Senate Standing Committee on Public Safety

[Roll Call]

We have quorum. Can we get a motion on consent, please? Moved by Senator Seyarto. Can we have a roll call?

[Roll Call]

All right, consent is on call.

All right, we have our first presenter, Senator Umberg. SB 910 at this lectern. And I just want to, again, remind the audience and those that are participating in these committees that witnesses will be speaking at that lectern. Both support and opposition lead witnesses will be timed at two minutes. Me toos. We ask that you line up very quickly and state your name, your organization, whether you support or oppose. Senator Umberg, if you would like to present SB 910, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for your patience. I want to thank the chair and Stella Chloe for your help in making this Bill a better Bill. What SB 910 does is establishes statewide standards for collaborative courts to improve programming, drug testing, medication assisted treatment for individuals moving through the criminal justice system. The collaborative courts are a variety of courts. Different counties have different sort of varieties.

It could be a drug court, it could be a veterans court, could be a homeless court, could be a mental mental health court. But the purpose of the collaborative courts is to take, typically young offenders and put them on the right path with a fairly rigorous program, making sure that they, for example, progress in terms of their education or their profession or their job, and also that they, for example, receive drug treatment.

So at the end of the period of time when they're in collaborative courts, that they finish and their record is wiped clean so that they can move on in life without having a criminal record following them. One of the challenges, though, is that we have collaborative courts throughout the state that use different standards, different methodologies, and there are some tried and true ways of making sure the collaborative courts are most successful.

They've been developed by a group called Allrise, formerly known as the National Association of Drug Court Professionals. And what this Bill does is it seeks to standardize the collaborative courts to require them to use best practices throughout the State of California. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. And you don't have any lead witnesses, correct?

I'm it.

All right. Perfect. And do we see any lead opposition witnesses? Seeing none. I'm going to ask me two to come together, both in opposition and support, and come to the lectern seeing none. We're going to move the conversation to Members of the Committee.

Move the Bill.

Senator, Seyarto would like to move the Bill. Senator, would you like to close?

This is important, I think an important initiative for California, particularly for its young people, and urge an aye vote.

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

SB 910 motion is do passed to appropriations. Wahhab? Aye. Wahab? Aye. Se Arto? Se Arto, aye. Bradford? Bradford, aye. Skinner, Wiener.

That bill's on call. Thank you, Senator. Thank you, Madam Chair. You know what? Can we publicly call for Senator Becker, Ashby, Menjivar, Durazzo, anybody that would like to come to the Senate Public Safety Committee to present their bills. We start at 830. We're at almost 845. It.

Thank you. And then, Senator Skinner, whenever you're ready, the floor is yours. Skinner is presenting SB 1144.

Thank you very much, chair and Members, in 2022, I carried a Bill that was signed into law that created regulations for online marketplaces. Now, the reason we needed these regulations is if you steal goods now, you know, maybe 20 years ago, maybe only 10 years ago, you might have sold them out of the trunk of your car. You might have sold them at a swap meet. You might have variety of ways to unload them. Now, like all other shopping, stolen goods are being sold online.

And what we find is that organized retail crime rings use online marketplace to, in effect, fence their stolen goods. Now, that Bill was very important. It created regulations for high volume third party sellers, and it made the online marketplaces verify if you were a legitimate seller with an ID, with business license, various things like that. Now, what we've seen since then is that people are getting around those regulations by using marketplaces where the actual sales transaction does not happen on the marketplace.

You use the marketplace to advertise the good, but then you do the transaction separately. So what 1144 does to try to, in effect, limit the sale of stolen goods on the online marketplaces is it ensures that high volume third party sellers must comply with the law, so it makes the marketplace check them. It requires the online marketplaces to take action against sellers who stolen goods. It has the online marketplace disclosed to the consumer, the buyer when a high volume seller has complied with requirements.

So, you know, as the buyer, you have some confidence that you're not buying stolen goods. And it expands the civil enforcement authority of DOJ to include district attorneys, city attorneys, and city councils to further target these online retail crime rings. So let me have Christine Soto DeBerry my witness to come forward. She's from the Prosecutors Alliance of California.

Good morning, chair, Committee Members, thank you for having us. I'm Christine Soto DeBerry. I'm the Executive Director of the Prosecutors Alliance. We have over 4000 Members across the State of California, prosecutors, victim advocates, community Members, and we advocate for smart solutions to criminal justice issues. We are sponsoring and proud to work with Senator Skinner on SB 1144 because we believe it is a smart approach to some of the issues we're facing in California and frankly, around this country, around retail theft.

We've all been exposed to videos of people running into stores and smashing cabinets and grabbing massive amounts of goods. This Bill will help us eliminate both the incentive and the opportunity for those crimes to occur. Important preventative measures rather than reactive measures that many of our responses in the criminal justice system rely on. As Senator Skinner indicated, all that this will do is some simple requirements on online marketplaces. These are now our centers of commerce. They rival our brick and mortar establishments.

And similar to regulations we placed on brick and mortar pawn shops, we are now asking to have similar regulations in the online marketplace space to help us ensure that the commerce that is happening there is legitimate, that the goods that are being sold, that we are all purchasing are appropriately there, and that we have the information to understand when we are buying legally acquired goods or illegally acquired goods. We think this is a smart approach.

It complements many of the other efforts that are being contemplated by this Legislature and this Committee and others. And just a reminder that we're talking about very large businesses and very modest regulations of how they perform their online business. We would encourage your support for the smart preventative measure and encouraging commerce, private sector, large companies to join prosecutors, police, and all of you in helping us protect consumers, commerce and public safety. Thank you.

Do we have any other lead witnesses? Do we have any other lead witnesses?

No. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have lead opposition?

Thank you. Madam Chair and Committee Members, Dylan Hoffman. On behalf of Technet, we are respectfully opposed to SB 1144. While we appreciate the March 19 amendments, they don't impact some of our main concerns with the Bill, which is that it creates a separate new requirements for businesses hoping to sell in California and takes it out of alignment with the rest of the country. Tech net and our marketplace Members take the issue of organized retail crime very seriously. We've participated in a thorough stakeholder process organized by the Attorney General.

We've testified at informational hearings to provide. Information on our work in this area. We were also part of the national negotiations in 2022 on the Inform Act. We also participated in those conversations here. In California on SB 301. We did not oppose that Bill. Both laws went into effect during the. Summer of last year.

That definition of high volume seller was the subject of careful negotiations here and in Congress. It was a deliberate policy choice, not a loophole, to exclude off platform sales. This is because it's impossible for certain online marketplaces to know which sales are.

Completed off platform or in person. And without this exclusion, marketplaces will have. To consider all sellers as high volume sellers in order to comply with this law. This balance was struck to protect small sellers and their private information in forum. Requires high volume sellers to provide their.

Name, contact information such as telephone number or email address, their tax identification number, which is a Social Security number for an individual, and their physical address to an online marketplace. The current threshold and definition captures when sellers reach a level of activity that warrants that privacy trade off. And finally, it is unclear how the requirements to disclose to consumers that a high volume seller has complied with this would work.

In practice, we believe that sort of a check mark would disadvantage smaller sellers by signaling to a consumer that a high volume seller has complied with and has a higher quality of good when that may not necessarily be the case. And so we think it doesn't match necessarily with the intent of the Bill to protect those types of sellers. And for those reasons, we're respectfully opposed to SB 1144.

Thank you. Do we have any other lead opposition witnesses seeing none. We're going to go to me too's on both sides. Support and oppose. Please state your name your and that you support or oppose.

Jamie Minor about passing on opposition for a colleague representing offer up in opposition.

Thank you.

Kristin Schlessel, Sacramento County District Attorney's office on behalf of California District Attorneys Association, we are in support of this Bill.

Phil Melindez Smart Justice California in support.

Zach Cefalu, the League of California Cities in support thank you.

Pat Espinoza, San Diego DA's office in support.

Good morning, Devon Anderson with political solutions on behalf of Target and the Home Depot in support.

Thank you.

Dylan Hoffman, again, on behalf of a colleague at the California Chamber, respectfully opposed. Thank you.

Alice Michel, on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association, in support.

Thank you. All right, seeing no other speakers, we're going to move to the Committee Members. Committee Member all right, seeing none. Senator, would you like to close?

Thank you. I just wanted to make one little correction to one of the opposition that Arkansas now is pursuing a law like this on behalf of Walmart, because Walmart, the reference was to the National Law Inform act that supposedly everyone came together on. What retailers are now realizing is that it did not protect them adequately. And so, like SB 1144, Arkansas is pursuing a similar law that would add some additional regulations on the large online sellers.

So with that, I could give you lots of examples, like the recent couple in San Diego who just got busted for this. But with that, I'll ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Do I have a motion? Do I have a motion? Thank you. Senator Bradford moves the Bill, SB 1144.

[Roll Call]

Ok, that bill's on call next. We're going one more time.

We're going to move on to SB 926, which is my own Bill, and Senator Seyarto.

Senator Becker, would you join me?

All right. We're going to hear some dueling Senate bills, SB 926. Senator Wahab, welcome to Public Safety this morning.

You may begin when you're ready.

Thank you.

All right, Vice Chair, colleagues, and Members of the public, today I am proud to present SB 926, safeguarding against digitized misrepresentation. SB 926 builds upon our existing revenge porn laws to ensure we are capturing advancements in technology and the digital manipulation of photos and images. I would like to thank my colleague, Senator Josh Becker, for joining forces on this effort.

SB 926 ensures that unauthorized distribution of non consensual, sexually explicit images is considered a misdemeanor, thereby increasing legal protection and support services for victims and empowering them to seek justice and assistance rather than face shame and embarrassment. Sensity AI stated in 2021 that up to 95% of online deepfake videos since 2018 were non consensual porn. Of those non consensual videos, 90% are depictions of women.

While the digital manipulation of images and videos can impact anyone, including, as we saw earlier this year, somebody as famous as Taylor Swift, it is not fair. And this, in particular, impacts women at a disproportionate level. Women already experience a number of disparities related to how much they are paid. Women have to face workplace conduct issues, sexual harassment, and much more.

And so, yes, I prioritize women in this particular Bill, but at the same time, it can affect anybody and everybody, and the accessibility and understanding of their mental health needs and the people that are victims of revenge. Pornography is detrimental. Some people have even went as far as committing suicide. As all of these issues converge onto each other, it's clear how non consensual distribution of digitally manipulated images can derail a woman's entire life, let alone any other victim.

So I'd like to introduce my first witness, Daniel Felizzatto, Deputy District Attorney of the La County Attorney's office. But I'd first also like to allow for Senator Becker to share his reasons why. He's also a joint author. Thank you.

Thank you. Good morning, dear Members. Honorably joint authoring this Bill with Senator Wahab, representing Silicon Valley, I witnessed daily the remarkable advancements in technology. However, as a parent and Legislator, I'm deeply concerned about the misuse of technology, particularly by those who are using generative AI to harm others. I believe this Bill is crucial this year. These sexual explicit, non consensual deepfakes are already becoming a problem in our communities and across the state.

I've done a lot of stuff in LA because this has been a big issue there in schools, and current laws just don't, unfortunately, do enough to stop this leaving people open to exploitation, harassment, and defamation. We urgently need stronger laws to protect people from these harms. I believe that SB 926 is a significant step forward. Improving current laws provide better protection and support to victims of these images by penalizing those who share these images with harmful intent.

This sends a clear message this behavior will not be tolerated. While California leads in technology, which is good, we must also lead in protecting people from digital harm. Let's act swiftly. Again, I appreciate and I'm grateful to the chair and happy to join in on this Bill.

I thank you Senators. At this time, we'll go ahead and take witnesses in favor of the Bill. You have two minutes if you would stick to that.

Much appreciated, Mister Chairman, Members Dan Felizzatto, on behalf of the Los Angeles County District Attorney's office. As the Senators indicated, revenge porn is a crime under existing law. In order to have a successful prosecution under this statute, we must show that there was an image depicting the intimate body parts of a readily identifiable person, or images of the person engaged in specified sex stacks.

We must also show that the image was distributed by a person who either agreed or understood that the image was to remain private and the person distributing the image knew or should have known that the distribution of the image would cause the victim serious emotional distress and the victim suffers that distress. Our office determined that an image of deepfake revenge porn, however, cannot be prosecuted under existing law. There are two reasons for this.

The first is, since the image is not real, the intimate body parts being depicted are not the person's actual intimate body parts, nor is it, if the specified sex act is not real. Since the image is not real, the victim and the defendant. There's never an agreement or could there be an understanding between the parties that the image was to remain private because the victim is unaware of its existence?

SB 926 would close this loophole in existing law by making the distribution of any image created or altered through digitization of an intimate body part of another identifiable person, or a digitized image of the person depicted engaged in specified sex acts under circumstances in which the person distributing the image knows or should know, that the distribution of the image would cause serious emotional distress and the person depicted suffers that distress.

SB 926 will protect victims while still ensuring the constitutionality of the statute by retaining the requirement that the person distributing the image knew, or should have known, that the distribution of the image would cause the victim serious emotional distress, and the victims suffered that distress. For this reason, we are proud to support SB 926 or, excuse me, sponsor SB 926.

Thank you very much. Are there any other witnesses, primary witnesses in favor of the Bill? If there's no primary witnesses in favor of the Bill, I'll take the opposition. Witnesses who would like to speak in opposition to this Bill. If there are none, we'll take the. Me too's for opposition. And for people in favor of the Bill, please state your name and your organization you represent.

Good morning.

Your opposition or favor?

Good morning. Tamar Tokat on behalf of Crime Victims Alliance in support.

Duke Cooney on behalf of ACLU. We are not in opposition, but we do have concerns that we have addressed with the author. And thank you for working with us on those amendments. Thank you.

Is there anybody else? If not, we'll bring it back to the dais. Any comments from the dais? Senator Skinner?

I move the Bill.

The Bill has been moved by Senator Skinner. I just want to say thank you both for tackling this issue, because it is a very important issue. And it's one of those things that, as we move forward in technology, new things present themselves, new problems present themselves, and it's a much needed solution. And hopefully, this will make an impact on those that think this is okay. So with that, I'll allow you to close. Yes, miss?

Sorry, Senator Seyarto, if I could just make one comment. Your comments were very appropriate, but. And, of course, your presentation addressed this. But I wanted to reference the, our representatives from La DA's office about how, I mean, we, you're addressing something that the Internet, social media has unleashed. And we know there's many other things. And these, I don't know how we even can stay on top of this, but your description that our current laws don't work because even though we know that the deepfake has used some portion of an image of the person who.

It's not the. It's a fake. So how do you prosecute someone for, quote, unquote, doing a fake? And yet we know the damage is real. So, I mean, I don't know, again, how we as a Legislature, are going to be able to stay on top of trying to protect our consumers from the kinds of things that have been unleashed. But like my colleague here, I also thank the authors for bringing this forward.

So with that, Senators Becker and Wahab, you may close.

Thank you, One, I just want to thank the DA from LA's office for sponsoring our Bill. I also appreciate the Committee and their work on this and to the comments that were made. You know, we've witnessed how digitally manipulated images can go viral when a celebrity is involved. And I mentioned Taylor Swift, because literally millions upon millions of people looked at that manipulated image within a 24 hours period. And yet, at the same time, a young woman in college or even in high school.

School do not have the resources that a multimillionaire individual has. All it takes is for one young woman saying no to a date for her male peer. And granted, I'm highlighting a situation to take the rejection so personally that it ruins, and they can ruin, a life with digitally manipulated nudes. California is home of Silicon Valley. And you. You know, tech innovation. And we both represent Silicon Valley.

And it's imperative that our laws, and I've said this a million times, catch up with technology, which is moving at a faster pace than we can actually keep up with. But as policymakers and as individuals representing the Silicon Valley, we have to try somewhere, and this Bill is the start of that. So I respectfully ask for an aye.

All right, Mister Secretary, can you call the roll, please?

[Roll Call]

Okay, that Bill will remain on call.

Thank you. So we are going to do something, Dahle and then Becker. So we're going to move on to Senator Dahle, who is with us presenting SB 1267. This one got pulled. Basically.

No, it's amended, though. He has to present the Amended version.

Good morning, chair and Members. Today, I'm here to present SB 1267, which will update the CDCR 1707 form and close a loophole and victim notification requirements for cases prior to the form's creation. Currently, the protections given through Marcy's law, secure, secured through the CDCR 1707 form, serve as a vital tool for victims to request proper notification from CDCR regarding an offender under their jurisdiction.

However, during the past decade of criminal justice reform, there has been several changes in postconviction considerations, such as early release resentencing, change to parole considerations, and more. The current CDCR 1707 form does not reflect changes in these criminal justice reform policies. Further, victims of violent cases that result in life sentences prior to the 1707 form being created do not receive notifications.

This creates a significant gap in the system legally and logistically, leaving victims potentially uninformed about crucial developments that may impact our safety, well being, and a sense of justice. Our office was contacted by Placer County District Attorney's office to address these existing gaps in the victim notification process. With me today I have placer county DA Morgan Gire and Rachel West to give their testimony.

Thank you. You guys will have two minutes. Please approach the lectern.

Good morning. In 1986, my little brother was brutally beaten by my mother's live in boyfriend. He died of organ failure alone in bed. Richard was two years old. He was a victim of domestic violence homicide. I was seven when Richard was murdered, and I've carried this with me for a lifetime. Fast forward. I became a victim advocate. And 30 years after Richard's murder, I accepted a position with a District Attorney's office, placer county District Attorney's office at the child advocacy center.

That's where I learned about my victim's rights. And I completed my 1707 form that registered me with the California Department of Corrections. Shortly after that, I ordered every transcript over the last 30 years from every parole hearing. And I was heartbroken to know that nobody was there, to be my brother's voice and to know that on paper it showed that nobody cared. I cared and I love him and I advocate for him. You see, when Richard died, when Richard was murdered, there was no 1707 form.

There were no victims rights. There was no notification. My goal in those parole hearings was not to determine the outcome. My goal was to make sure that he had a voice, that his family was able to represent him. Had I not worked with the Placer county District Attorney's office, I would have not known of those rights. I was fortunate to get connected. So I believe that every victim, every family of those victims should have the right of proper notification. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Morgan Gire. I'm the placer county District Attorney. Appreciate your time this morning, SB 1267 will broaden the category for notifications for those victims and witnesses as well to help ensure that everyone receives the notification in spite of oftentimes a changing legal landscape that allows for earlier release dates. This will allow those to those victims to be informed and will allow witnesses to be informed who are often traumatized as much as the victims are in many of these cases. So with that, I'd ask for your support. SB 1267. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any lead? Opposition witnesses seeing none. Can we move on to support? Opposed? Me toos again. State your name your and that you support or oppose.

Stephanie Herrera with the Empower and Resilience Project in support

Debbie Boyd with Crime Victims United support.

Morning, Madam Chair. Carl London, on behalf of Crime Victims United in support of the Bill. Thank you.

My name is Annabel Velasquez and I'm with are they abusive? In support.

Good morning, my name is Regina Chavez, and I'm with the Empower and Resilience project in support.

Good morning. Tamara Mussolino, with the empower and resilience project in support.

Good morning. My name is Chris Didier, Member of the Victims of Illicit Drugs in strong support.

Thank you.

Alice Michel. On behalf of CPDA in opposition, while we appreciate the importance of victims receiving notification, the California constitution already provides for notifications to victims in recent incident hearings, parole hearings, which this Bill requires. What this Bill requires is that CDC provide that notification report or oppose. Oppose. Thank you.

We're just in the me toos, so thank you. zero, okay. Thank you.

Chair Members Ryan Sherman with the Riverside Sheriffs Association and Placer County Deputy Sheriff's Association in support.

Thank you. All right, seeing no other comments, we are going to move on to the Committee Members. All right. Would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for an aye vote thank you.

Okay, but anyway, that's all right.

No, I don't have a question. I'm just gonna say thanks to the Bill. I'm just gonna say thank you for the Bill. I don't know from the victim's standpoint that there is such thing as too much notification, especially in regards to this. I have friends that just went through this with their perpetrator that killed their four year old and their frustrations with the whole system. And some of the notification process needs to be overcome. This Bill, I think, will help in that endeavor. So with that, I move the Bill.

You have a question?

[Roll Call]

Morning chair Members here present. 935. This was a different Bill addressing similar topics to previously, but I'm pleased now to be collaborating with the chair on her Bill. And as such, we've decided to amend 935 to address a new issue. Currently, the law allows peace officers, or honorably retired officers with specific experience or training, to testify out of court statements or of declarants. The problem is that not all peace officers who leave their position under honorable conditions are actually retired.

In a recent case, a detective with over 20 years of service resigned from LAPD before reaching the age of 50, making them ineligible for their pension. The resignation was abrupt, leaving pending investigations without a detective to take over when needed to provide testimony. At a hearing, the issue arose whether the detective was considered honorably retired without collecting their pension. SB 935 will address this problem by allowing honorably separated law enforcement officers with the requisite experience to also provide such testimony. And with me again, I have Dan Felizzatto, legislative advocate, Los Angeles County DA.

Thank you. You have two minutes, Madam Chair Members.

Dan Felizzatto, on behalf of Los Angeles County District Attorney's office. As the Senator indicated, our office sponsored AB 557 Carnet back in 2005, which allowed honorably retired peace officers to provide hearsay testimony at preliminary hearings. The technical deficiency that we discovered in the law in the case the Senator described was that not all peace officers leave their position actually are considered honorably retired. According to the Senate Labor, Public Employment and Retirement Committee, there are conflicting definitions of what it means to be retired.

One definition requires a retired person to be actually collecting their pension. The other definition only requires that the person be eligible to collect their pension, but does not require the pension to actually be collected in order to be considered retired. After speaking with experts in both criminal law and retirement law, it seems that the language in AB 557 should have included a reference to honorably retired or honorably separated peace officers. SB 935 makes that correction. We respectfully request your. I vote.

Thank you. Do we have any other lead support witnesses seeing none, we're going to move on. To lead opposition witnesses seeing none, we're going to move on to me twos seeing none. Committee Members, would you like to speak on this Bill? Senator Skinner? Thank you. Senator, would you like to close

Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. We have a motion by Senator Skinner. Can we have a roll call, please?

[Roll Call]

All right, that bill's on call. Senator Becker, would you like to present SB 1254, please?

Yes, I would. Thank you, Members. SB 1254 is a Bill that allows and assists incarcerated people applying for Calfresh benefits up to 90 days before they're released to better prepare them for reentry. To be clear, this Bill provides individuals with calfresh upon their exit, and I'll get it till they exit the facility. The supplemental Nutritional Assistance program, or SNAP, called calfresh in California, sometimes known as food stamps, is the largest federal food assistance program in the nation.

Again, to be clear, with calfresh, these are federal dollars we are drawing down, and under federal law, incarcerated individuals become ineligible to refuse Calfresh benefits 90 days after 90 days of confinement. However, the United States Department of Agriculture allows for waivers to deviate from that current provision, which 12 states have already done so and California has not. Orange County does have a pilot program of Calfresh pre enrollment for incarcerated individuals applying for the waiver in 2021.

They do it for everyone leaving, and they start the process 30 days before someone exits, and it's been very successful thus far. Food insecurity is one of the most challenging hurdles that previously incarcerated individuals face upon reentry. In 2019, roughly one in five formerly incarcerated people suffered from food insecurity.

While California has taken steps to establish and create a reentry process for medical benefits, there's a gap in current law to create an equivalent enrollment process for calfresh and a statewide reentry process 1264 builds upon existing work in connecting individuals with state services in an effective manner, decreasing barriers to reentry and helping address issues of food insecurity in California.

Specifically, the Bill requires CDSs to submit the applicable waivers the Federal Government to allow for pre enrollment of incarcerated individuals prior to the release from state prison or county jail, as, again, 12 states already do. I want to mention. It also creates a working group to develop and share recommendations for a statewide reentry process, incorporating all potential necessary resources for an individual's reentry into their community. To address the concerns of opposition.

In a previous hearing, I've added a sheriff or sheriff appointee to their work group, along with a representative from the County Welfare Directors Association. Those changes came after our last Committee. Furthermore, the Bill will require CDSs and Department of Healthcare Services to create and test a Medi Cal and Calfresh combined application for incarcerated individuals, soon leaving incarceration, and to do so by or on January 1 of 2026.

Thank you for letting me go through what the Bill does, removing these barriers to necessary service will increase the likelihood of a successful reentry for a previously incarcerated individual and maximize utilization of a federally funded program that benefits California. We propose one clerical amendment to further clarify that the workgroup will submit the report in August of 2026. We've consistently engaged with the opposition and look forward to continuing to work with the California Welfare Directors Association to help assuage their opposition. And with me, I have Cameron Jones from Norris, California, and I'll list some more legal services for prisoners with children.

Thank you. You guys will have two minutes.

Good morning. Chair Wahab and Members of the Public Safety Committee. I'm Kameron Mims-Jones with Nourish California. For over 30 years, our mission has been to ensure equitable access to food, health and well being for all Californians. Today, I'm here to support SB 1250.

SB 1254 stems from a restorative framework, an upstream policy to diminish the enduring impacts of incarceration by enabling incarcerated individuals who are already eligible to apply for Calfresh benefits up to 90 days prior to release, and establishing a work group that could optimize resources. Calfresh is our state's branded name for SNAP, as the Senator shared, and it's been a lifeline for millions to put food on the table.

It's administered by our counties, through the state, through our, through our counties, and it stands as our nation's most effective anti poverty initiative. Successful reentry hinges on timely access to basics like food, transportation, healthcare and housing. SB 1254 isn't just about identifying problems, but crafting collaborative solutions. By establishing the work group that would bolster a statewide reentry process, the Bill ensures that more Californians can ensure access to the resources that they need to thrive. This legislation is about granting access to vital resources and opportunities.

SB 1254 asked for the federal waiver to empower our counties to meet the needs of our citizens. We're perplexed by the opposition's agreement on the merits of the policy, and we believe we've made all sincere effort to include all who need to be a part of this crucial public safety work, as demonstrated by our continual need of taking on amendments and suggestions. I respectfully ask for your support on SB 1254. Thank you.

Thank you. Good morning. My name is Alissa Moore. I'm with Legal Services for Prisoners with Children. For me, this is a common sense public safety measure that helps eliminate food insecurity for incarcerated people preparing for release that will ultimately make California a safer place. This Bill will allow for people like myself coming home from incarceration, increase access to Cal fresh and Medi Cal immediately upon release. Please indulge me if the Committee is unaware.

Upon our release from prison or jail, it is routine to go without stable access to food and medical care for up to seven to 21 days as we navigate our homecoming, and often much longer. This in the current state, our true picture of what access to emergency calfresh and medical benefits and various other support services.

For me, seven to 21 days without access to food and medical care is a shameful reality that causes many people to turn in desperation to old be behaviors as a means of survival. This Bill will require state, local and federal entities to collaborate to make this legislation a reality for California and bring those aforementioned entities up to date with today's rehabilitation standards in public recognition that a safe reentry is a huge part of true rehabilitation.

Without this much needed legislation, California's efforts of rehabilitation fall short of the mark. I ask you, does it make sense to invest what is assumed to be thousands annually in rehabilitative efforts into one individual and then upon parole, give them no true opportunity not to reoffend for need of basic food or medical care? I ask you, who among us can go seven to 21 days without the basics? Thank you.

We're going to move on to lead opposition.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members Amanda Kirchner with CWDA. We have been in ongoing and fruitful conversations with the Senator. Our opposition is not with the underlying policy with providing RSTAT benefits, but we do have concerns about layering this implementation over the ongoing implementation with our Calaim initiative for the justice involved populations for Medi Cal. We have not completed that yet. It won't be completed until the end of this year, possibly running into next year.

We also think the Bill just needs to be restructured a little bit so that we can ensure that we have the waiver before we start doing the rest of the automation work that we need to do for our computer systems to allow for this population to be enrolled prior to being discharged from incarceration and then actually doing the working group to learn from the lessons of our Calaim implementation. So for those reasons, we do have concerns, but we'll continue to keep working with the author's office. Thank you.

Thank you. Madam Chair and Members. Cory Salzillo on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association, we're grateful for the author's amendments that added a sheriff or sheriff's designee to the workgroup, but we remain opposed to the Bill based on the reasons that were highlighted by the previous opposition witness. Again, calaim is a giant undertaking. That is, we are right in the middle of counties. Some counties may be ready to go live on October 1. The majority, I suspect, will not.

There is no waiver for this program right now. The proponents have pointed to a program that Orange County took on voluntarily that the proponents would argue is working. Well, that may be the case, but it's materially different when a county chooses to take on a program of their own volition and has funding to do that and has the wherewithal versus the state levying a mandate saying, you must do this.

oh, and by the way, you must do this while you are trying to implement a multibillion dollar program of identifying and providing inreach services to people who are within 90 days of release. That program has not been fully fleshed out, and we are exceedingly concerned about adding another layer of this bureaucracy, notwithstanding the goal of the policy, to the undertakings of this, that will, it will impede the correctional purposes, especially on the county jail side. For those reasons, we'd ask for your no vote. Thank you.

Thank you. I'm going to now ask for support and oppose me to state your name that you support or you oppose and your organization.

Chair Members Kathy Mossburg, the California Association of Food Banks, in support.

Duke Cooney, on behalf of ACLU, California Action, law defense and Initiate Justice in support. Thank you.

Gail Yen with rune rebound, in support.

Alice Michel on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association, in support.

Joanna Williams with LSPC, strong support.

Lawrence Cox with All of Us or None. Strong support.

Trin fan with Justice In Aging and strong support. Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members Andres Amidez on behalf of all home and strong support.

Morning, Gilbert. Anthony Murillo, LSPC, All of Us or None in strong support.

Joshua Stickney on behalf of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights and the Prosecutors Alliance of California in support.

Ryan Moore Muni with the California State Association of Counties. Not here on opposition, but just would like to echo some of the comments and concerns from the Welfare directors and Sheriffs Association on Implementation.

Thank you. All right, we're going to move on to Committee Members. Senator Cerato has some questions. You want to go first? You can.

Thank you, Senator, for your Bill addressing this. I think it is an important component of success when people are leaving incarceration. But one of the questions I have is about the timing between the federal waiver and in trying to incorporate this program. Does the federal waiver have to, does that encompass the entire state? And you only need one waiver, but that's going to take a while, which is an unknown amount of time before we can do this. 90 day pre enrollment. Is that what I'm reading here?

It is one waiver for the state. So answer is yes, if the witness wants to quickly. I mean, there are 12 other states who do this. So we expect it to be fairly quick. But is it okay to have my would just comment quickly?

So the question to that question, as we explained, calfresh, these individuals are already eligible for Calfresh. The waiver that we're seeking is to remove this 30 day disallowment.

And so the individuals are all across the state currently eligible. What we're trying to do is start administrative process prior to their release. And so no one would be waiting for that for the waiver. The waiver is literally submitting paperwork and they've done that in Orange County, county. They submit waivers all the time. There's not a waiver.

Do you submit the waiver with the paperwork so you can be fairly certain that the waiver will come in time for you to do so? That the administrative part of this. Yes, there would not be go to waste. Yeah, there would no be before because it really sounds like they're very burdened on doing the calaim first and I would probably suggest that as soon as that's done, then they maybe move on to this. Having them do them both at the same time, it can make them both not get implemented very quickly. And it sounds like there's already struggles. So that's my concern is the timing.

It's not the issue itself, it's the timing of the issue and how best to make sure both of those efforts succeed maximally. And I think calaim, getting them enrolled in calaim prior to release has a more, what do you call it? It needs to be done quicker than the calfresh. I think there will be means of getting food. But the other part where Calaim comes in is for me, I think that needs to get done first. We have a habit of doing this when we pile on and then nothing gets done in the time that it was supposed to get done.

Well, Cal aim is getting done. So it's already done.

Right now, as the opposition witness, I'm not going to argue it. I'm interested in our close. Yeah, the opposition witnesses kind of made it clear that some places it might be getting done, but some places it is not going to get done on time. We want that to get done on time. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Skinner.

Thank you, chair. I want to appreciate the author for bringing this forward. It's one of these. I wish we didn't have to be considering something in statute. We have had very good evidence that enrolling our folks, whether they are in county jail or state prison, enrolling them in benefits they are qualified for, such as Medi Calfresh and others, getting them their ID, giving them all those things for them to, once they are released, be successful.

That those are some of the most simple things that we can do to ensure or greatly reduce recidivism. When you are sent out, for example, from state prison with $200 in a paper bag and you have to deal with all of that yourself, you don't even have housing. You know, most of us would falter. So I would love to, and we have not tried.

We have been working to put these kinds of things in place in all of our counties and throughout our CDCR system for years. And I would love to see it as a comprehensive, that all of those things be done at once. But, you know, sometimes we have to do little by little. But this is very important and I move the Bill. Thank you.

I do just want to highlight that, you know, we often talk about in public safety, about obviously punishing the perpetrator and protecting the victim first and foremost. And I think that this Committee is very much dedicated to that. But I do not often see a lot of effort in the reentry space. So I appreciate this Bill.

I do just want to highlight to all of those that are concerned with this also, as chair of sub five, we see a significant amount of funding to public safety as a whole, whether we're talking about the county level, whether we're talking about jail, CDCR, public safety as a whole, as an institution. And reentry is a big part of that that has been missing and has not been invested in deeply. We are talking about food, food. Do we want more and more people to struggle?

People who have to deal with the reentry process already struggle in regards to getting a job, in regards to getting housing. They cannot even rent in some places because of background checks. They cannot even get a job because of background checks. And they did their time. And sometimes their crimes also vary. And yet we are not trying to isolate or seclude them or make them struggle any further than they need to on basic needs. And so I do appreciate this.

I hear the concerns about calaim and programs and technology and implementation, and honestly, those excuses are not good enough to say, no, we can't do this. So, Senator, I would love for you to close and then call for a vote sure.

Thank you. I appreciate that chair. Yeah. Just. We're starting from the position that California is one of the historically one of the lowest states to have people who are eligible for Calfresh signed up. And again, that's federal money. That's something we try to address across the board, and this is an easy way to start. And I think you're right to highlight reentry. A lot of my work has been focused on that, whether it's the phone calls or the canteen. We keep those family relationships.

We don't exhaust families wealth in trying to help their loved ones incarcerated. And this is basically saying, I understand the concern, but every day we wait, every person who's released without this is someone who's in danger of falling into homelessness or reoffending. And I think it's a common sense measure. We'll continue to work with. With the folks. I know the California Welfare Directors Association work hard. I know they're working hard on calaim.

I know majority of counties have done calaim already, but I know some are still working on it. And I do want to be sensitive to that. But this is not an overly complicated form. It's not a complicated waiver, I've been told. It's really a few questions, and, you know, we'll continue talking about the process because we want it to work. But thank you. Respectfully. Ask for an I vote.

We have a motion by Senator Skinner. Can we call a roll call vote, please?

[Roll Call]

That bill's on call. Thank you, Senator. Next we have Senator Ashby with SB 970. I just also want to say that I have to present a Bill, so I'm going to turn it over to our Vice Chair, Senator Seyarto. Thank you, Senator Ashby.

Thank you. Great. I'm here to present SB 970, which establishes a legal framework for regulating artificial intelligence, voice, image, video cloning technology. The rise of AI presents lots of opportunities, as we all know, and is a powerful tool.

Lots of major advancements in our technology world around AI. However, the lack of a comprehensive legal framework for addressing the challenges posed by AI troubling. Leaving individuals vulnerable for various forms of exploitation, including identity theft, scams, and misinformation, especially with deep fakes on the rise. Altered videos and images create doubt and uncertainty around current events and undermine the public trust in digital media.

Efforts to regulate AI technology should focus on enhancing public awareness about what is and is not a deepfake, empowering individuals to identify and mitigate potential threats or misinformation. So, very simply, SB 970 establishes a penal code violation for the misuse of AI voice or video cloning technology. It grants legal recourse for victims harmed by misuse of AI. It prevents AI generated evidence tampering in a courtroom setting and with creates mandatory consumer warnings on AI cloning software.

The Bill provides a balanced legislative framework that weighs both innovation and individual privacy to prevent abuse and disinformation. There is no opposition. I normally have with me an expert witness. He had a family emergency, so couldn't be here today. But worth noting that he is actually from the AI industry in Los Angeles, where he works in television and media production. And he helped put this framework together after seeing many of the flaws in AI technology and how it was being used and abused. And so I ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Senator Ashby. And thank you for explaining that last part. Do we have any other opposition, I mean, witnesses that are in favor of it that want to speak as a primary witness?

Good morning, Mister Chairman. Senator Ashby, thank you for bringing this Bill forward. Tom Sheehy, representing Protection of the Educational Rights of Kids Advocacy in support of this measure. Thank you.

Do we have anybody who wishes to be a primary witness in opposition to this measure, if not any? Me toos for opposition or in favor of the Bill? I don't see anybody coming up to the mic, so we're going to bring it back to the dais. Go ahead, Senator Skinner.

I moved the Bill. Senator, we had a lively discussion earlier on this question of AI and deepfakes and about just the General circumstance that we as legislators are facing where technology, and this is not just the last couple years, it's been actually for 20 years now, where technology is moving so fast that it is very difficult for us to grab, to get hold of it and really do our job to protect consumers. So I support your Bill, and I think this is another one of our legitimate efforts to protect our consumers. With that, I move it.

Thank you, Senator Ashby, you may close.

Thank you. I would just say to this board, first of all, I want to thank your staff. They're always really great when we bring bills through at helping us smooth out the edges. I appreciate that. But also, you know, thank you, Senator Skinner, for your work in this space. What I like about this Bill is that it's the basics. It gives us the framework to do some of the other things that folks are seeking to do to protect this space. I urge an aye vote and thank you very much for your time.

Thank you. We do have a motion by Senator Skinner. Go ahead and call roll

[Roll Call]

All right, that Bill will remain on call. Senator Durazo, sounds like you are next. Senator Durazo will be presenting SB 1132.

Thank you, Mister chair and colleagues, Members of the Committee. SB 1132 clarifies the authority of county health officers to enter and inspect private detention facilities operating in our state. Existing law does not explain explicitly cover private detention facilities, including civil detention facilities used to detain immigrants. Today, there are six private facilities operating in our state that can hold as many as 7,000 individuals at a given time. These facilities are in a gray area under our health and safety codes.

While public health oversight laws empower inspections of, quote, publicly operated detention facilities and all private work furlough facilities, they do not explicitly cover private detention facilities. These are facilities operated for profit by for profit companies and often fail to meet minimum standards of health, safety, and sanitation. Improving accountability and oversight is essential. SB 1132 provides explicit authorization for county health officials to be able to inspect these facilities whenever necessary.

With me, I have Andrea Amavisca, government affairs manager for the California Immigrant Policy Center, to speak and support. And to help answer questions will be Jackie Gonzalez of the Immigrant Defense Advocates.

Great. You have two minutes. If you could stick to that, I'd appreciate it. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Good morning, Mister Chair and Members. My name is Andrea Amavisca, and I'm the government affairs manager with the California Immigrant Policy Center. Thank you to the Committee for hearing my testimony today, and thank you to Senator Durazo for introducing this important piece of legislation. This Bill concerns public health, oversight and accountability of private, for profit detention facilities that operate in our state.

While California no longer has private jails or prisons, there are six private detention facilities in our state used for the civil detention of immigrants. These for profit facilities have a horrific track record in our state when it comes to health, safety, and human rights. As the Senator, shared detention facilities can pose a public health risk to individuals held inside, individuals who work inside, and families who visit or live near these facilities.

California witnessed the failure of these facilities to properly and humanely respond to public health emergencies when, in 2020, the Otay Mesa Detention facility in San Diego County became the site of what was then the largest outbreak of COVID-19 in any detention facility. The outbreak spread to more than 200 people, including individuals detained and working at the facility. Tragically, one man detained lost his life due to COVID during this outbreak.

This is reflective of a pattern of private operators believing they are above the law while acting negligently with respect to the health and safety of people in these facilities and the communities they are located in. Moreover, investigations by CalOSHA have found willful and serious health violations in private detention facilities.

As a 2021 report, by the California Department of Justice, found that the Adelanto detention facility, in San Bernardino county, had used a chemical agent known as HDQ Neutral to sanitize surfaces, which many individuals, detained at this facility, reported was so toxic that they experienced headaches, nausea, nosebleeds, fainting, eye irritation, skin irritation and breathing issues. These are just a few of the many examples of public health violations that occur in these facilities and part of the urgent need for a public health solution to this problem.

Although the enforcement of immigration laws is a federal issue, the operation of immigrant detention facilities-

Thank you. That's the two minutes.

Thank you. Respectfully request your aye vote.

Next speaker up, please.

No?

Okay, thank you. All right, is there anybody who wishes to speak in opposition to this measure? You have two minutes.

Sorry, Mister Chair. Ryan Sherman with the Riverside Sheriffs' Association in support of the Bill.

So you're #MeToo?

Not an opposition witness that wanted to speak in favor of the Bill?

Yes, sir.

I'd be happy to if you gave me time.

No, it's too late.

Okay with that, we'll take #MeToos for opposition and support.

Joshua Stickney with the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights and Support.

Isabella Argueta with the Health Officers Association of California in support.

Alice Michel on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association in support.

Duke Cooney with ACLU California Action and Initiate Justice in support. Thank you.

Lawrence Cox on behalf of All of Us or None, support.

Joanna Williams with LSPC and support.

Gilbert Anthony Murillo, LSPC and All of Us or None, support.

Alissa Moore, All of Us or None in support.

Great. Thank you all for- Oh.

Sorry, Jackie Gonzalez, Policy Director, Immigrant Defense Advocates and support. Also here providing support from the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights of the SF Bay Area, Inland Coalition for Immigrant Justice, Buen Vecino, Friends Committee on Legislation of California, California Coalition for Women Prisoners, Human Impact Partners, Indivisible California, La Cosecha, Public Counsel, California Collaborative for Immigrant Justice, Asian Americans Advancing Justice, SoCal Secure Justice and NextGen California. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Okay, we're gonna bring it back to the dais. Any questions?

I move the Bill.

We have a motion to move the Bill. Miss Durazo, would you like to close?

Thank you Mister Chair and I hope you all support the Bill. Thank you.

Thank you, secretary. You can call the roll.

SB 1132, the motion is due. Pass to the floor. [Roll Call]

All right, that Bill remain on call.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. We could get a call out from our authors. Oh, we got more authors. All right. Thank you. Okay, Miss Menjivar, SB 1057, you're ready whenever you are.

Thank you. Okay. Miss Menjivar. SB 1057. You are ready whenever you are. We are ready whenever you are. That's what I meant to say.

All right. Thank you, Mister Vice Chair. Good morning, everyone. I will be taking the Committee amendments. I want to thank the Chair who isn't here, but also the Committee team. We're working with my team on clarifying the intent of this Bill. And let me silence my phone here. SB 1057 is looking to continue the great strides we've made in ushering a new health based approach, moving from youth incarceration to youth development. But there remain still more opportunities for improvement.

One urgent opportunity is rectifying the flawed implementation of the Juvenile Coordinating Councils, which moving forward, I'll just call JJCC. The lack of community representation on counties JJCC has caused us to fall short of the intended goal when these counsels were created. SB 1057 seeks to remedy this problem by creating a more equitable JJCC composition in the following way. We want to make sure that we have 50% of community representation on this council.

We want to add a community representative as a co chair, and with the amendments we took, we clarified that the other co chair will be the Chief Probation Officer, and we want to make sure we're collecting evidence to support the programs and strategies funded by the Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act, including feedback from youth participants. The expertise of those who are most impacted by the system, and those working alongside them with a trauma informed, healing focused lens are invaluable to implementing the JJCPA.

SB 1057 will require counties to bring those experts to the table. However, it is not enough simply to have a seat at the table. It's very important for them to be part of the of leadership, which is why SB 1057 is asking for community representative to be a co chair, to ensure that everyone feels safe in this process. I want to assure you all that this does not defund probation, nor does it require that probation or other county agencies are left behind.

SB 1057 simply supplements the current efforts by adding community voice to the decision making process. Everything in statute already declares that these councils have to exist. Everything in statute already declares that they have to provide a report to BSCC and the Legislature on how they're using the funding. And in current statute right now, it states that should they not do that, they could be at risk of losing funding. We're not changing anything in statute outside of adding 50%.

Community representatives and a co chair with some additional data points we want to have collected. So to that effect, Mister Vice Chair, I'd like to now turn over to two of my witnesses that are here to provide testimony in support of my Bill. I'd like to - I'd like to welcome up John Vasquez, Policy Manager with the Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice first.

Mister Vasquez, thank you for coming this morning. You have two minutes. Thank you.

Thank you. Good morning Committee Members. My name is John Vasquez. I'm the Policy Manager with Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice, an organization that serves system impacted youth. I myself spent several years in the juvenile justice system, SB 1057, the Youth Justice Equity and Representation Act, is a common sense approach to ensuring that subject matter experts with lived experience, as well as representatives from community based organizations who provide direct services to youth are part of the decision making process in creating and updating county specific juvenile justice plans. We believe that those closest to the problem are closest to the solution.

Therefore, it is imperative that system impacted stakeholders have a voice to influence policies that directly affect the safety and health of their communities, their families and their youth. As community stakeholders, we all want at promise youth to heal, grow and thrive. Unfortunately, current juvenile justice coordinator councils lack these critical voices in a meaningful way. Moreover, due to the large diversity of California's 58 counties, a one size fits all approach does not work.

This Bill gives each county more flexibility and control over over the size of their councils, with more populated counties likely having larger councils, while smaller rural counties likely having smaller councils. Ultimately, this Bill allows each county to decide what works best for them. I respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much and thank you for sticking to the time limit. Next speaker, primary witness in favor of the Bill?

Yes, I'd like to introduce Aditi Sherikar with the Children's Defense Fund.

Miss Sherikar. Welcome.

Thank you. Good morning. My name is Aditi Sherikar. I'm a Senior Policy Associate at the Children's Defense Fund California and we are based in Los Angeles County. For several years, Children's Defense Fund, along with our coalition partners, have been highlighting how the Administration of JJCPA Grant in LA County has historically been ill spent, underutilized and ill evaluated. We have had some success remedying these shortcomings and seeing firsthand how adding community voice to our JJCC has led to a better functioning system.

In April 2016, LA County was woefully out of compliance with the minimum requirements under the Welfare and Institutions Code for who sits on their JJCC. In response to advocate pressure, LA County added 10 community representative seats to their JJCC, and we now have a 27 member JJCC.

Since the addition of the community representatives, the JJCC has done a much better job of engaging community centering youth voice and moving forward the mission of the JJCPA grant. One of the first things that the newly composed JJCC did was reevaluate the annual spending plan, which had sat untouched since 2001. As a result of the new plan, $12.5 million were taken from the JJCPA grant and invested in a private public partnership between the probation Department, foundations and youth serving organizations.

The program is called Ready to Rise and it serves youth in many parts of the county with a dearth of youth services. In the first three years, it served 25,594 young people with mentorship, leadership development, academic and career support, and arts education. While we are proud of this progress, we know that there are still impediments to realizing the full vision of the JJCPA. Despite the expansion of the JJCC membership, there is still not an adequate balance of community stakeholders on our JJCC. Probation and county offices have outsized influence in JJCC decisions at the expense of recommendations from community representatives with the most knowledge of what young people go through. Therefore, I ask for your aye vote on this important Bill today. Thank you.

Thank you very much. At this time, we'll take witnesses or primary witnesses in opposition to the Bill.

All right, thank you. Chair, Committee and staff Ryan Moore Muni with the California State Association of Counties here in respectful opposition to SB 1057. First and foremost, Counties value the community partnerships, the work and trust with our CBOs and the justice impacted youth population, and realize that representation does matter. However, current law ensures this by providing that a juvenile justice coordinating council includes at large community representative, a representative of a community based drug and alcohol program, and guarantees that the council shall also include representatives from nonprofit community based organizations.

That said, as with previous iterations of this Bill, we fundamentally oppose that in combination - oppose changes that in combination lead to a diminished authority over mandated responsibilities and, as currently drafted, could also lead to withholding or disruption of JJCPA funds, which only hurts the youth and young adults that are in county care. I'd be remiss if I didn't note that the JJCPA funds were allocated to counties to accompany services realigned in 2011.

The JJCPA moved under 2011 realignment fiscal structure to ensure it would remain a stable and foundational funding source for counties. And then in 2012, Proposition 30 further protected the funding for all accounts under 2011 realignment and guaranteed that local agencies have maximum flexibility and control over the design.

The process for allocating JJCPA funds should remain a county decision, given that counties are held fully accountable for delivery of programs and services as well as outcomes associated with justice involved youth, and also especially in light of DJJ's final closure not even one year ago. With counties now overseeing the entire juvenile justice continuum and we're realistic about our current budget deficit. However, we would always encourage a collaborative discussion on separate and new investments to make sure you don't touch our juvenile justice system in the first place. Lastly, thank the author's office for meeting with us and appreciate your consideration.

Thank you for sticking the two minutes next witness primary witness in opposition you have two minutes.

Good morning Chair and Members. Danielle Sanchez, on behalf of the Chief Probation officers of California in opposition to SB 1057 and do want to also acknowledge our conversations and ongoing engagement with the author around this issue. We do, however, though, have to disagree with the assertion that the current composition of the council has led to flawed JJCPA implementation. To the contrary, there's a long history and track record of JJCPA, which has led to historic declines in juvenile detention and arrest rates over the last decade.

The existing JJCPA program meets the goals of transparency, community engagement and locally responsive programs. This can be seen through the planning process that includes county partners, community members that coordinate plans, publicly post those plans by sending them to the state, which outline the strategies and goals around local needs. These community partnerships exist among county departments as well as community partners to provide things such as school based wellness, substance use support, mentoring and counseling, enrichment, career development, and many examples as reflected in the plan.

This Bill, however, makes sweeping changes to how those plans are developed, establishes new mechanisms to withhold funding to counties, which also, I must note, has an interplay with the new composition requirements of the council, and recasts and redirects county funding that supports services. Locally, we serve the entire juvenile justice continuum, and it's critical and vital that we do not disrupt the prevention part of that continuum.

In some of the issues in this Bill, we certainly are concerned we'll upend that. Probation continually engages in innovation, programs and partnerships, and we believe the goals of community engagement and transparency are already reflected in the JJCPA framework and the long history and outcomes around this Bill. So for those reasons, we are opposed to the Bill today and certainly are concerned about the impacts of this Bill on the critical service delivery of services to youth. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next up we will take the me toos. For people that are in opposition or support of the Bill, please state your name, the organization you represent and whether you support it or you oppose it.

Good morning Mister Chair and Members. Elizabeth Espinosa here today on behalf of the Urban counties of California, a coalition of 14 of the most populous counties in the state as well as the County of Santa Barbara, in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Nicole Wordelman on behalf of the Orange County Board of Supervisors, also in respectful opposition.

Nicole Morales on behalf of Children Now in support.

John Kennedy with the Rural County Representatives of California, in opposition.

Joshua Stickney on behalf of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in support.

Matthew Siverling on behalf of the Los Angeles Probation Officers Union AFSME local 685 in opposition. Thank you.

Duke Cooney on behalf of ACLU California Action and Initiate Justice in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Alberto Torrico on behalf of the State Coalition Probation Organizations. Opposition.

Alissa Moore, in support, All of Us or None.

Lawrence Cox LSPC - All of Us or None. Strong support.

Alice Michael on behalf of CPDA, in support.

Kristen Schlessel. Sacramento County District Attorney's office on behalf of California District Attorneys Association, in respectful opposition.

Thank you. Dylan Elliott on behalf of the counties of San Luis Obispo, Kern, Fresno and Marin, respectfully opposed.

Gilbert Anthony Murillo, LSPCA knowledge to none strongly support Luca Fazbear on behalf of fresh lifelines for youth and strong support. Colin Ford on behalf of Access for reproductive justice, Arts for Healing and Justice Network, Californians United for a responsible budget collective for liberatory lawyering courage, California Freedom for Youth, Hayward Burns Institute and Immigrant Legal Resource center in strong support.

Lena Mallet with the Los Angeles Youth Uprising Coalition, MESDL Projects, Milpa Collective, Pacific Juvenile Defender Center, Silicon Valley Debug Students Deserve Uncommon Law, Underground Grit, Urban Peace Institute, Women's Freedom Foundation, California and Young Women's Freedom center in strong support.

Ryan Sherman with the Riverside Sheriff Association. We have concerns about the Bill, although we don't have official opposition letter submitted just yet. Thank you.

All right, if there's nobody else we're going to bring back to the dais for discussion or a motion,

I move the Bill and thank the author for bringing it forward.

The author has been thanked. The Bill has been moved. Would you like to close, Miss Menjivar?

Absolutely. And I want to know that there was a state audit in 2020 that stated that 20% of the counties did not, in fact have a council. You heard from representatives from Fresno county who were in fact also found in 21 and 22 to have been found to be unlawfully holding meetings on juvenile justice reform behind closed doors against current statute. We're seeing that different counties are making limited revisions to their plans over the past 20 years, despite the fact that youth incarceration has decreased.

So the need for this Bill is there. We need to make sure there is equitable representation in each council. We also have heard situations where counties are preventing youth or young adults who are on probation from being part of the council. The absolute contrary to what the purpose of this Bill, of what this Bill does. So again, this doesn't remove the current Members on the council. Right now, district attorneys can still participate on this council. Probation can still participate on this council.

Counties have the ability to put people on this council how they see fit. All they have to do is that if they choose 11 Members to be on this council, then another 11 Members have to be from the community. If they choose five, then another five have to be from the community. We're just asking to match the same amount of numbers that the county is looking to put as compared to community representatives.

And then lastly, I'll state, I wanna read existing law right now regarding the funding of how it comes down to counties. Existing law right now provides that to be eligible for the grant, each county is required to establish a multi agency juvenile Justice Coordinating Council that develops and implements a continuum of county based responses to juvenile crime. So currently, already, they have to put this council together to be eligible for the grant funding that comes down from the state.

We're further pushing and reminding counties that this, in fact, is statute. And my law is explicitly providing that in order for a count or my Bill is looking, that in order for a county or city to be eligible for funding, it must establish a coordinated council pretty similar to what is already in statute. So without respectfully asking for an aye vote.

Okay, this is do pass to appropriations as amended. Go ahead and call roll

[Roll Call]]

Okay, that measure will remain on call at this time. We're gonna go ahead and lift the call on measures so that Senator Wiener can add on, and then we will take on Mister Portantino's Bill. [Roll Call]

[Roll Call]

All right, why don't we. Yeah, why don't we go back to the author, take up the Bill we have the author for and allow the proceedings to begin, and we'll open it up later. Again, Senator Portantino.

Thank you, Mister chair. And Members, I'd like to begin by accepting the Committee amendments outlined in the Committee analysis and thank the Committee staff for working with my staff. SB 1160 would extend the increased punishment for openly carrying a handgun to also apply if an individual is in immediate possession of a handgun that is not in the same name as the listed with the Department of Justice as the owner of the handgun.

Several decades of case law have demonstrated a history in support of documentation for owning a firearm via a ministerial registration system. The system works in District of Columbia v. Heller. It was upheld at ministerial registration system in several cases. And Justice v. Town of Cicero further found registration merely regulating gun possession rather than prohibiting it. So we think this is on solid legal grounds.

SB 1160 would apply a similar system to handguns in conduct based offenses where an individual is found to be carrying a handgun illegally. So SB 1160 is furthermore consistent with current legislation enhancing registration requirements and compliance, and it will increase responsible gun ownership. Again, when you purchase a gun, it's listed with the DOJ. This goes after those people who are carrying those handguns that are not listed or in a different name. We think it's appropriate.

We think it will extend responsibility to responsible gun ownership and will press. We ask for an aye vote. And the incomparable, amazing Iman is here for any technical assistance, if we have any technical questions.

Did he want to speak as a primary witness or is he just here for that?

That could be quite dangerous.

If you're going to speak as a primary witness. You got two minutes.

All right. The analysis was great. Alex correctly pointed out that the vast majority of handguns legally owned in the state are in fact registered. So this is part of the effort to get more guns into the system. We do not want to discourage registration, as certain measures over in the Assembly purported to do, but were fixed.

The second thing is there have been ongoing discussions with the Department of Justice about an issue very important to the law enforcement community and also to the gun people, and thats involving joint spousal registration. I have directly spoken to the head people there, and we look forward to that issue being addressed.

Finally, as to all the question about exemptions and hunters and all that, when we did the original Bill, which then Assemblyman Portantino carried in 2011, we added in so many exemptions from the prohibition on unload open handgun carry that certain Members of your caucus, Senator, said, it's like a joke. So Senator Wright got up and then said, well, which exemptions do you want to take out of the Bill? Nobody asked for any exemptions to be taken out. It doesn't affect hunters, they're exempt.

People who already can carry loaded, they can carry unloaded openly. This covers a very, very narrow situation, because there's still a question about what lawful possession means. And I'm done.

All right, thank you very much for your testimony. Anybody else want to testify as a primary witness in support? If not, we'll take primary witnesses in opposition. At this time. There's no primary witnesses in opposition. We'll take metoos. In support or in opposition. Just please come up to the micro, announce your name, your organization you represent, and whether you support or oppose this Bill.

Mister chair Members Randy Perry with Aaron Reed and associates on behalf of PORAC. We did have an oppose on the original Bill. It's been substantially amended, so we're looking at it now. Likely remove our opposition.

Thank you.

Anna Ioakimedes with Los Angeles Unified School District in support.

Anybody? Mister Sherman, late to the party.

It's similar to Mister Perry's comments we hadn't opposed in the previous version, and we're taking a look at it and probably be able to remove our position as well. Hopefully, the joint spouse will be included. Thank you.

Okay with that, we will bring it back to the dais for any comments. Concerns a motion. We have a motion to move the Bill by Senator Wiener. Mister Portantino, would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

[Roll Call] That Bill has two votes, and it will remain on call. So at this time, Senator Wiener, you can come up with your Bill. This will be SB 1012, may begin when you're ready.

Thank you very much, Mister Vice Chair. I'm presenting SB 1012, which will provide regulated, supervised access for people 21 and older to certain psychedelic substances under the supervision of a licensed and trained facilitator in the business and professions Committee. I committed to amend SB to. To limit the licensure of facilitators to those who already hold other certain licenses. So we limit it. That not anyone can get a license.

You have to have an existing license, and we have not put those in print yet, given the tight timeline, but we will do so at the earliest possibility. SB 1012 is a narrower version of legislation that the Legislature passed last year, SB 58, which would have broadly decriminalized personal possession and use of certain psychedelic substances. Tragically, the Governor vetoed SB 58, but in his veto message, he constructively called on the Legislature to send him a Bill focused on therapeutic use of psychedelics.

We immediately got to work on SB 1012 last fall, working with a broad range of stakeholders, including the Coalition on Psychedelic Safety and Education, which a group of parents that had opposed SB 58. And we have worked with them and they are supporting this Bill. And we worked with them to include a first of its kind public private education Fund to foster, to make sure that people have education information about safe use of psychedelics. And again, that coalition is now strongly supporting this Bill.

SB 1012 is an overdue approach. People are using psychedelics today. There are incredible potential in terms of treating mental health and substance use disorders, and we should bring it into the sunlight so people can use safely in a supervised, structured setting.

And I respectfully ask for an aye vote with me here today to testify are Lieutenant Diane Goldstein, the Executive Director of a law enforcement action partnership, which is a cosponsor of the legislation, and Doctor Brian Anderson, a board certified psychiatrist at San Francisco General Hospital and assistant clinical Professor at UCSF and founding investigator at the UC Berkeley Center for the Science of Psychedelics.

Thank you very much, Miss Goldstein, nice to see you again. You have two minutes.

Pleasure. Distinguished Members, my name is Diane Goldstein. I served for 21 years as a police officer, retiring as the first female lieutenant in my agency. As a sergeant, I led a multi agency special investigations unit that focused on narcotics, gangs, and career criminals. I'm currently the Executive Director of the Law Enforcement Action Partnership, who is also a co sponsor of this Bill. Policing professionals have recognized we can no longer rely on arrest as a means to address a public health issue.

Saving lives and reducing the crime and disorder caused by underlying problematic drug use or behavioral health issues are not mutually exclusive. A response that can achieve both ends requires a paradigm shift towards evidence based practices that closely link public health and enforcement strategies with their most important outcomes. Saving lives first responders that suffer from PTSD or other behavioral health disorders stand to benefit from access to these services.

This is particularly true for police officers who suffer traumatic stress at a rate five times higher than that of civilians or have a 54% higher risk of suicide. We have some of the highest rates of spillover violence that results in excessive use of force, domestic violence, alcoholism, and substance use disorder.

We owe it to these police officers to ensure safer access to alternative avenues for healing so they have the choice to heal rather than to just numb themselves to the daily traumas they experience on the job. SB 1012 will craft an actionable plan for the regulated use of psychedelics as an issue of public health.

This Bill is a first step towards saving lives by helping destigmatize cutting edge treatments for the underlying mental health challenges that drive addiction and and other behavioral health issues, while providing needed guardrails and safety to access treatment. In addition, there is a strong provision for the establishment of a public education Fund to educate those who are currently or in the future will be using psychedelics on the risks and benefits of these substances.

This Bill does not decriminalize psychedelics, but from a public safety perspective of the cities and jurisdictions and states that have implemented therapeutic models. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Good morning. My name is Doctor Brian Anderson. I'm a public psychiatrist and a scientist who studied the medical and non medical uses of psychedelics for over 15 years. My research is funded by philanthropy and the FDA, and my words today represent my opinion and not those in my institution. I and other Clinicians and scientists have worked with Senator Weiner's office to draft SB 1012 because it addresses an important public health issue.

We know from the US Federal Government that millions of Americans use psychedelics every year. Their health and safety can be improved by having access to a state regulated system through which they can access safety screening, informed consent, preparation, supervised use, and follow up. I think that SB 1012 could decrease stigma regarding psychedelic use and make it easier for patients to talk to their doctors about their use, as well as make it easier for healthcare providers to provide counseling on safe psychedelic practices.

This Bill would set a national precedent for how a state regulated psychedelic facilitation system could prioritize public education, as well as make it easier to hopefully collaborate with other forms of conventional licensed Healthcare, and most importantly, improve the safety of the many Americans, particularly Californians, who will be choosing to use psychedelics in non regulated settings, particularly non FDA regulated medical settings, in the future. Thank you.

Thank you very much. At this time, we'll take primary witnesses in opposition. Any primary witnesses in opposition. Mister Sherman, you have two minutes.

Thank you, Mister Chairman, Mister Ryan Sherman. With the California Narcotic Officers Association in opposition, as well as all the police and deputy sheriff associations listed in the analyses, we remain concerned about and opposed to SB 1012. However, we support the efforts to help vets and first responders suffering from PTSD. Regrettably, nothing in this Bill has to do with vets, first responders, or PTSD. There's no requirement limiting this Bill and the access to the psychedelics to vets and first responders.

There's no requirement limiting this Bill to persons suffering from PTSD. In fact, no medical mental health diagnosis of any kind is required before a person can be given ecstasy, ayahuasca, mushrooms, or mescaline. No medical history review by a Doctor is required. No medication conflict check is required by a Doctor.

The facilitators established under this Bill are not required to be medical doctors, although some medical doctors may seek to become a facilitator pursuant to the business and professions Committee hearing, alcohol and drug counselors would be permitted to be these facilitators, even though they don't have advanced training or degrees or medical license. Many of the alcohol and drug counselors are addicts and alcoholics themselves. Having them oversee the dispensing dispensing of psychedelics is just mean tempting them to relapse.

In closing, there's no PTSD or medical or mental health diagnosis from a medical professional Doctor required. There is no medical Doctor or providing supervision or prescribing these drugs to dispense these chemical scheduled one. Drugs, excuse me, that are prone to abuse. For these reasons, we remain strongly opposed to the Bill in print. Thank you.

You have 1 second left. Thank you. All right. Do we have another witness in primary opposition? You have two minutes. Great. Thank you.

Chair Members, my name is Greg Burt from the California Family Council, and we also have grave concerns about the harm this Bill will cause to our state citizens. As a Public Safety Committee, you were charged with the responsibility of keeping public safe from drugs considered dangerous and harmful.

Our state and Federal Government has already set up an elaborate, well regulated safety system that includes scientific testing and well educated doctors and pharmacists to ensure that the drugs sold and used by the public for mental illness meet high standards for safety and effectiveness. Senator Wiener here is here today saying that those safety standards are too high for a particular drug category, drugs called psychedelics. He thinks these drugs deserve a special exemption from all the safety rules that everyone else has to follow.

He has created new protocols for oversight that, in my opinion, simply give the appearance of safety, but in reality, remove sound science from the equation. The Bill enables recreational use with the appearance of medical respectability. There is no reason to doubt the sincerity of the veterans and others desperate for medical treatment for mental health issues like PTSD.

But notice that Senator Wiener isn't talking much about all the veterans and those with conditions that were only made worse by these drugs, or those who were rushed to the hospital for heart issues, seizures, Amnesia, acute anxiety, and terrifying hallucinations. Senator Ashby, the chair of the Senate business, Professions and economic Development Committee, recommended a no. On this Bill. She expressed strong concerns. She noted the Bill was setting up a complete marketplace for the drug with three new departments or agencies overseeing production, distribution and sale.

I thought we had a deficit. She also pointed out that the psychedelic facilitator doesn't need to have a medical degree or oversee the use of these drugs. Facilitators also have no access to patient records to make sure that these. That the conditions these patients might have might make these drugs, make things worse. Local jurisdictions have no local power over regulating these facilitators like they do Marijuana.

Two minutes. Sorry and thank you very much for your testimony today. Okay, at this point we will take Me toos for people that are in opposition or are in favor of the Bill, please come up. State your name, state the organization you represent and whether you oppose or support the Bill. Thank you.

Mister chair and Members Anthony Molina, on behalf of Heroic Arts Project new approach advocacy, the Steinberg Institute and the Sacramento Institute for Psychotherapy in Support.

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

Julie Nielsen with the National Union of Healthcare Workers with the promised amendments in support.

Alice Michael on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association, in support.

Mr. Chairman, Members Cory Salzillo, on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association, in opposition.

Director of policy for veterans exploring treatment solutions, and we are a cosponsor of the Bill and urge you to support. Thank you.

Dylan Elliott. On behalf of the California State Association of Psychiatrists and with your very brief indulgence, Mister Vice Chair, I just want to express we remain concerned with the Bill, but want to thank the author for his continued efforts in working with us, including with respect to our meeting next week. Thank you.

Phil Melendez, Smart Justice California in support.

Hey, is there anybody else that wants to come up? If there isn't, we'll bring it back to the dais for questions.

I move the Bill.

Okay, we have a motion by Skinner to move the Bill. I have some questions. Okay, so you and I have talked about this Bill before because I have grave concerns about expanding the ability for people to alter their minds and then go out into the public with their altered mental status.

As a former public safety professional, I am well aware of the PTSD issues that are pervasive in both police and fire departments, as well as the extreme issues with a lot of our military people that are coming back and our veterans and talking to them. While they do seek treatment, they do not seek to be made the poster children for these type of expansive bills.

Some of the testimony I heard today, frankly concerns me because it goes beyond what I had talked to you about, was a very, very narrow window for treatment of PTSD and other psychoses that were previously unable to be treated with other methods, and it had to be done under a Doctor supervision. This didn't sound like a Doctor supervision. It sounds like a licensed clinician type of situation.

And then also during the testimony, I heard from your witnesses that this is more of an effort to enable it to go on a wider scale for people who want to just use it, and at least they'll have to be supervised. The problem I have, and in my experience with people that have taken psychedelics, is that there are occasionally times when they have a very delayed response or a recurrence of the psychedelic that they may have taken before.

And so while they may be under supervision during the immediate time period, they may have a relapse out in the public that may be misconstrued and create an incident with law enforcement. And when those go bad, we all know what happens. So I am not at a comfort level with your Bill that this is something that has more benefits. I want it narrowed way down to where it is, an extreme treatment by a Doctor, and that's where we need it limited.

I do not feel that it is beneficial for the public to have more people than we already have that have altered mental statuses. And also the other concern I have is that's also a very good way to get out of a. A crime, is to say that you were under the influence of something and you didn't know what you were doing. And that's not good enough for me. So in order to maintain public safety, I'm going to have to oppose this Bill.

And I'm sorry, because I really, you know, I wanted that effort for the PTSD stricken and extreme cases where that may help, because there are cases where it did the opposite and it turned people schizophrenic. I read on those. And so, you know, sometimes it helps and sometimes it doesn't, but it has to be done under Doctor supervision. And I don't think that this does that. Thank you. And with that, you may close.

Thank you, Mister Vice Chair. I appreciate your thoughtful feedback and appreciate the opportunities that we've had to speak about this. And I definitely will stay in touch with colleagues. I think we need to be very clear that right now, as we speak, many people are using psychedelics. Some use it recreationally, some are using it to save their lives. We have a whole coalition of veterans, first responders. We had a firefighter at our last hearing.

We had a 911 firefighter fly out here for the last hearing on the previous version of the Bill last year. These folks are telling us that these substances are saving lives. And right now they are faced with a choice of either committing a crime to heal themselves or leaving the country to heal themselves. We should not be putting people in that position.

We should be bringing this into the sunlight with regulated, facilitated, supervised, structured use with safety evaluations that will make it safer than it is today. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

All right. And with that, this is ready. SB 1012 motion is to pass to appropriations. [Roll Call] Okay, that Bill remain on call. Thank you, Senator.

Mister Vice Chair. I'm also presenting a short Bill for Senator Stern, who is out today.

Ms Smallwood-Cuevas. Do you have time for him to present another Bill?

I'll defer to the Senator.

Thank you. I appreciate that. Senator Smallwood-Cuevas, welcome. I'll be presenting SB 1282. Thank you. You may begin when ready.

Thank you, Mister Vice Chair. And thank you, colleagues. Good morning. I am so thrilled to be presenting SB 1282. And I will be taking the Committee's amendments, and I want to thank the Committee staff for helping to work with us on this on this Bill. SB 1282 is a crucial piece of legislation which would require counties to develop diversion programs for theft related offenses and provide judges with the ability to offer diversion for nonviolent felony offenses.

The effects of mass incarceration disproportionately impact black and brown communities like those in my district, south central Los Angeles in particular, comes to mind. And although black people in my county represent only 6% of the state's population, they comprise 30% of those as well as other black folks across the state.

In our prison industrial complex, not only does incarceration disproportionately affect our most vulnerable, studies have shown that incarceration has often failed to decrease crimes in our communities, with rearrest rates as high as 68% in some jurisdictions. Even further, a 2021 analysis that looked at over 116 studies found that spending time behind bars in our country either have no effect on a person's future or puts them at more risk of increasing crime.

Despite the continued reliance on incarceration in our justice system, data has shown that putting people behind bars fails to address the systemic issues that drive crime. And for far too many, the root causes are poverty, homelessness, unemployment, and lack of opportunities. Diversion programs offers an effective alternative. It drives individuals away from incarceration and toward rehabilitation like mental health services, drug treatment, housing, and job training and placement programs.

And we know these are the things that transform lives and these are the things that make our communities safe. Studies have also found that throughout the state and nation, diversion programs have yielded far lower rearrest rates, as Low as 4% and has decreased reconviction. And ultimately that saves the state money. You know, it costs us about $150,000 a year to house someone in our prisons.

By avoiding costs of housing individuals in our prisons and decreasing time for our courts, diversion programs offer valuable means to address cost pressures as well as build a rehabilitative and justice system that saves lives and our communities.

In a budget year where we are struggling and searching for ways to make the ends meet here in the state, how do we decrease beds in our prisons and jails and use diversion as a way to offer unique opportunities to address these conditions that fuel crime and hopefully build better neighbors? And while these programs have proven to be extremely successful at reducing crime in our communities, it is unfortunate that far too many individuals have found themselves ineligible for referral into diversion programs.

By expanding judicial discretion to offer diversion as an alternative to incarceration and nonviolent felony offenses, we can ensure our justice system is doing better in addressing the root causes of crime and helping to build up safer communities. This Bill is important because we cannot require judges to offer diversion in nonviolent cases. But this Bill simply requires that counties make these programs available for theft offenses and provides judges with an access to tools to help address crime in a real way.

With me today are Judge Daniel Lowenthal from California Superior Court in Los Angeles and Esma Moore, a social worker with the reentry support team rest here in Sacramento county who works with the conflict criminal defenders office.

All right, Mister Lowenthal, thank you. If you want to speak as a primary witness, you have two minutes.

I appreciate that. In 2014, the Legislature conferred the judges in La County during a three year pilot program that was in effect from 2015 to 2018 with discretion to divert all misdemeanants. During that three year period, LA County diverted roughly 5600 people, over 95% of whom successfully completed all diversionary terms and conditions and left their encounter with the justice system without a debilitating lifelong criminal conviction.

Recidivism was virtually negligible, far lower than those who were traditionally prosecuted and incurred a conviction, and significant cost savings was achieved by LA County through trials avoided. We went from about 3200 misdemeanor jury trials in fiscal year 2014 to about 900 misdemeanor jury trials in fiscal year 2017. Based on the success of the LA program, you expanded the ability discretion to divert. You made it statewide and permanent, and that was in 2021.

The anecdotal evidence suggests that statewide we have achieved as much success as LA did during the pilot program. Now I'm asking that you expand that discretion to divert to felony cases. It might be the case that the majority of felony cases are not diversion appropriate. But in a state with over 40 million people and where over 200,000 felony cases are filed every year, the there will be some that are appropriate for diversion. This Bill is not doesn't divert a single person. It solely confers judges with discretion to implement diversion when it is in the interest of justice and it advances public safety.

Thank you. Thank you for keeping to 1 minute and 55 seconds. Next speaker. Do we have anybody else who wants to speak as a primary witness in favor of the Bill? You have two minutes, ma'am.

Thank you. My name is Isma Moore. I'm a social worker for the Sacramento County Conflict Criminal Defender's office reentry support team. The reentry support team was created in June of 2023 to help address the underlying needs of the criminal justice population by assessing individuals for mental health substance use and housing support through diversion and collaborative court processes. In just 10 months, 797 clients were referred to our restaurant team.

Of those, 211 had theft related felony charges and of those 21197 had either substance use, mental health, or housing instability. Many had a combination of all three. I will illustrate with an example. We have DK, an African American male who was 22 years old and was charged with the felony of receiving stolen property after being found sleeping in a stolen car. As a child, he started using Marijuana at the age of seven, lost his father at the age of 10, and never completed high school.

Since the age of 16, DK was living in the streets. Diagnosed with both cognitive and mental health issues, DK was granted diversion and finally has a mental health provider and stable housing. Similarly, we have Jp, a 40 year old Hispanic male who was charged with felony grand theft. As a child. He grew up with a mother who was addicted to drugs. By the age of six, he was in and out of group homes in the foster care system.

At the age of seven, he attempted to kill himself and had his first psychiatric admission. He later tried committing suicide five more times. By the age of 10, he was using meth daily. Diagnosed with both hearing impairment, substance use, and mental health issues, Jp was ultimately granted diversion and given an opportunity for residential rehabilitation. For the first time in his life, he is since doing well.

These are just some examples of how expanding theft, diversion to felonies, and allowing courts to refer to mental health, substance use and housing support can help public safety and meet the underlying needs of individuals. We work with individuals, and a cookie cutter approach does not work for everyone. It's important to cease the revolving door of incarceration and move forward.

Thank you very much, ma'am. Okay. At this point, we will take primary witnesses in opposition. I know everybody is getting excited. So primary witnesses in opposition. Anybody? Going once, twice, sold. Now we will go on and move on to people who would like to do their me toos. This is for people in opposition or in favor of the Bill. Just please state your name, the organization you represent, and whether you support or oppose the Bill. Thank you.

Alice Michel, on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association in strong support.

Good morning. Claire Simonich, Vera Institute of Justice. We are proud to sponsor and support this Bill.

Danica Rodarma, on behalf of Initiate Justice and La Defensa in strong support.

Duke Cooney, on behalf of ACLU California Action in strong support. Thank you, Senator.

Juana Williams with Legal Services for Prisoners with Children in strong support.

Good morning. Josh Stickney, on behalf of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights and strong support.

Phil Melendez, Smart Justice California in strong support.

Lawrence Cox, All of Us or None strong support.

Gilbert Anthony Murillo, LSPCA and All of Us or None strong support.

Kristen Schlessel, Sacramento County District Attorney's office on behalf of California District Attorneys Association in respectful opposition.

Alissa Moore, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children strong support.

All right. Do we have any lead? Opposition. All right, thank you. Me, too, is an opposition, I'm assuming you. Thank you. So we're gonna bring it back to. To the Committee Members seeing none. Senator, would you like to close?

I would. I want to say thank you to those who gave testimony and support the Bill. I think this is a common sense law. It's just expanding the toolbox that our justice system has to meet the needs of our communities and to make California truly safer. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

And I just for want to make it clear because I know I was presenting. But you have accepted the Committee amendments, right? Thank you. And I want to make it clear to the public, for the most part, this Committee really does want to remove and be very strict on violent offenders and those who commit sexual acts. So I appreciate that. With this, I ask for a motion. Senator Wiener has moved the Bill. Can we call roll call vote SB 1282.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. So that bill's on call. Thank you, Senator. We're gonna move on to Senator Wilk.

Good to see you again, Madam Chair. All right. Madam Chair and Members, I first want to thank the Chair and her Committee staff for diligently working with us on this bill, and that being said, I'm happy to accept all the Committee amendments. SB 1359 will provide much-needed relief for rural areas across California that have been decimated from truck owner/operators dumping waste materials throughout our communities. Unregulated dumping has wreaked havoc on our communities, resulting in severe environmental pollution and unsafe living conditions.

This has been such a persistent problem because property owners and truck operators have been exploiting a legal loophole. Currently, permits are required to dump or receive waste materials anywhere other than licensed facilities unless it occurs on private property with the owner's permission. Consequently, truckers have been paying private property owners a fee to use their property as a dump site to avoid the high cost of a licensed facility while property owners pocket the money.

SB 1359 closes the loophole by requiring a permit for dumping on private property with or without the owner's permission. The bill also increases mandatory fines and makes illegal dumping a misdemeanor rather than just an infraction. These measures will finally protect community members from bad actors who have profited from destroying their neighborhoods without fear of any consequence. Furthermore, the regions where dumping occurs are not wealthy communities and very often are disadvantaged communities.

I know for me, I've got two areas of particular: Lake Los Angeles, which is in Eastern LA County, up in the high desert. It's got a population of 11.3 percent African American and almost 54 percent Hispanic. And another area is Sun Village, which I'm ashamed to say is where African Americans were forced to buy homes and live during the fifties. I don't think that ended until 1960.

So it's all African American, and those places are just decimated with junk that these kids have to walk through to get to school. So without adequate punishments for those exploiting our disadvantaged communities as literal dumping grounds, these individuals will continue to ruin the environment and negatively affect our neighborhoods. We have two speakers this morning. We have John Kennedy with the RCRC and Adam Harper with CalCIMA. And with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. To the witnesses, again, you'll approach the lectern. You will be timed at two minutes.

Good morning. John Kennedy with the Rural County Representatives of California. We represent 40 of the state's 58 counties. Many have 50 to 90 percent federal lands, very low population densities, sometimes between one and ten persons per square mile. Illegal dumping is a huge problem in rural areas, Lake, Santa Barbara, Monterey County, many other counties, LA County, many unincorporated areas, even within cities. This is a problem on local lands, state lands, federal lands, and we have a good handle.

There's a success story on mattresses, but that's only because you all established this producer responsibility organization for mattresses. For the rest of the material, it's a real challenge to manage to find the people who are responsible for it. And so we appreciate this bill. In conjunction with some other state grant programs that exist, it will provide more tools for local governments and others to combat illegal dumping. It closes the loophole that the Senator mentioned, increases penalties for repeat offenders.

These penalties were last increased in 2006, and so it's our perspective that the increases are overdue, and it allows a state or local agency with jurisdiction over the property to declare this dumping to be a nuisance. That can be particularly useful for state agencies with property and potentially also specifically special districts. So for those reasons, we appreciate you bringing the bill today. We appreciate your interest in illegal dumping and providing us tools, and urge your support for SB 11. I'm sorry--1359.

Thank you.

Chair and Members, Adam Harper with the California Construction and Industrial Materials Association. We're in support of the bill with the amendments. We really appreciate the Senator and that its efforts to combat illegal dumping; it's a significant problem. We appreciate clarity on who can receive and that the legal businesses that engage in moving rock, concrete, asphalt could continue to do so. So thank you. It's an important problem. We appreciate the Senate's efforts to clean this up. Thank you.

Thank you. We're going to move on to lead opposition. Two minutes.

Thank you. Alice Michel, on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association. Our concern with this bill is that illegal dumping is already covered by the state law. The concern is that this bill specifically criminalizes the subjects, individuals who are involved in the transport of the products, that they could be subject to criminal penalties.

This subjects day workers who may be hired by third party contractors who may be unfamiliar with the law or even ultimately what's being done with the product that they're asked to move, that they could be subjected to penalties because of the way this bill is written, as the Committee as well.

Where our criminal laws tend to over-incarcerate brown and Black members of the community, these people, day laborers, often come from these communities, and we are concerned that this bill will be used to prosecute day laborers who are unfamiliar with the law and are not the ones making the decision to do the illegal dumping. Thank you.

Duke Cooney with ACLU California Action, in respectful opposition. First, as the previous witness noted, it is already unlawful to transport waste matter, rock, concrete, asphalt, and dirt for the purpose of dumping on a private property without the owner's consent. So as long as the person transporting the materials has the specific intent to commit the crime, the person can be convicted of attempted dumping under the current law.

If a person transporting these materials does not possess the specific intent to dump them, that person should not be guilty of a crime, whether as an attempt under current law or as a new crime proposed under SB 1359. Second, while the goal of encouraging people to seek appropriate permits and licenses to deposit waste and other materials on private property is worthwhile, failure to do so does not rise to the level of a crime.

Such failures are more appropriately addressed through professional regulations and, in fact, are under existing law. Lastly, criminalizing both the property owner and the person who deposited the materials when it is likely that neither was responsible for obtaining the permit or license and may not know whether a permit or license was properly obtained will not actually address or deter the behavior contemplated by this bill.

Instead, the criminal convictions and increased mandatory fines may needlessly fall on those well-intentioned property owners and innocent, low-wage workers who cannot afford the fines and whose inability to pay the fines will have lasting consequences for them and their families. Thank you.

All right, do we have any MeToos on either side? State your name, your org, you oppose or you support. All right. Seeing none. As far as, I just want to say this, just to clear it up with the opposition, the author actually took amendments to address some of the concerns, more specifically that, you know, if you have non-commercial amounts for dumping, that has been removed. So I just want to be very clear that we have narrowed the scope of the bill in ensuring that, you know, we are not targeting specific communities or putting people at risk. And I do appreciate the author for accepting those amendments. If I have any Members of the Committee that would like to speak on this? Senator Seyarto.

This is pretty easy. Those areas that you're talking about are very impacted by this, and it's because of its remote location and inability for people to be held responsible sometimes. And so the easiest way to not get fined for illegal dumping is to not illegal dump. And so that lands on the person that knows darn well that they're illegally dumping material. So I will support your bill, and I move the bill at this time.

I'm sure you have similar situations as I do and that we are close to the--we're rural--but we're close to the metro area, and I will tell you, and I don't want to--particularly when they were building SoFi Stadium, they, people were out there illegally dumping all the time, the construction materials from there.

Yes. Most of Inglewood is now in Lake Los Angeles. Yes. Thank you.

Thank you. Would you like to close?

I just, again, I want to thank the Chair and the Committee. I'd like to invite the opponents if they want to come to my district and see, one: what you have to walk through, and then two: meet my constituents that are Black and brown. I don't know about all the other rural districts, but mine certainly represent those communities. And with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

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

SB 1359: motion is 'do pass as amended to Appropriations.' [Roll Call].

Thank you. And can we lift the roll for everybody? I just want to make sure everybody's on. Yeah. So let's start from the beginning: File Item Number One.

That one's been dispensed with.

All right. That bill is out. Dispensed with. Number Two, File Item.

We just need Bradford.

Okay. File Item Number Three.

Bradford.

Okay, number four. Number five myself. Sorry. SB 970. Motion is do pass to appropriations. Current vote is three to zero. [Roll Call] Okay, file item number six. Consent is done. File item number eight.

Motion. SB 1057. Motion is do pass, as amended to appropriations. Current vote is two to zero. [Roll Call]

That bill's on call. File item number nine.

SB 1132. Motion is do pass to the floor. Current vote is three to zero. [Roll Call]

File item number. That bill's on call. File item number 10.

SB 1160. Motion is do pass, as amended to appropriations current vote. Two to zero. [Roll Call]

Number 11.

Bradford.

Okay, number 12.

SB 1282. Motion is do pass, as amended to appropriations. Current vote is two to one. [Roll Call]

All right, number 13. Okay, number 16.

Okay, number 17.

We're done with that one.

SB 1012. Motion is do pass to appropriations current votes, two to one. [Roll Call]

All right, so that bill's on call, and have we done number 19?

We have not done the vote online.

Yes. So let's do 19. Let's pull. Bring in 19. Do we have a motion?

Motion.

Can we get a motion on number 19? The bill has been moved. SB 1262 by Senator Wiener. Roll call vote.

Archuleta?

Yeah. No, no. The motion has been moved by Senator Wiener for SB 1262. By Senator Archuleta. Can we have a roll call vote?

Motion is do pass, as amended. [Roll Call]

All right, that bill's on call. We're going to have SB 1400 by Senator Stern. But Senator Stern is out, so we're going to have Senator Wiener present. No worries. Okay, so since we had a little bit switcheroo, we're going to have file item number 15. SB 1472 by Senator Limon.

Thank you, chairs and colleagues.

SB 1472 establishes the California firearms do not sell list, a voluntary system for California residents to add their name to the California do not sell firearms, which prohibits an individual from lawfully purchasing a firearm. 61% of gun deaths are suicides, with people between the ages 35 and 64, accounting for 46% of all suicides in the country.

SB 1472 would require the Department of Justice to create an accessible system for California residents to voluntarily add their names to the California do not sell list for firearms.

SB 1472 allows individuals who voluntary register to remove their names from the list as well. Today with me, we have our Santa Barbara County Sheriff, Bill Brown and Dylan Elliott, on behalf of the California State Association of Psychiatrists, to speak in support the bill.

Thank you. You can approach the lectern. You will have two minutes.

Thank you, Madam Chair Members, I'm Santa Barbara County Sheriff Bill Brown and I'm here on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association, one of the bill's sponsors. The nexus between firearms and suicide is well established.

California faces a pressing public health challenge of people experiencing suicidal ideation and their access to of firearms. The absence of an accessible and voluntary mechanism for persons to exclude themselves from being able to lawfully purchase a firearm due to suicidal ideation is a critical deficiency in the existing legislative framework.

We appreciate our conversations with committee staff and acknowledge, as the analysis points out, that we have work to do in terms of getting more detail into the Bill language. We are not looking to criminalize any person who would add themselves to the list, and only the person themselves could add or remove themselves to or from the list.

We are cognizant of prior efforts to do something in this space and the challenges specifically related to integrating this effort into what DOJ currently oversees in terms of firearms databases.

We've been working with the DOJ to try to come up with an approach here that allows us to accomplish our policy goals without creating undue fiscal pressure, and we believe that we have found a path to do just that. Three other states, Virginia, Utah, and Washington, have laws similar to this.

In Washington, almost 100 people have placed themselves on their do not sell list. Extrapolating that number for California's population estimates that about 500 people might avail themselves of this opportunity if it's offered here in our state. We strongly believe lives will be saved if California follows the example set by other states.

Lastly, I want to recognize and thank the person who brought the need for this legislation to our attention. She is a professional here in California who struggles with mental health issues.

She entered a dark period of her life when she battled severe depression and began to contemplate suicide with a firearm. Worried that she might act upon those thoughts, she attempted to have herself placed on the prohibited persons list voluntarily, but found, after many phone calls to state agencies and the Federal Government, that there was currently no way to do that.

She approached the state's Mental Health Services Oversight and Accountability Commission, on which I serve as a commissioner, and asked for help in filling this gap.

She was reluctant to speak today publicly out of concern that self disclosure of her mental illness might adversely impact her employment. But nonetheless, her courage in reaching out with her situation and becoming the genesis of this latest attempt to create such a policy is commendable.

We appreciate the Committee's favorable consideration of SB 1472 and respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Next.

Good morning, Madam Chair Members. My name is Dylan Elliott and here on behalf of the California State Association of Psychiatrists, to share our strong support as co-authors of SB 1472. As has been made quite clear, there's strong evidence that access to firearms is associated with an increased risk of suicide.

Suicides make up 52% of all firearm deaths in our state. And more than one third of all suicides in California are by firearm.

In 2019, there were nearly 1600 firearm suicide deaths in California, 54 of which were children and teens. Prevention is possible. A recent study found that close to a third of the general population and more than 40% of those with previously diagnosed mental health concerns would add their name to a do not sell list if they had the option. The utmost priority of CSAP and its member practitioners is patient care and safety.

While we expect it would prevent much more harm if the establishment of this database were to save just one life, it would be well worth it. CSAP thanks you for your consideration, and we urge your aye vote to enact this common sense, voluntary program. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have lead opposition witnesses? Seeing none. We're going to move on to me, too. Both in support and opposition. Please state your name your org. and that you either support or oppose.

Hi, there. Joshua Stickney. On behalf of the Prosecutors Alliance in strong support.

Thank you. Do we see any others? Seeing none, we're going to move on to Members of the Committee. Members of the Committee. No conversation. Move the bill. All right. Senator Limon.

I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Senator Wiener has moved the Bill. Can we have a roll call vote, please?

SB 1472 motion is do pass to appropriations. [Roll Call]

All right, that bill is on call. Thank you, Senator. Senator Wiener is going to be presenting final item number 14. On behalf of Senator Stern. SB 1400. Senator Wiener, the floor is yours.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. As noted, I am presenting Senate Bill 1400 on behalf of Senator Stern. This bill will remove the express statutory authority for a court to dismiss a case in which a misdemeanor defendant is found incompetent and instead require the court to determine if the defendant is eligible for diversion or other treatment options, such as the care program, conservatorship, or assisted outpatient treatment.

The author's office is committed to continuing conversations with the Judicial Council, ACLU, Steinberg Institute, Disability Rights California, and other organizations to create the most effective bill possible.

According to the author, this bill closes a loophole in his bill from 2021, SB 317, which offered misdemeanor defendants found incompetent to stand trial the ability to get credit for time and treatment in lieu of jail time.

Since the passage of SB 317, judges have dismissed thousands of these cases without a treatment plan or any ability for the courts or counties to maintain contact. For example, the La County Office of Diversion and Reentry reports that at least five of these defendants are released per week with no treatment or connection to services.

SB 1400 will ensure that Californians found incompetent to stand trial, have access to treatment and follow up care that they need. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Do we have any lead witnesses? Seeing none. Do we have lead opposition witnesses? Seeing none. Do we have Me Toos in support or opposition? Please state your name, your organization, and that you support or oppose.

Cooney with ACLU California Action. We are not in opposition, but we are working with the author's office on amendments. Looking forward to those conversations. Thank you.

Thank you.

Alice Michel, on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association, we also are continuing to work with the author and appreciate the discussions and look forward to further discussion. Thank you.

Thank you. Kristin Schlessel, Sacramento County District Attorney's Office on behalf of California District Attorneys Association, we are also an in betweener, and we've been working with the author and his staff on amendments, and we appreciate their willingness to work with us. Thank you.

Seeing no others and seeing no comments from the Committee. Senator, would you like to close?

On behalf of Senator Stern, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. We're going to have to wait on a motion until one of the Senators are back. We are not allowed to make a motion on the bill that we present, nor are we allowed to as Chair. So just giving guys a heads up on the rules.

[Roll Call]

That bills out.

[Roll Call]

[Roll Call]

[Roll Call]

[Roll Call]

[Roll Call]

[Roll Call]

[Roll Call]

[Roll Call]

[Roll Call]

[Roll Call]

[Roll Call]

[Roll Call]

[Roll Call]