in Orange County.

But beyond the limitations on communication in a custody setting, the limitations of that Bill chilled our ability to collaborate fully with our partners in an operational and investigative setting. This is particularly concerning with regard to our efforts to combat fentanyl. To stop the flow of fentanyl into our community is imperative that local law enforcement work hand in hand with our federal partners. Such collaboration maximizes resources and intelligence sharing.

While there are great partnerships in our region among local and federal agencies, the unnecessary limitations imposed by SB 54 prevents full sharing of critical information on fentanyl traffickers, handing the cartels an additional advantage. AB 2209 would remove this barrier by making clear in the law our ability to communicate with federal partners regarding any person who is alleged to have violated or who has been previously convicted of violating laws relating to the selling and distribution of fentanyl.

To be clear, our support for AB 2209 and desire to work with federal authorities to keep drug traffickers out of the community should not be construed to mean we have any interest in enforcing immigration law. Local law enforcement does not engage in immigration enforcement. Enforcement of immigration law is the responsibility of the Federal Government in carrying out our duties. We do not ask the immigration status of suspects, witnesses, or those who call to report crimes.

Notifying federal authorities of the pending release of a fentanyl trafficker is not the enforcement of immigration law. These offenders help perpetuate the fentanyl crisis in our communities, and removing them is consistent with our department's mission to enhance public safety for all residents in Orange County. These offenders, they do not discriminate in who they perpetuate their crimes against. And we must not hesitate to take advantage of every opportunity to keep them out of our neighborhoods.

This communication is even now more important with regard to the crisis at our border. And California is beginning to have a disproportionate share of that crisis. Migrant encounters are up 85% in the San Diego Border Sector when compared comparing February of 2024 to February of 2023. While most crossing the border are undoubtedly entering our country in search of a better life, the sheer volume overwhelms resources and makes it difficult to stop those who seek the harmless.

This is demonstrated by the fact that 169 people on the terror watch list were encountered between ports of entry at the southern border during Fiscal Year 23. With an estimated 860 got-aways in FY 23, there's a high likelihood others on the terror watch list entered our country without an encounter. The risk we face is also clear with regard to fentanyl trafficking, which is what this Bill is trying to address. We are seeing a flood of fentanyl into our communities.

We have seen exponential increases in fentanyl seizures by our own narcotics team in Orange County. In 2021, we seized 104 pounds of fentanyl in 16,000 pills. By 2023, that increased to 808 pounds of fentanyl powder and 658,000 pills. These numbers highlight the importance of continued cooperation and open communication with our federal partners on the shared threats that we face. I urge a yes vote on AB 2209.

Thank you. Next witnesses. Your name and position only.

Mister Chairman and Members. Randy Perry with Aaron Read Associates on behalf of PORAC and the California Association of Highway Patrol in support.

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

Thank you.

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

Ryan Sherman with the Riverside Sheriff's Association. California Narcotic Officer Association and the other POAs and DSAs previously stated support. Thank you. I'm sorry. Yes. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no others in support. Opposition, please come forward.

You have five minutes combined for your panel. Please begin.

Good morning. My name is Sean Reardon. I'm a senior staff attorney at the ACLU of Northern California, based out of our Sacramento office. Having spent much of the past half decade challenging violations of the California Values Act by law enforcement bodies, including the Sacramento County Sheriff's Department, I appreciate the opportunity to address the proposed amendments to that law.

The fentanyl overdose crisis has devastated communities across the United States and must be addressed with evidence based solutions in order to save lives. However, AB 2209 contradicts what we know about the drug trade and scapegoats immigrants and refugees. First, targeting immigrants for fentanyl and other drugs ignores the realities of the drug trade. In 2022, U.S. citizens constituted 89% of convicted fentanyl traffickers, while over 90% of fentanyl seizures occur at legal border crossing points and interior vehicle checkpoints used by U.S. citizens.

Further, drug convictions, fentanyl or otherwise, already carry some of the most severe immigration penalties, including mandatory detention without bond, ineligibility for nearly all relief against removal, and deportation without even seeing a judge in many cases. The Values Act already allows law enforcement to cooperate with ICE in cases of a felony fentanyl related conviction, and federal immigration law already imposes the most severe penalties on those so convicted, regardless of hardship to the person or to the U.S. family that they leave behind.

Everyone in this country is entitled to basic protections when they interact with law enforcement. The bill removes these basic protections only for immigrants, opening the door for grave abuses by law enforcement, including asking people for their immigration status, detaining them without a warrant, wrongful referrals to ICE, and racial profiling of API, black, and Latina community members even before law enforcement has formed a reasonable suspicion or probable cause that someone has committed a felony offense.

We know from experience that law enforcement agencies have too often failed to follow existing protections under state law. Right here in Sacramento, for years, the Sheriff's Department illegally transferred community members to ICE and hid information about its practices from the public and the Board of Supervisors. It took years of advocacy, the intervention of the County Inspector General, and a lawsuit to end these practices. The Legislature should not create further exceptions to the Values Act. I strongly urge Members of the Public Safety Committee to vote no on AB 2209.

Please proceed.

My name is Carl Tannenbaum. I was a San Francisco police officer for 32 years. I am here in respectful opposition to AB 2209 on behalf of the Law Enforcement Action Partnership, LEAP. LEAP is a nonprofit organization of law enforcement professionals advocating for sensible criminal justice and drug policy reforms that will make our communities safer and more just. The impact of the overdose crisis has been felt in every community.

This is a public health issue that, without a doubt, is personal to us all. I spent the first six years of my career walking a footbeat in San Francisco's Tenderloin district. I built relations with the community and worked to improve conditions there. I saw the pain caused by addiction and also the lack of adequate resources to address the needs of the community.

At the height of the war on drugs in the eighties and nineties, I was assigned to the narcotics unit, where I participated in aggressive enforcement of drug laws. There I saw the pain, I'm sorry, many of which were low level and not threats to public safety. After the death of my partner, who was killed in a line of duty during a drug bust, I began to question the strategies used to enforce drug laws.

John's death made me realize the futility of what we were doing and that there had to be a better way. So I take this issue very seriously, and I am here to tell you this bill is a travesty. Singling out people who happen to be immigrants as the cause of the overdose crisis is a textbook case of discriminatory enforcement. It is also another failed attempt, like sentencing enhancements and military intervention, to address a major social and public safety and public health issue solely through law enforcement.

This bill ignores the fact that 89% of those convicted of trafficking fentanyl in the U.S. are U.S. citizens, not undocumented immigrants or asylum seekers. It also circumvents the legal tenet of due process of the law. It allows anyone suspected or convicted of dealing fentanyl to be turned over to ICE. State law already allows law enforcement the discretion to contact ICE for people convicted of dealing drugs. I repeat, state law already allows law enforcement the discretion to contact ICE for people convicted of dealing drugs.

Thank you. Witnesses in opposition, please come forward.

This bill will create a wide dragnet primed for racial profiling and abuse. We need real solutions to the overdose crisis, but more mass incarceration and discriminatory enforcement will only make things worse while depleting the finite resources we have. For these reasons, I respectfully request a no vote on AB 2209.

Natasha Minsker, Smart Justice California. Strongly opposed.

Matt Sotorosen in the California Public Defenders Association, opposed.

Rhonda Rios-Kravitz, CEO of Alianza. Strongly oppose.

Shereen Miles with the Immigration Coalition of Sacramento and also with Sacramento Area Congregations Together, strongly oppose.

Tana Opliger with Californians United for Responsible Budget. Strongly oppose.

Andrea Maviska, on behalf of the California Immigrant Policy Center in strong opposition.

Danica Rodarma, on behalf of Initiate Justice and Law Defense in strong opposition.

Melanie Kim, San Francisco Public Defender's Office, in opposition and on behalf of the following organizations in opposition: Pacific Juvenile Defender Center, Human Impact Partners, Black Alliance for Just Immigration, Orange County Equality Coalition, Asian Prisoner Pacific Islander Reentry and Inclusion through Support and Empowerment, Surge San Mateo, NorCal Resist, Viet Rise, Senior and Disability Action, Siren, Inland Coalition for Immigrant Justice, Alliance San Diego, Legal Services for Children, National Day Labor Organizing Network.

Obed Franco, on behalf of the Asian Law Caucus, in opposition.

Good morning. Claire Simonich, on behalf of the Vera Institute of Justice in opposition.

Good morning. Gretchen Burns Bergman, A New Path, Parents for Addiction Treatment and Healing, and Moms Unite to End the War on Drugs, strongly oppose.

John Rodney, Immigrant Defense Project, in strong opposition. Also on behalf of the following organizations in strong opposition: Santa Cruz Barrios Unidos, Transitions Clinic Network, Orele Buen Besino, Interfaith Movement for Human Integrity, Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice, Glide, Harbor Institute for Immigrant and Economic Justice, South Bay People Power, San Mateo County Participatory Defense Hub, National Harm Reduction Coalition, Pacifica Social Justice, San Francisco Gray Panther, San Francisco Pretrial Diversion Project, Sirac, Ventura County Clergy and Laity, United for Economic Justice, Bien Estar Human Services and Unibersidas Popular.

Taina Vargas, Initiate Justice Action in opposition.

Alicia Benavidez, on behalf of Drug Policy Alliance and Immigrant Legal Resource Center in strong opposition.

Eric Henderson on behalf of ACLU California Action in opposition.

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

Alyssa Moore, All of Us or None, in opposition.

Morris Cox, LSPC, opposition.

Barbara Chavez, Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, opposition.

Thank you. Seeing no opposition. Comments, questions from Committee Members? Mister Alanis, moving your hands. You were not. Okay. Assembly Member Reyes.

I sincerely appreciate the comments from the opposition. The California Values Act, there's a purpose for it. And there are already harsh consequences for any of our immigrants who are convicted of drug charges, as is noted in the analysis, indefinite detention, permanent separation from their families and homes. So I appreciate you coming here to provide that testimony, and especially Officer Tannenbaum, I'm sorry for the loss of your partner.

Thank you. Mr. Ting.

I'm just going to ask the sheriff a couple questions. So you mentioned there was 200 reoffenders. Was that over a year's time?

That was in the calendar year 2019.

2019. Great. And so how many of those reoffenders were drug cases?

I don't have the exact number in front of me, but there were some that were drug cases. Yes. We can get that number to you.

Were any of them fentanyl cases?

We would have to look at that and be able to tell you that. But I think that that was from 2019. What we're talking, the concern here with fentanyl now is that, as we've seen, I demonstrated the numbers of the giant influx that we're continuing to see, and we don't want to chill that communication from happening now that we have even more fentanyl coming into our country. So what we're trying to do is give law enforcement the tool to be able to talk to a partner, federal partner, to help address this challenge that we're facing.

Great question. So the opposition says you have that authority right now under drug cases. Is there a reason there?

There are.

You're saying that you're for not, you don't have that authority?

Sure. So there are some drug crimes where we are allowed to communicate. There are some where we're not. So it's not in totality all drug crimes. And I think what the Assemblywoman's bill is trying to do is just.

To which drug crimes can't you communicate with?

You know, I don't have that in front of me right now, but I know that there's.

There's a lot you don't have in front of you when you're coming to testify on this very important case, right? Of the fentanyl cases, you mentioned how many fentanyl cases last year?

So last year we had 27 of our 245 people we were unable to notify ICE on 27 were rearrested for new crimes. So that included some drug crimes. Don't have specific numbers on fentanyl.

How many on fentanyl?

I don't have that specific number, sir, but what I, the point is that.

Excuse me, I'm asking the question, but you're here testifying about a bill the author is talking about that. This is to, you know, you talked about how there's a huge uptick in fentanyl. Very important issue.

This is a Committee that's very concerned about fentanyl. We've been passing a lot of fentanyl bills. You have no data on how many fentanyl cases. I can't even get my next question, which is how many fentanyl cases are involving undocumented immigrant?

So one of the challenges, sir, is that we don't have that ability to communicate fully. And so this is going to help us communicate better with our federal partners. And I think when I say that we've gone from 104 pounds of fentanyl to 108 pounds, we've gone from 16,000 pills to 658,000 pills, this is a crisis that's coming into our community. We agree. And why wouldn't you want us to be able to talk to our federal partner about?

We totally agree. We don't have any facts. So, again, of the fentanyl cases, you don't even have the number of fentanyl cases in your office. You can't even answer my question.

Of those fentanyl cases, how many involved in undocumented immigrant? Which is what this bill does. If this is. We've had other bills regarding fentanyl which we have passed out because they're very important. This is, to me, a bill in search of a problem. You can't even identify the problem.

Of course it's a problem. I think it's a problem when we've had, in Orange County, over 700 people die of fentanyl in a year. So it's a problem. What we're asking for is the ability to talk to our federal partners who are engaged in the fentanyl crisis. We want the ability to talk to them about people in our custody that have drug offenses related to fentanyl.

The opposition says that you have that ability. You can't even articulate which cases you have that ability and which you don't. So I think when you come back to the Committee and you tell us which cases you want us to help you with so you can have communication, I think we could have a discussion. But you don't have any information about how many fentanyl cases. You don't have any information about how many fentanyl cases involving undocumented immigrants. You don't have any information about even which cases you can or cannot discuss. So what problem are we trying to solve? Well, I don't understand this.

We're trying to solve the inability to communicate with our federal partners about this serious threat of fentanyl. Because if you acknowledge that fentanyl is a serious threat, and you acknowledge that communication with law enforcement partners to solve our threats is important, that's what this legislation is.

So you're telling me in a fentanyl case, you cannot communicate with your immigration partners with ICE?

Correct.

Can I ask opposition to address that issue?

Sure. So the California Values Act already contains an express exception to the, the general prohibition against notification of ICE about somebody being in custody or transferred to ICE for conviction of a felony substance abuse offense. So for any, for any felony fentanyl conviction, law enforcement would be able to communicate.

Do you want to respond to that? So you have a felony conviction, you have the ability to communicate.

And what if it's not a felony conviction?

I'm sorry?

If it's not a felony conviction, if it's a misdemeanor fentanyl conviction, or if there's not a conviction, they're arrested for a fentanyl crime if there's not a conviction. So if they're arrested for a fentanyl crime, and we want to further investigate that with our federal partners that were prevented from doing that.

So if there's an arrest, they cannot communicate. There has to be a conviction?

There are also circumstances where if there's been a probable cause determination by a judge, the communication could occur even without a conviction. But our big concern about this bill is that it does, well, one of many concerns, but one of the biggest concerns is that it does allow that communication on mere, quote, allegation, to use the terminology in the proposed amendment, which could be something far short of an arrest, even.

It could be an officer engaging with somebody on the street and engaging in some sort of, whether conscious or not, pretextual profiling that results in ICE being brought in and consequences flowing from that. So that's one set of concerns. And the other, of course, is that as you're hearing, there's a desire by law enforcement potentially to communicate, even in cases where there's not a conviction at all, and the state simply shouldn't countenance that kind of high consequence.

Collaboration with ICE, when the whole thrust of the Values Act, which has protected so many families and kept so many California families together, is to prevent that kind of thing from happening.

Can you kind of wrap it up, Mr. Ting?

Yeah, no, I appreciate that. I mean, to me, I think it's clear there's a really lack of information and data. I'm not really understanding the connection between the bill and the situation around fentanyl. So at this point, I can't vote for this bill.

Thank you. Mr. Alanis, Vice Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, opposition, you're saying that there's ways that law enforcement can communicate if a judge is involved. At what point and stage the case does a judge get involved? Because I know there's no judge out on the streets with us when we're trying to investigate a crime. So I think you're referring to like, into the court system already. Is that what you're getting at?

Right, yeah. I mean, law requires that somebody be promptly brought to court if they've been arrested or if for some reason it's a citation situation, they of course have to appear for court.

Okay. But I think this bill, what this bill is addressing is the investigative portion. Before we get to that part, if you can comment on that for Orange County.

Sure. So, you know, as part of an investigation, it's important to be able to talk to our federal partners. If there's a nexus there, if there's a nexus to a local law enforcement partner, we talk to our local law enforcement partner. And that's really when I talk about. And sir, when we're talking about communication with our partners, this is the principle that goes all the way back to prior to 911, when people weren't talking to each other and there was barriers and walls to communication, barriers like SB 54, where we're unable to connect the dots. So we are very follow the law, the state law.

We're very closely. That's so important to us. So law enforcement is always going to err on the side of caution when it comes to the law. So if we think we're going to violate SB 54, we don't talk to our partners. And so this will help us do that as we're investigating these fentanyl cases.

Okay, thank you. And one last question. As far as felony fentanyl convictions were brought up, do you guys have any felony convictions on fentanyl?

We have. I don't have the numbers specific to those that we have communicated with ICE on, but we as an agency do communicate with ICE on all those charges where we're allowed to communicate with ICE.

Okay, thank you. And I'm sure some of that will be addressed in closing.

Thank you. Just as a big picture, you know, this is more than fentanyl in the bill. It's other entities that we think criminal activity that would be applicable in this. So it's just not just fentanyl, but just on fentanyl, there's several bills today that we're going to pass, several next week on the docket, several have passed.

So it's not like we're not addressing this big issue that we acknowledge. You know, this is somewhat of an immigration issue. I think the Legislature has stepped up the last few years and said that's the responsibility of the Federal Government. Our job here in California is state law enforcement. That's what we want to focus on. So I concur with Mr. Ting. I don't think this is the approach that we want to go today with that. Do we have a motion? Yeah, we have a motion. A second. Would you like to close?

Sure. Respectfully, I don't believe this is an anti-immigrant bill at all. It's anti-fentanyl. To start. This bill simply is a referendum on the sanctuary state policy as it relates to fentanyl dealers. I don't believe current law is working, and I believe we need to give law enforcement more tools to protect our California communities. AB 2209 is a choice. It's a choice between fixing our fentanyl crisis or doing nothing. It's a choice of either protecting innocent lives or protecting the livelihoods of criminal cartel members. So I asked my colleagues today, will you vote to protect innocent lives or end the fentanyl crisis?

Thank you. Please call the roll.

On AB 2209 by seminar Sanchez. The motion is do pass to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

That measure fails. Next author, Mr. Berman. A motion and second for reconsideration? Please call the roll.

On reconsideration for AB 2209. [Roll Call] That motion fails.

Mr. Berman, please proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and colleagues. We're going to start with AB 1831. AB 1831 would modernize our laws to ensure that AI-generated sexually explicit images of children are illegal to possess, distribute, and create. With the rapid advancement of AI, this technology is being used to create highly realistic images of child sexual abuse, which can be virtually indistinguishable from a real child.

The creation of these AI-generated images victimizes thousands of children because an AI program must first learn what these images look like by using thousands of real images of children on the Internet. Law enforcement in California are catching people with AI-generated sexually explicit images of children, but are not able to prosecute those people because the current loopholes in our laws. This is unacceptable.

The heinous crime of possessing, creating, and distributing sexually obscene images of children must be illegal, no matter if it is AI-generated or not. Therefore, it's critical we act quickly to stop child predators from abusing AI to perpetuate child exploitation. We must ensure that our laws are keeping up with this emerging technology to protect children in California from this abuse. Here with me is Erik Nasarenko, the District Attorney of Ventura County, as well as Kaylin Hayman, who is a survivor and victim advocate from Ventura County. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. You have five minutes combined.

Good morning, Chair McCarty, Members of the Assembly Public Safety. Good to be before you again, and thanks to your staff as well as ours. Terry Dobrosky and Rikole Kelly of the Ventura County DA's Office. I want to introduce a crime survivor and victim advocate, Kaylin Hayman. As Assembly Member Berman just mentioned, she was victimized by computer-generated software. Specifically, her face as a child actress was imposed upon adults who were doing sex acts.

She bravely and courageously testified against the child predator. He was convicted in federal court, but as Assembly Member Berman just stated, we do not have currently a companion statute here in California that would have punished that type of conduct, which is why I want to thank and applaud Assembly Member Berman for introducing this legislation. Kaylin.

Thank you, Chair and Members. My name is Kaylin, and I am a 16-year-old girl born and raised in California. I was lucky enough to be a series regular on Disney Channel's Just Roll With It from the ages ten to 13. Unfortunately, the 12-year-old version of myself became a victim of morph child pornography.

On July 16th, 2023, the living shield protecting my innocence broke when I got a phone call from the FBI saying that a man was in possession of images that were morphed to have my face on someone else's body participating in sexual acts. I felt violated and disgusted to think about the fact that grown men see me in such a horrendous manner. While speaking about this topic is daunting, I know deep down I need to share my voice.

I need to bring awareness and justice to those in my position. This is not only affecting children in the public eye, but also normal kids simply existing. These cases also affect one's social life as well as being detrimental to mental health. It truly gives the feeling of being alone. But to all other victims, I am living proof that you are not alone.

Since my victimization, it is a constant thought that every man has malicious intent against me because I feel a lack of protection in my everyday life. These circumstances have made me feel uneasy and angry. The fact that grown adults think that this is right is appalling and is even worse that those are the people setting examples for young children. The children growing up in this world are being exposed to harmful material, but that can be stopped.

There is development going in a negative direction, but we can still change the ending. Not only is this going to help children all over the world, but it will protect their inner peace and innocence. California is a state with so much power and this is an opportunity arising for positive growth. This state is also home to the base of the entertainment industry. This law would protect minors in the industry from being sexually exploited like they have been for decades. No more kids would have to be susceptible to the feeling that they were not protected. Respectfully, I ask that you please support AB 1831.

Thank you. Next.

Mr. Chairman and Members, Randy Perry, on behalf of California Association of Highway Patrol and PORAC, in support.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Elizabeth Espinoza, here on behalf of the Ventura County Board of Supervisors, in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Shane Gusman, on behalf of SAG-AFTRA, in support, and a co-sponsor.

Dylan Hoffman, on behalf of TechNet, in strong support.

Investigator Heather Timmins, on behalf of the Orange County Sheriff's Department. Strong support.

Kim Stone, Stone Advocacy, on behalf of the Children's Advocacy Institute, one of the co-sponsors in support.

Ryan Schumer with the Riverside Sheriff's Association and the other POAs and DSAs, in support. Thank you.

Meg Holtman, California District Attorneys Association, in support.

Chair and Members, Jonathan Feldman, California Police Chiefs Association. Support.

Cory Salzillo, on behalf of the California State Sheriffs' Association. Support.

Thank you. We have opposition. Please come forward.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Mica Doctoroff, on behalf of the ACLU of California. We've opposed this bill unless amended. We've had had good conversations with the author's office. Really appreciate his willingness to engage with us, and we look forward to continuing the conversation.

Thank you. Questions or comments from Committee Members? Mr. Lackey. We have a motion and a second. Mr. Ting and Mr. Zbur.

Yeah, I would just like to just briefly thank the witness for such a display of courage. This is very, very difficult, and we appreciate that. We appreciate your willingness to be here and be part of our process, and I am proud to be a co-author and I thank the author also because this is really a crass, vile offense that deserves attention, and I'm thankful we're giving it that, so thank you.

Yes. Mr. Alanis.

I'd also like to echo this great job as a prior Crimes Against Children's detective. This one touches me right here, so I'd also like to be a co-author if possible.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. We have a motion and a second. No more questions. Mr. Berman, you may close.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to thank Dan Azarenko for bringing this issue to us. I honestly couldn't believe people did this when I first heard about it, and then, as we learned more information about how often this happens and how available these images are, especially on the dark web, it's terrifying.

And then I absolutely want to thank Kaylin for your bravery, for your courage, for leaning into the advocacy process to make sure that this doesn't happen to more young people in the future. So, really appreciate you stepping up and sharing the absolutely awful experience that you went through that nobody should have to. So thank you very much. Thank you to colleagues. Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Okay. Thank you. Please call the roll.

On AB 1831 by Assembly Member Berman, the motion is 'do pass to the Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee.' [Roll Call].

That measure passes. Thank you. Next measure, item number 29.

Are you gonna go present your bill?

3209.

You wanna do it right now? Do you wanna go right now? Yeah, I'm gonna duck out. I'll come back to that next bill.

Yes. No worries.

I'm gonna go back to my Committee. Thanks.

Okay. Assembly Member Soria. AB 1960. Please begin.

Ready? Okay. Good morning, Chair and Members. AB 1960 restores an important tool for law enforcement to combat retail theft and keep our communities safe. As you all may recall, Members, in January this year, the Governor, Governor Newsom, delivered to us, the Legislature, an urgent call to action to send him legislation that cracks down on property crime.

The Governor, in no uncertain terms, called for the Legislature to send him new laws that expand criminal penalties to hold criminals accountable, bolster police and prosecutor tools to combat theft, and take down suspects who profit from smash and grabs, retail theft, and car burglaries. We received that message loud and clear, and that's what we are here today to present, AB 1960, which checks all the boxes. It expands criminal penalties for theft. It bolsters the police and prosecutor tools to combat theft in our communities.

And it helps take those down who profit from smash and grabs and retail theft. Specifically, the bill reinstates, which was previously law for 40 years, a tiered sentencing enhancement system. If the value of the stolen and damaged property is exceptionally high, this bill ensures the punishment actually matches the crime and holds individuals who steal large amounts accountable. Enhanced penalties to hold accountable those who take advantage of and victimize their neighbors will deter others from following the same path and harming our communities.

Just a few weeks ago, actually, in Fresno, which is one of the counties that I represent, at the shopping center right in Central Fresno, Fig Garden, for those of you, of you that know that community. A suspect actually backed his truck through the doors, breaking the windows and the doors of a commercial retail space, not only stealing a lot of the merchandise, but, obviously, destroying a lot of property in this particular commercial establishment.

Thank God there were no employees or, you know, shoppers present at the time. But the type of damage and that this individual cost this retail business was not the first time. Actually, this has happened a couple times to the same retail business. And so these are the types of instances that we are trying to prevent and deter. And we know that here in the State of California, we need greater accountability, and that's what AB 1960 does.

Our communities across the State of California, not just in the Central Valley, are, you know, dealing with these issues and asking us to bring solutions forward. Crime, especially retail theft, is not only a problem in my district, but across the State of California. And so today, this bill helps to address that issue and addresses it with urgency and action.

I also will say that I'm proud that my bill is part of the legislative package to combat retail theft that is led by Speaker Rivas and Assembly Member Rick Zbur. I want to thank them for the incredible work that they've spent over the last few months with many of us talking to the stakeholders.

Like many of the retailers, I've spent a lot of time with my local community with our district attorneys and our law enforcement officials to try to figure out how we can combat this issue that many of our businesses are confronting and as well as is impacting many of the employees and even customers when they're visiting some of these establishments. Here today with me to testify in support of the bill is Tom Pfeiff, the Merced County Chief District Attorney, and I also have Rachel Michelin, President, CEO of the California Retailers Association.

Thank you. Please begin.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. My name is Tom Pfeiff. I'm a Chief Deputy District Attorney at the Merced County District Attorney's Office. I'm here today in support of AB 1960 by Assembly Member Soria and would like to thank her for her leadership on this issue. This bill would reenact the previously sunset statute providing enhanced penalties when an individual takes or destroys property during the commission of a felony when the value of the property is exceptionally high.

Penal Code Section 12022.6 was enacted over 40 years ago and was continually renewed by the Legislature until it sunset on January 1, 2018. This enhancement is critical to combating retail theft, smash and grabs that have been increasing at an alarming rate. According to data from the Public Policy Institute of California, commercial shoplifting increased by 28.7% in 2022 alone, commercial burglary saw an increase of 5.8%, while commercial robbery rose by 9%. The damage in many of these cases is well over $50,000.

Penal Code Section 12022.6 imposes penalty enhancements that punish these acts and help deter criminals from causing significant damage during the commission or attempted commission of a felony. The excessive takings enhancement are also extremely important in the prosecution of white collar and elder abuse crime in California. Many white collar crimes are especially difficult to prosecute because the offenders have sophisticated means to conceal their activities.

We have a number of cases in our county of theft of residences, businesses, and embezzlement from elderly people where the loss has been well over $100,000. Without these enhancements, the penalties for the theft and destruction of property over a million dollars is the same is the same as the theft of property worth $951. An enhancement is needed for a crime that involves the intentional taking, damage, or destruction of property valued over $50,000 during the commission or attempted commission of a felony. For these reasons, I respectfully ask for an aye vote on AB 1960 today. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Two minutes left.

Great. Chairman McCarty, Members of the Public Safety Committee. Across the state, California consumers have seen products locked up or, in some cases, products not even sold in stores. They have seen retail theft happen before their own eyes. Everyone seems to have a retail theft store story. What's worse, the level of violence we are seeing and the destruction of property criminals are using. There are hundreds of videos of retail stores, large and small, being destroyed while thieves run out of the stores with stolen products.

AB 1960 goes after these egregious acts. Individuals who are in the commission or attempted commission of a felony, or a person who is receiving stolen property charged as a felony, they know they are engaging in criminal behavior and, as such, should be held accountable with enhanced consequences.

This bill sends a clear message that this type of violent behavior will no longer be tolerated in California and signals that this Legislature will put the safety of our communities and that of law abiding Californians above those who choose to commit crimes that not only put our employees and customers at risk, but also destroy property and the livelihoods of businesses across the state state. This bill builds on several other legislative proposals as part of the Assembly Retail Theft Package that, taken comprehensively, could have meaningful impacts on deterring the growing threat of retail theft and organized retail crime in California, and sends a signal that individuals who damage or destroy property in the commission or attempted commission of a felony will face new sentencing enhancements in California. For those reasons, I request your aye vote.

Thank you. Others in support, please come forward.

Randy Perry on behalf of PORAC in support.

Good morning. Brenda Bass, California Chamber of Commerce, in support.

Good morning. Daniel Conway, California Grocers, in support.

Chair and Members, Skyler Wonnacott on behalf of the California Business Properties Association in support.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Chris Micheli on behalf of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce in support of the bill.

Mr. Chair and Members, Jolena Voorhis on behalf of League of California Cities in support.

Mr. Chair and Members, Jack Yanos on behalf of the California Fuels and Convenience Alliance in support.

Mr. Chairman, Julian Cañete on behalf of California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce in support.

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

Ryan Sherman with the Riverside Sheriff's Association the other POAs DSAs in support. Thank you.

Meg Holtman and California District Attorneys Association in support

Bradley Schoenleben, Orange County District Attorney's Office, full support.

Candice Chung on behalf of Attorney General Rob Bonta in support.

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

Thank you. Opposition, please come forward.

All right. You have five minutes between your panel.

Thank you. Good morning. My name is Claire Simonich. I'm the Associate Director at Vera California which advances policies to promote community safety and mass incarceration and advance racial justice. AB 1960 would add sentencing enhancements of four years or more in prison for damaging property in the commission of any felony. Although the Bill purports to address organized retail theft, or so-called smash-and-grab robberies, its reach extends far beyond retail theft to cover property damage in the commission of any felony.

And the Bill is a sharp swerve away from the Legislature's recent progress in reducing sentencing enhancements and reaches again for an old, ineffective playbook. I think that's an important point about this Bill. It's not a new bill. In just 2018, the Legislature determined that a nearly identical but less harsh version of this law should sunset.

And since then, including with landmark legislation in 2021, this Legislature has taken multiple steps to recognize that sentencing enhancements have a detrimental effect on overcrowding our prisons and jails and increasing racial disparities. This Bill would reverse course on some of these important gains. Further, despite years of inflation since the 2008 Bill that set prior limits on property damage punishments, this Bill would set the threshold $15,000 lower than that was what was in effect before with inflation.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, this Bill should set the threshold for damage at $95,000 if we're talking about 2008 dollars. The Bill also risks roping in innocent or accidental conduct by omitting the prior requirement in the last Bill that damage be intentional. Evidence has shown that sentencing enhancements are ineffective at deterring crime.

Study after study has shown this, and the Legislature has significantly better tools at hand to address retail theft, including so-called smash and grab robberies, things like regulating online marketplaces and supporting retail workers by enhancing pay and mandating increased staffing. We urge a no vote on this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Next witness.

Danica Rodarmel on behalf of Initiate Justice. Enhancements are something we have seen over and over again to be ineffective. This Bill is not about whether or not people should be punished for illegal conduct, but about how long and how hard, while we're also simultaneously having conversations in the State of California about the need to continue to decrease our prison population. It costs over $130,000 a year to incarcerate one person in our prison system.

This is the kind of policy that led to an explosion in our prison population and mass incarceration. We're still trying to keep it in check so that we are not in violation of the United States Constitution of cruel and unusual punishment. And so this is exactly the kind of thing that will put us back into that territory without any proof at all that it will meaningfully deter any conduct.

In part because, as is pointed out in the same thing that is cited in every analysis about enhancements, this Department of Justice report, which I highly recommend everybody take a look at the things that would be required for an individual to know in order to actually be deterred by something like a sentence. Enhancement is just not in the realm of reality of what people are actually thinking about before they commit crimes.

So for all of those reasons, and because we believe that it will cost the State of California a lot of money and do more harm than good in the process, we urge your no vote.

Thank you. Others in opposition, please come forward. State your position only.

Roxanna Gonzalez, behalf of Initiate Justice Action, opposed.

Gretchen Burns Bergman, A New PATH, Parents for Addiction Treatment and Healing, oppose.

Olivia Gleason, on behalf of Californians United for a Responsible Budget, strongly oppose.

Matt Sotorosen of the California Public Defenders Association. We oppose.

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

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

Alyssa Moore, All of Us or None, in opposition.

Lawrence Cox, LSBC, opposition.

Barbara Chavez, on behalf of the Ella Baker Center. We oppose.

Thank you. Questions or comments from Committee Members? Assembly Member Wilson.

Thank you to the author for your intent and being a part of the greater coalition to deal with this particular issues. I know opposition brought up some concerns about sentence enhancement, and I think quite a few of us on the Committee share those just in general. One concern I have, and I wonder if you'll address it today, is so previously, and I think your witnesses provided this as a part of the testimony, that the Legislature had regularly reviewed this particular legislation.

And part of it, as I understand it, had to do with the dollar amounts as well. So enforcing a review period, basically to consider whether those thresholds were sufficient enough, and so there's no adjustment to that. I think the staff analysis, the Committee analysis showed that the amounts that were equivalent from 2018 to today would be a much higher threshold. But your Bill goes lower than even what 2018 numbers would be today.

And since it doesn't include the sunset provision, there's no opportunity to have the Legislature automatically review whether that's relevant or not, which is important because we exist today. But we have term limits. We're not going to be here later. And so I just wonder why, why take out the sunset and leave the dollar amount static? They're lower. So that means every single year, in theory, the threshold is getting lower and lower and expanding the number of people that would be impacted by this. Thank you.

Thank you, Assemblywoman Wilson, for that point and for your question. We're happy to have the conversation if, you know, having a sunset and allowing us to come back and review this to make sure that it is working. I'm happy to work through that with, with the Committee. In terms of the threshold, I think that for us, as we were making a determination where we should land, we were looking and having, having conversations with a variety of stakeholders.

And I will tell you, I heard from many of the kind of small businesses that I've been talking, that have talking to, that have been victimized. The threshold is even a little bit lower. But we were trying to reach a middle ground and, you know, and present something that will be helpful and will be a tool to our law enforcement officials to go after folks. I feel that it is important that the punishment does meet the crime and what is happening in our communities.

I just mentioned in Fresno just three weeks ago, you know, people busting in with cars and breaking doors and windows, that's not gonna be cheap to replace. And so for me, I think it's important to make sure that those folks that are being impacted, that are smaller businesses that may not be able to afford, also feel like they have a sense of justice when people are being held accountable.

So be happy to work with the Committee and with you guys to figure out an appropriate timeline of review.

Thank you. I appreciate that. Given that this is a part of greater coalition, I'll support the Bill today, but I do think that a sunset would be appropriate, personally, especially because in 2018, the legislatures had the mindset that enhancements don't work even in 2024. We find that the overall view of the Legislature's enhancements, you know, don't deter, they don't do what we're supposed to.

And so if we are, as a greater coalition, determining that we need to have stronger laws as it relates to, you know, property crime, we may find that that's needed now, but there needs to be an opportunity to reevaluate that and not be in perpetuity. So I would recommend putting in some type of sunset. But given, given that it's part of a greater coalition of supporting stronger laws related to property crime, I will support it today.

Thank you.

Okay. Assembly Member Ting.

Yeah, I think Assembly Member Wilson sort of stole all, most of my thoughts, so I would agree with her on all points. I think I did have a question regarding the intent language, because it seems like the intent language was not as narrow as the previous law. And I did want to understand around the felony language because it seemed that with the felony language in the previous law, there was more specificity. So that even though it didn't say.

It didn't say only theft, it sort of inferred that it was really inferring to theft. So I was just curious if you could address those, those two issues.

Yeah, if I may?

Please. Absolutely

I'd be happy to. Sure. So theft is all kinds of theft, in particular is a specific intent crime. So even though the enhancement is based on a number, the prosecutor still has to prove the specific intent to steal, in particular on theft crimes beyond a reasonable doubt.

And even in other crimes like vandalism or other property crimes, it's still a general intent crime. We have to prove intent. These are not strict liability offenses like a speeding ticket, just because you do it, even if you didn't intend to, it's still against the law. We do have to prove intent.

But I guess. Was there a reason why you broadened the intent language from the previous law?

Well, I. I don't believe with respect to the dollar amounts.

Not the dollar amount, just the language around intent.

Yeah. Would you please? No, no, thank you.

I don't know what. Do you know what section you're looking at?

I don't have my glasses.

And I apologize.

Well, this is a previous law. It was section 12022.6.

I just have the current Bill.

Yeah, yeah, sorry. It was just comparing the Bill from the.

Yeah, I mean, I would just, you know, an underlying. The underlying offense. We still have to prove the intent. So I'm not sure what the difference is between the old 12022.6 and the current version, but. But we still have to prove intent.

Got it. And I understand regarding just the felony. I think in the previous. In the previous law, there actually was specificity around theft.

So that it was sort of an understanding that it really was around theft versus. This is just broad felony language.

It is broader. And I think the idea for that is it's just really kind of, as Assembly Member Soria indicated, it's sort of a punishment fits the crime types of situation. Sometimes a theft of $951 is a lot different, or can be than a theft of 50,000 or a million or $20 million.

And sometimes, and I noted the opposition's comment that, well, sometimes it's inadvertent, you know, the damages or the amounts, but sometimes it's not. And judges still have the opportunity to take, take into account all of those things when it comes to sentencing. They have a right to, the judges have the discretion to dismiss these enhancements or to adjust them appropriately. So I think part of the concern in this whole area we're talking about is just there's no increased punishment for increased damage.

And from our perspective, perspective, we're trying to hold people accountable and more accountable for more serious crimes and more serious damages. And we want the people in our community to feel like the justice system is holding people accountable.

Got it. Yeah.

I think they wanted to respond, the opposition, briefly.

Sure.

Thank you. I'll be brief. I have the language from the prior bill. So the 2018 Bill included a provision that the damage or attempted damage had to be with the intent to cause that taking, damage, or destruction. And I think this is an important point because it could loop in conduct that occurs in any felony that causes damage, even if that damage was not intentional.

So say, for example, somebody was doing reckless driving, and that's a felony that would loop in any damage as a result of that, and add the sentencing enhancement on top, even if that damage was not intentional, even if the damage itself was not reckless. So the sentencing enhancement itself is strict liability, even if the underlying offense is not, which I think is an important point.

And then as to the discretionary point and judges' discretion, certainly we appreciate that SB 81 has added some discretion into the mix, but this Bill does say shall, and I think that may sow some confusion for courts who are trying to balance those two things.

Got it. So I think I share a lot of the concerns that my colleague from Suisun mentioned. It seems like you have the votes to get out of Committee. I'm gonna lay off today in hopes that you can kind of address some of those so that I could vote for it on the floor.

Thank you. One more question.

Okay.

Yeah. And just following up onto that, noting what the opposition noted, is that I think that intent language is extremely important just because there's a lot of crimes that aren't intentional, that even our young people get involved in, and that we don't want that sentencing opinion enhancement on and to the point the opposition made in regard to shall versus may. Being a local leader, we dealt with that a lot. Shall versus may.

And so because the word may is not there, and the word is shall, that does not give discretion. And so if you so, I would say one or the other. I'd prefer both, not only the intent plus may, but if you're going to pick one I would say taking out the shall and saying may would allow the judge truly to have discretion. But I'll be supporting. And since we don't have a lot of folks in here, I'll make the motion.

We have a motion and a second. And just the second point of clarification is your desire to have some sunset in there.

Yes. Yes. Yeah. Thank you.

So with that, you may close.

Awesome. Thank you, Mister Chairman. And I appreciate, obviously my colleagues, you know, the points that you guys raised, they're well taken. I will definitely be working with you guys moving forward to address some of those technicalities and then also looking at a sunset that is appropriate for review. Happy to do that. So thank you again for the time and I ask for your aye support.

Thank you. Please call the roll.

On AB 1960 by Assembly Member Soria. The motion is do passed to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll call]

That bill is on call. Next, we have Mr. Reggie Jones-Sawyer. You have two bills, Mr. Chair Emeritus. First, we'll start with Item Number Four: AB 1802.

Okey-dokey. Good morning, Chair and Members. I present AB 1802, which will eliminate the sunsets on the crime of organized retail theft and the operation of California Highway Patrol Property Crimes Task Force. In 2017, I authored AB 1065, which created the crime of organized retail theft. The bill was carefully crafted to specifically target organized crime rings.

AB 1065 also established the California Highway Patrol Property Crimes Task Force, which to date has recovered over 30 million in stolen goods. This year, I've offered AB 1802 to eliminate the sunset from my original bill and make the crime of organized retail theft and the CHP Task Force permanent tools available to law enforcement in California.

This will ensure that law enforcement has the necessary means to arrest and prosecute the organized crime rings that continue to disrupt life in the Golden State. With me to testify in support of the bill is Bill Felizzatto, on behalf of of the bill sponsor, Los Angeles County District Attorney George Gascón.

Yes. Please proceed.

Mr. Chairman and Members, Dan Felizzatto, on behalf of the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office. We're happy to sponsor AB 1802. As the Assemblyman said, AB 1802 will remove the sunset on California's organized retail theft statute. Everybody realizes that organized retail theft is a growing problem, not only in California, but across the country.

Since the Covid pandemic, organized retail theft has increased 26 percent nationwide. We've all seen videos of high-end stores--Neiman Marcus, Saks Fifth Avenue--being victimized by organized retail theft rings, but in reality, over 80 percent of these thefts occur at smaller neighborhood stores that have a much greater impact on all Californians. Organized retail theft makes our citizens feel unsafe when they're shopping. It also drives up the cost of goods, and coupled with inflation, that is hugely problematic.

We also have to worry about the fact that many retail establishments are closing their doors in part because of organized retail theft. This will have a huge impact on our neighborhoods when it's your local pharmacy that gets closed and you now have to make a much greater distance to travel to get everyday goods that is needed. In Los Angeles County last year, our office filed over 500 counts of organized retail theft, 434 felony filings, and 107 misdemeanor filings.

This law is one of the main tools that we have today to combat organized retail theft, and for that reason, we believe that it's time that the sunset be removed and this become a permanent part of our efforts to combat retail theft in California.

Thank you. Others in support, please come forward.

Ethan Nagler, on behalf of the City of Carlsbad, in support.

Dylan Hoffman, on behalf of TechNet, in support.

Brenda Bass, California Chamber of Commerce, in support.

Mr. Chairman, Chris Micheli, on behalf of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce, in support.

Danielle Sanchez with the Chief Probation Officers of California, in support.

Ryan Allain, on behalf of the California Retailers Association, in support.

Jack Yanos, on behalf of the California Fuels and Convenience Alliance, in support.

Jolena Voorhis, on behalf of the League of California Cities, in support.

Natalie Boust with the California Business Roundtable, in support.

Daniel Conway, California Grocers, in support.

Ryan Sherman with the Riverside Sheriffs' Association and the other law enforcement associations I represent, in support.

Candice Chung from the California Attorney General's Office, in support.

Thank you. Do we have opposition? Please come forward. Seeing none, questions or comments from Committee Members? Mr. Lackey.

Yeah. I'd just like to congratulate the author for allowing this successful effort to continue beyond a sunset date. It should be commended that we're trying to establish permanence for success. So thank you. Oh, and I want to be a co-author.

Yes.

Thank you. Motion and a second? Motion a second, Mr. Lackey and Mr. Ting. Thank you, Mr. Jones-Sawyer, and I know this is your work and I think it's appropriate that we're finishing this with you back here today to continue this effort. So you may close.

I don't want to mess it up. This is my first Lackey co-author bill, so I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Yes, please call the roll.

On AB 1802 by Assembly Member Jones-Sawyer, the motion is 'do pass to the Appropriations Committee.' [Roll Call]. Measure's on call.

Call you one more vote. Your next item, Mister Jones Sawyer, is item number 15. AB 2064.

Thank you. Good morning chair Members. I present AB 2064 which will establish the Community Violence Interdiction grant program. This Bill is among the 14 priority Bill moved and seconded identified by the California Black Caucus as part of reparations package.

This Bill would be administered by the California Health and Human Services Agency, which will ensure funding for the community driven solutions to increase violence in our schools and neighborhoods as opposed to the continuation of incarcerations. These funds would be secured through an appropriation of the savings from any future prison closure within the state. By using funds for these preventative programs, we reduce incarceration even further and focus on finding solutions to crime beyond the incarceration of most vulnerable, underserved communities.

AB 2064 allows for a true rehabilitation through putting an emphasis on the community and the victim impacted, gives them voice and reduces monetary expenditures accrued on imprisonment which has not been shown to reduce recidivism. Respectfully ask for your. aye vote.

Thank you. Witnesses in support

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

... for the Greater Sacramento Urban League. In support.

Taina Vargas Initiate Justice Action in support

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

Okay, thank you. Do we have opposition to this Bill? Seeing no opposition. Questions or comments from Committee Members? Seeing none. We have a motion. A second. You may close.

I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

[Roll Call]

You need one more vote. Mr. Berman, you're back.

I'm still a little thrown off by all the business and law enforcement support for that Jones-Sawyer bill, but we're going to move on. Mr. Chair and colleagues, AB 3209 would provide a new enforcement tool that will keep stores and workers safe from the rise of retail crime. In recent years, rates of retail theft and robbery have risen in California and this affects both our communities and our businesses.

AB 3209 would not only address retail theft, but also the issues of vandalism within the stores and assaults on the employees working in retail. It would authorize a court to impose a retail crime restraining order for up to two years for theft, vandalism, or battery on an employee within the store.

Importantly, AB 3209 would require the court to consider whether the individual resides in a food desert where the affected store is the only location for necessities and encourages diversion programs for any violation of the restraining order. Therefore, this bill strikes a balance between providing a necessary enforcement tool to keep stores, customers, and workers safe while not perpetuating the underlying causes of retail theft, such as poverty.

I want to clarify that the intent of this bill is to authorize a court to impose a restraining order following two or more citations, not arrests, which is the current language. There was a drafting error by Legislative Council, but I will work with Committee and correct this error at the next opportunity. Here with me is Rachel Michelin with the California Retailers Association and Josh Callery-Coyne with downtown San Diego Partnership.

Thank you. Please begin.

Thank you, Chairman McCarty, Members of the Public Safety Committee. The safety of retail employees and customers is our top priority and too often retail employees or customers have been put in harm's way due to repeat retail theft offenders. AB 3209 would provide a new enforcement tool that will keep stores and workers safe from repeated retail criminal activity.

AB 3209 would authorize a court, when sentencing a person for an offense involving theft from a retailer, vandalism of a retail establishment, or battery of a retail employee, to issue a criminal protective order prohibiting a person from entering the retail establishment, including any parking lots or other franchise or chain locations of the retailer. Retail theft has become an increasingly prevalent problem across California, with detrimental effects on both local businesses and customers.

The significant losses incurred by retailers due to theft not only threaten their financial stability, but also jeopardizes their ability to provide essential goods and services to the communities they serve. Moreover, the rise in organized retail crime has led to safety concerns for both employees and customers, further aggregating the problem. The introduction of the retail theft restraining order presents a proactive and effective approach to combating this growing issue.

By enabling retailers to obtain civil restraining orders against habitual offenders, this legislation empowers businesses to protect themselves and deter potential thieves from engaging in criminal activities. Additionally, the restraining orders provide law enforcement with valuable tools to address repeat offenders, disrupt organized retail crime networks, and enhance public safety. Furthermore, the implementation of the restraining orders offers a balanced solution that upholds the rights of both retailers and individuals while holding accountable those who repeatedly engage in criminal behavior.

By targeting habitual offenders and providing avenues for rehabilitation and support, this legislation not only addresses the symptoms of retail thefts, but also tackles the underlying issues contributing to criminal behavior. The California Retailers Association urges the support of AB 3209 and the establishment of the retail theft restaining orders. By doing so, we can take meaningful steps towards safeguarding our local businesses, protecting the livelihoods of hardworking employees, and promote a safer and more prosperous retail shopping environment for all.

This bill builds on a number of legislative proposals as part of the retail theft package, taken comprehensively, provides meaningful impacts on stopping the growing theft of retail theft and organized retail crime, and sends a signal that the conversation around the issue of holding repeat offenders accountable for their current behavior is changing.

AB 3209 illustrates that the safety of retail employees is an important part of the Assembly retail theft package and will help ensure the retail environment is safe for both our employees and customers in the store. For those reasons, I ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Good morning, Committee Chair McCarty and Members of the Public Safety Committee. My name is Josh Callery-Coyne and I'm Vice President of Policy and Civic Engagement with the Downtown San Diego Partnership and here on behalf of the California Downtown Association. The California Downtown Association represents thousands of diverse businesses throughout California. CDA's primary purpose is to formulate solutions and mutually shared problems while being committed to long term preservation of our urban centers.

We want to thank Assembly Member Berman and we are here today in full support of AB 3209. In San Diego, the downtown San Diego Partnership maintains 275 blocks of property based business improvement districts, which is the property owner assessed services that provide enhanced safety and janitorial services above and beyond what the city provides.

I'm here to reiterate the repetitive story that our clean and safe teams see and hear on a daily basis, which is retail establishments and small business owners in and around our urban centers are tired. They are tired of seeing and dealing with the same individuals disrupting and doing harm to their storefronts, businesses, their communities, and their families' livelihoods.

While our urban centers continue to be places where innovation, arts, culture, commerce, and creativity thrive, business owners need to know that lawmakers and advocates have exhausted all options to hold repeat bad actors accountable. And they need to know someone has their back. Just like the San Diego bike shop on 600 C Street in downtown San Diego, who time and time again must fend off repetitive thieves while repairing personal modes of transportation or attempting to sell to new patrons.

We are also talking about building confidence in the consumer to step into these small businesses. While the actual bottom line of business is practical, we also support this to address the perception that plagues in and around our retail establishments. I mentioned this before, but business owners are tired and they have reached compassion fatigue. They're investing more and more of their own money, their family's hard earned money, to try to keep their doors open, and frankly, it's not fair. We thank you for your time and request your aye vote today.

Thank you. Others in support, please come forward.

Mr. Chair, Members. Randy Perry on behalf of Poor People's Campaign in support.

Brenda Bass, California Chamber of Commerce in support.

Skylar Wannacott, California Business Properties Association in support.

Daniel Conway, California Groceries Association. Also in support.

Juliana Voris with the League of California Cities in support.

Candace Chung, the California Attorney General's Office in support.

Thank you. Opposition?

Good morning, Chairman, Members of the Committee. My name is Oliver Kroll. I'm a Deputy Public Defender at the San Francisco Public Defender's Office. Thank you. Providing respectful opposition to AB 3029. We oppose this measure for two main reasons. First, AB 3209 would create a harmful new process where attorneys representing large retailers could seek a two year retail theft restraining order for nonviolent property crimes, misdemeanors such as petty theft and vandalism.

Of course, my office understands the importance of safe working conditions for everyone, including retail workers, but this bill goes beyond that. This order could be sought merely if somebody's been arrested, not convicted of such an offense. And it wouldn't necessarily involve a public prosecutor. It would be these retailers and their attorneys picking who are the targets of these restraining orders. The restraining orders would prevent people not just from entering the store, but from even setting foot on the parking lot outside.

And not just that store, but the other chains across the state. It's yet another tripwire for marginalized, unhoused community members to suck them into the legal system, and that's what this would create. Additionally, since it would apply to multiple stores, retail workers would be tasked with enforcing the restraining order based on photos of someone who may have visited another store within the past two years.

And of course, we know that a large majority of wrongful convictions stem from eyewitness misidentifications, and this opens the door for even more racial profiling and discrimination. The second reason is that this bill is not needed because existing law, when enforced properly, would meet the concerns raised by this bill. I know there was a bit of a debate earlier about the scope of trespassing law. I did want to respectfully point out one I believe error in the bill analysis.

Existing trespass law 602 T already permits misdemeanor prosecutions for trespass when somebody's been convicted of an infraction, a really low level offense in a store, and they're asked to leave by the proprietors and they refuse to leave, doesn't require a felony conviction. Additionally, if somebody's causing a nuisance in a store, obstructing the store's business and they're asked to leave, that's a misdemeanor if they refuse to leave. And of course, any threats, let alone violence, against retail workers, can already be severely punished under the law.

These tools are still available, and they're more than sufficient for theft and vandalism offenses. Study after study demonstrates that harsher penalties, including for people with prior thefts, will not be effective at combating retail theft. Moreover, people have lost their lives because of overstated retail theft concerns and have needlessly been sent into the criminal legal system. Banco Brown, 24 year old black Trans man shot and killed in San Francisco last April by a Walgreens security guard who accused him of shoplifting.

Joseph Southwick, former army captain and Iraq war veteran, broke a window of a restaurant, stole six chocolate chip cookies. He put his hands in the air. Officers shot him with a foam round, punched him, wrestled him into handcuffs, and then somebody like Jordan Smith, living in an RV with no food or heat, he tried to steal copper wire from a warehouse. He was convicted of theft, sent into the system. He could have used those resources and housing instead of being funneled into the system.

The one thing I would add with respect to these two year restraining orders, I represented people charged with misdemeanor petty theft all the time, both in Fresno and in San Francisco. You can already get a restraining order barring you from going into the store even before you're convicted as a bail condition. And then if you're put on probation, the court has broad powers to put in those probation conditions, including banning you from going back to the store.

So this bill, we submit, is not needed and would provide another tripwire into the system for these low level misdemeanors. So we would urge you to vote no on this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Any others in opposition, please come forward.

Thank you. Claire Simonich on behalf of the Vera Institute. We appreciate the ongoing conversations with the author on this bill, but we have concerns about the bill in print. Thank you.

Taina Vargas, Initiate Justice Action in opposition.

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

Thank you. Questions or comments from Committee Members? A motion. A second.

Thank the author. Can I just get maybe a response back from the retailers in regards to keeping their employees safe, as opposition had brought up with it already being able to be used in a misdemeanor.

Sure. I mean, this is our first priority is keeping our employees safe. These are repeat offenders. These are people, we know who these people are that are coming in over and over and over and over and over again. They're harassing our employees. They are, you know, I'm not going to get into detail the amount of what our employees are going up against. Not only our employees, but our customers. We think this is a tool for our retailers to be able to use, large and small.

And, you know, I think my colleague here alluded to, it's not just about large retailers. It's small retailers. It's mom and pop shops. You know, I think there are places here in Sacramento who see the same person coming in every single day, stealing from their stores, and there's, you know, unfortunately, we need to figure out a way to keep them from coming in and stealing. And I think this is an innovative way to do it. I think there's safeguards here to do that.

I think it's a new approach to doing it. And for us, again, it's deterring them from coming into the stores and stealing. And that's our key point. And so we appreciate the author for bringing this forward, and I think it's a good first step to doing it.

Thank you. Chair, I have no further questions, just ask to be co-author.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you. We have a motion and a second. And again, this was part of our retail package that we outlined this morning, a tool in our toolbox going forward. You may close.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and colleagues and I appreciate the concerns that were raised. And, you know, I'm committed to continuing to talk with opposition to see what we can do. We're trying to take a balanced approach, but we do need to make sure that it's an approach that is strong enough to really matter and make a difference. And so with that, respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Please call the roll.

On AB 3209 by Assembly Member Berman. The motion is do pass to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

That measure passes.

Thank you. We're gonna try to squeeze one more Bill in before our caucus lunch so that next on the list is Assembly Member Pacheco. So Assembly Member Carrillo will have you go after caucus lunch. Item 30, AB 3241. We have a motion a second, so be brief, real quick. Bipartisan motion.

What's that wonderful. Thank you Mister chair and Members. AB 3241 sets clear and comprehensive statewide standards for law enforcement k nine programs with the goal of insurance, uniformity, accountability, and excellence in the use of public canine canines. Police K nine s throughout California. This Bill represents a significant step forward in standardizing law enforcement k nine programs, enhancing accountability and fostering trust between law enforcement agencies and the communities they serve. In passing AB 203241 California will have the most comprehensive statewide standards in the country.

I have. I have with me representatives from the California Police Chiefs Association and the Police Officers Research Association of California here to testify if needed.

Thank you chair Members of the Committee. My name is Zach VanDerSteele. I'm the San Diego police K nine training sergeant representing Porac, a co sponsor of the Bill. Our goal as police canine units throughout California is to increase officer safety as well as community safety. Police canines add an incredible value to public safety because of the heightened senses they possess which cannot be replicated or replaced. These senses include smell, sight, and hearing, sometimes tens of thousands times greater than any human sense cannon.

Handlers rely on these senses for maximum officer safety when properly trained police dogs are capable of locating an otherwise undetectable subject who may be lying in wait to ambush an officer or civilian victim. Utilizing a police dog allows officers to remain at a safe distance, allowing time to react to the suspect's actions and De escalate the situation. In addition, police dogs are a reactive tool, not proactive. The K nine is deployed based on the individual's actions, with the ultimate goal of bringing about a peaceful surrender.

During a five year span from 2018 to 2022, the San Diego Police K nine unit responded to over 92,000 calls for service, with only 150 of those resulting in an apprehension. This is due in part to the high caliber training and structured K nine program. Porac supports all K nine units in California meeting this level of training standardization as will be required under AB 3241.

For these reasons, we respectfully ask for your I vote chair Members Jonathan Feldman with the California Police Chiefs Association, also a sponsor of the Bill and strong support here to more answer technical questions if you have any. But I just want to point out that language was developed over a period of months with top legal experts in the state, sheriffs, police chiefs, handlers and practitioners.

And you know, really the focus on developing a comprehensive package that addresses not just guidelines, but training policy, reporting requirements and a legal standard. And for those reasons, we ask for your support today. Thank you. Others in support Mister Chairman Members Randy Perry on behalf of the California Association Highway Patrol and PORac, co sponsors of the bell. Thank you. Thank you. Next, Mister Chairman Members Corey Salzillo, on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association, in support.

Ryan Sherman with the Riverside Sheriff's Association and other POAS vsas previously stated. Thanks Mister chair Members. Matthew Cyberling, on behalf of the Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs, the California Peace Officers Association and also on behalf of the Paternal Order of Police, all in support. Thank you.

Meg Holtman, California District Attorneys Association in support.

Jolena Voorhis at California Cities in support.

Thank you. Opposition please come forward.

Good morning, Chair and Members. My name is Stephanie Padilla and I am a Staff Attorney at the ACLU of Southern California on behalf of ACLU California Action. I speak today in respectful opposition of AB 3241, which would provide dangerously broad language on permissible deployment circumstances. For example, Section 4 would allow the deployment of police dogs to search for or apprehend a suspect in essentially any situation and does not place strict limitations on deployment in ways that would meaningfully safeguard community members from harm.

Rather, it would do the opposite. Despite ample data proving that police agencies often use dogs to bite and seriously injure people who pose no threat to officers or others, including unarmed people who are already lying down, restrained or with their hands in the air, or individuals experiencing a behavioral health crisis. Subdivision A1 would allow police dogs to be deployed in these situations. Subdivision A2 would allow the use of police dog when a suspect is physically resisting or threatening to resist arrest.

A canine attack is not proportional as a response to any movement a person may make or any form of physical or threatened resistance. Subdivision A3 would allow the use of a police dog when a suspect is concealed in an area where entry by a person would pose a threat to the safety of officers or the public.

A report by special counsel to the LA County Sheriff's Department concluded that less harmful alternatives to police dogs can be used to apprehend hiding suspects and that, generally, a suspect barricaded or hiding in a confined area like a shed or closet can be extracted without a dog. Accidental maulings by police attack dogs are a serious threat to the safety of Californians in AB 3241, with obscure efforts to address this threat.

For example, Subdivision C 1A's deployment definition is narrow and is limited to situations where a police dog is deployed for any legitimate law enforcement purpose. This will result in the failure to document and report critical information relating to accidental or unintentional incidents, both of which occur with regularity, such as when police dog broke out of a patrol car and attacked a woman in a parking lot, causing her major bite wounds. Police have no incentive to regulate themselves.

AB 3241 will cede to post the responsibility of crafting guidelines for the use of police dogs without establishing clear and strict statutory limitations. This troubling concern is exasperated by the fact that this is sponsored by PORAC, who we have observed over the years, along with other police special interest groups, to manipulate the outcome of post-use of force policymaking process in ways that completely undermined both public safety and the legislators intent. AB 3241 will not safeguard our community members and will further perpetuate the status quo.

In a recent interview, San Diego Police Chief Nisleit admitted that AB 3241 will not change anything about the way officers currently use attack dogs. The Legislature must enact legislation that includes clear and strict limitations on the use of police dogs, which AB 3241 fails to do. For these reasons, we respectfully request your no vote.

Thank you. You have about a minute and a half left.

My name is Chris Burbank, retired Police Chief from Salt Lake City, Vice President of the Major City Chiefs for four years, as well as President of the National Executive Institute that represented police leaders across the country. I'm speaking in opposition to this simply because I believe that this is a valuable tool. But this valuable tool should be regulated by a legislative body that says, statutorily, this is what the rules are, and then host and the training standards set forth, identify how you train then to that standard that's been identified. I think we are missing a step in this particular circumstance. That is a vital step. We would not say, "go forth and tell us how to use deadly force." We have regulated deadly force. We have batons. Time and time again, statutorily, we say, "these are the rules." And then police officers, sheriffs deputies, tell us how you're going to enforce those rules.

I believe that's the proper way in order to conduct this, because we run the risk of letting forth a tool that is one of the most violent tools that police officers have at their capacity. When we talk apprehension, you are talking about a dog that's trained to bite somebody. That is plain and simple. That's what apprehension is about.

And there are alternatives and where alternatives have been taken across the country, including New Orleans, Salt Lake City, we have not seen an increase in the number of officer injuries. We have not seen a decrease in the number of felony arrests, and we have not seen the increase in crime that is sometimes discussed about this. Again, this is a tool that deserves to be regulated, that the public needs to have input on from your behalf.

And then we go forth and say, this is how we'll accomplish.

Others in opposition, please come forward.

Taina Vargas, Initiate Justice Action, in opposition.

I was instructed to give these pictures to the secretary to share with you folks.

Sure, you can hand them to the sergeant just behind you. Just state your name and position. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman. I have a perspective on this Bill, and.

Yeah, I'm sorry we ran out of time for testimony. You could just state your. Your name and your view on the Bill. Yes or no?

I oppose it.

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

Margo George, I want to thank the author's office for the conversation, but we remain in opposition for California Public Defenders Association. Thank you.

Ed Little with Californians for Safety and Justice in opposition.

Alissa Moore with All of Us or None in strong opposition.

Lawrence Cox, LSPC, opposition.

Alicia Montero, Californians United for a Responsible Budget in strong opposition.

Eric Henderson, on behalf of ACLU California Action, in strong opposition to AB 3241.

Alicia Benavidez on behalf of Alliance for Boys and Men of Color, in opposition.

Gretchen Burns Bergman, a New PATH (Parents for Addiction Treatment and Healing) in opposition.

Carmen-Nicole Cox, ACLU California Action. I do want to thank Committee staff for making it very clear that a vote in support of 3241 is a vote for injustice. Thank you.

Okay, any others in opposition? Seeing none, questions or comments from Committee Members? I'll start here. And we wanted to hear these back to back, we're going to caucus, lunch was another Bill, hearing one Bill at a time. So I guess my big picture on these bills related to canine police dogs, or canines are dogs, but is that a few years ago, we had a big debate here in the Legislature, and I authored a Bill with Doctor Webber, changing our use of force standards.

And we wanted to focus on de-escalation. And one of the things that I always recall is one of the hot moments that brought that Bill to fruition in 2019 was a shooting just down the street here in Sacramento. A young man named Stephan Clark in his grandma's house had a cell phone and was shot and killed. And it got our city's attention, the state's attention, the nation's attention. And that became a flashpoint for that Bill.

One of the things that we heard over and over after that was a need for alternatives other than deadly force, de-escalation. And the family actually asked many times, "why didn't you send in the canine? Why couldn't you send in other pieces?" And so, you know, these are pieces of the puzzle, especially as we try to have safer alternatives when law enforcement goes out to a dangerous situation. So I think that we need to look at both sides of the coin here.

That being said, I do support this, and will support the other Bill as well. We're debating one Bill at a time here, but I'm trying, I think I want to talk about it in context here as well. This Bill certainly sets out kind of rules of engagement. The other measure is more setting the direction for posts to kind of work on these things.

It's my hope and our hope that you continue to work with our other author and come together and recognize the leadership that the prior Bill started first. But with that, I do support this measure today and encourage you to keep engaging not only with the other companion measure, but with the opposition groups as well. So thank you. Assemblymember Wilson, sorry. Assemblymembers Wilson.

If I may. Thank you to the author for bringing this forward and trying to address some of the concerns from the Bill last year. And I think even though we're not talking about the Bill, I will note, thank you to Assemblymember Jackson for being a leader in this space and starting the dialogue with the Legislature on what's appropriate and what is not appropriate. And how I view this particular Bill is setting up a standard statewide.

That was one of the many conversations that were occurring last year, was about the inconsistency across the state, even how the use of canines and every single department had their own way of doing it, pretty much the wild, wild west when it came to it, and how there was a need, at minimum, for a standard. And so I'll be supporting this Bill today as we work to define that standard.

I'm going to also encourage the continued conversations with the author who led this discussion on this, because I think this does create a standard and comes from the point of law enforcement. But at the same time, there has to be a discussion where we have community input and the Legislature has to weigh in on what the guardrails are for this.

And that can't be silent because we do find, although it is a useful tool and an appropriate for de-escalation and alternative ways that don't end in death, there are tragic incidents that we hear. Even one in my own area, where it was actually in the County of Napa, but a person, a dog was put forth to apprehend someone who was in the process of committing a crime, or had been committing a crime, that was clearly visible.

And the dog did not attack that person, but attacked someone well behind them who was actually a resident from my county and in my district. And so that was unfortunate, but there was no mechanisms in place to be able to address that situation. So I think that just like we have rules surrounding other uses, police use of force, there has to be rules around this.

And it has to take into consideration not just giving our law enforcement tools to keep us safe because that's important, but from the community point of view, keeping the community safe from the tools of law enforcement. Thank you.

Thank you. Assemblymember Alanis?

Thank you, Chair. I want to thank the author, the sponsors, everybody working on this Bill. This Bill is an example of what we should be doing. Most of our bills, actually talking and working with those that actually put the Bill in place, working with the handlers, working with the associations as well. One of the questions I have for the opposition, you had brought up that in the Bill, it talks about canines being used on unarmed people. Can you elaborate on that?

Sorry. So the Bill itself doesn't use that language, but our data shows that canines, when canines are usually used, they're used in situations and against people who are typically unarmed, people who are posing no threat to officers, no imminent sort of threat of serious bodily injury or death to officers or other community members. They're used against people who are experiencing a behavioral health crisis, people who have disabilities and disproportionately against communities of color.