Assembly Standing Committee on Public Safety

Good morning. We will start, good morning. We will start today's Public Safety Committee hearing. We don't have a quorum yet, so we'll start as a, as a Subcommitee. We do want to announce the bills pulled off calendar for today. Item number nine. AB 22. 10, Petrie Norris. Item number 20, AB 2691 quirk Silva. Item 21, AB 2692 Papin. And item 23, AB 2782 Patterson. Please come up. Assemblymember Soria will have you go first. We have for you AB 3171.

Good morning.

Item 27. Please proceed.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Let me begin by accepting the Committee's amendments reflected in the analysis. In 2023, around 62,000 pounds of fentanyl smuggled into California were confiscated by authorities. That's an amount that, according to Governor Newsom, is enough to potentially kill the global population nearly twice over. To say that California has a fentanyl problem is an understatement. We have a crisis in front of us that is deadlier than any of the other drug epidemics we've seen.

Fentanyl poisoning is the number one killer for individuals ages 18 to 45. Too many parents have lost their children, and many more will lose them if we don't do more to combat this crisis. Fentanyl is 50 times more powerful than heroin, and just two milligrams is considered a lethal dose and can kill an individual. Nationwide, over 150 people die every day from fentanyl overdoses. In the three counties I represent: Fresno, Madera, Merced, there have been over 130 deaths linked to fentanyl in 2021 alone.

In my communities, local law enforcement is trying to do everything possible to combat this crisis, including doing education, awareness, and prevention work. This is not enough. Their hands are tied. AB 3171 will give local law enforcement the tools needed, increased penalties to hold drug traffickers accountable for the fentanyl overdoses and deaths in our community. Under the bill, fentanyl drug dealers face increased jail sentences ranging from four to 13 years.

The increased penalties reflect Governor Newsom's calls to hold what he called the poison peddlers accountable for the spike in fentanyl overdoses, poisonings, and death. This is a more appropriate punishment for fentanyl drug dealers, given how deadly a small amount is. While I support investing in awareness and drug addiction and prevention programs, including access to Narcan and removing barriers to harm reduction strategies like testing strips, I also know we cannot educate or treat dead people, and that is what fentanyl is doing in our communities.

Too many parents have lost their children due to the federal laws. So we must provide our local law enforcement officials the tools they need to go after those dangerous drug dealers who deal this deadly drug. So with me here today to testify in support of AB 3171 is Jolena Voorhis from the League of California Cities, and then also Cory Salzillo from the California State Sheriffs' Association.

Thank you. You have five minutes between your panel.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. My name is Jolena Voorhis. I'm here on behalf of the League of California Cities in support of AB 3170. We want to thank the author for introducing this important measure, which we believe will provide law enforcement with another way to fight this deadly drug. One of the top priorities for Cal Cities in 2024 is to address the fentanyl crisis.

This continues the work we did last year in support of many legislative and administrative efforts, including increasing the amount of naloxone or Narcan, education efforts, and other prevention activities. While some progress has been made to address the fentanyl crisis, cities are still seeing tragic deaths in their communities. Just in 2024, for example, the City and County of San Francisco has seen 45 deaths since January.

Sacramento County has experienced 50 deaths from fentanyl in 2024, and the City of San Diego experienced 410 deaths from fentanyl in 2023. Local communities experience the realities of the opioid epidemic each day through the increasing toll on families, first responders, educators, child welfare agencies, criminal justice, public safety officials, health professionals, and community organizations, among others. AB 3171 will provide law enforcement with another tool to crack down on these drug dealers who are profiting from this use, using this deadly product in our communities.

Specifically, this bill will increase penalties for selling, distributing, or trafficking of fentanyl if the amount of fentanyl weighs more than 28.35 grams. We believe this would crack down on these drug dealers and help provide for safer communities. For these reasons, we're pleased to support AB 3171, and we urge the Committee to vote yes on this important measure. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Cory Salzillo, on behalf of the California State Sheriffs' Association in support of the bill. I think the author and Ms. Voorhis summed it up pretty well, so in the interest of time, I'll just make a couple of notes. One: I think this bill reflects the reality of how dangerous comparatively small amounts of fentanyl can be when you're talking about fentanyl as it relates to other dangerous controlled substances.

The amounts have to matter and the statute has to reflect the severity and the danger that fentanyl causes. We're talking about trafficking offenses here. These are not just users, obviously, and the Committee's amendments to preserve some continuity with the Committee's work on fentanyl this year, the bill includes the language that the person knew that the substance was or contained fentanyl.

And that takes away some of the concern that, well, I thought I was selling a Percocet, and really it was fentanyl or something like that. So we think this is an important tool in the toolbox. We think this helps with an adequate reflection of the danger that fentanyl is bringing, and we respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Others in support?

Mr. Chairman and Members, Randy Perry with Aaron Read and Associates, on behalf of PORAC and Highway Patrol.

And he's in support. Ryan Sherman with Riverside Sheriffs' Association, California Narcotic Officers' Association, and let me run through the list really quick, for the first time and only time today of California Reserve Peace Officers, California Coalition of School Safety Professionals, Deputy Sheriffs' Association of Monterey and Placer Counties, and the Police Officer Associations of Arcadia, Burbank, Claremont, Corona, Culver City, Fullerton, Murrieta, Newport Beach, Nevada, Palos Verdes, Pomona, Riverside, Santa Ana, and Upland, all in support. Thanks.

Thank you.

Good morning. Ivy Fitzpatrick, California District Attorneys Association, Riverside County District Attorney, in support. Thank you.

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

Good morning, Chair and Members. We have another witness who's running over from the parking lot, so hopefully someone else will join me momentarily. Good morning. My name is Taina Vargas. I'm the founder and Executive Director of Initiate Justice Action, here to speak in opposition to AB 3171, but also speaking as a person who's been directly harmed by the opioid crisis. I was 17 years old the first time that my mom overdosed.

I remember hearing my father scream her name as he frantically performed CPR and cried over her motionless body. The paramedics were able to revive her that time, but I never recovered from the trauma of believing that I had witnessed her death. In the ten years that followed, my mom would overdose three more times. Our family tried our best to get the care that she needed, but there was no rehabilitation centers available for low-income people that she felt safe or comfortable going to.

She would say that all the rehab centers felt like jail. Indeed, the only time she ever had access to rehab was court-ordered after she was arrested. The last time she overdosed, I was 27. She would never wake up, but she didn't pass away either.

She seized for several hours, cutting off circulation to her brain, resulting in her permanent vegetative state. For the last eight and a half years, my mother has been confined to a hospital bed, unable to move, unable to talk, unable to recognize when her family is there. She will never recover. I understand more closely than most the devastating impacts of the opioid crisis. However, victims and survivors are often painted as a monolith who will only be satisfied with increased criminal penalties. This is not the case.

In fact, a survey conducted by Crime Survivors Speak found that 73 percent of victims favor investment in drug treatment over incarceration. Legislation like AB 3171 cannot bring my mom back, nor would it have prevented her overdose. It will merely incarcerate more people, bloating our prison system and wasting precious resources that would be better used ensuring that low-income Californians struggling with substance use disorder have access to free, non-carceral, effective treatment. I urge your no vote on AB 3171. Thank you.

Thank you. Others in opposition?

Good morning. Margo George, on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association, in opposition.

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

Ashley Chambers with the Ella Baker Center, in strong opposition.

Kellie Walters, staff attorney with Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, in strong opposition.

Philippe Kelly with the Ella Baker Center. Full opposition.

Lawrence Cox, LSPC and All of Us or None. Opposition.

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

Joanna Williams with strong opposition with--I'm sorry--with LSPC, with strong opposition.

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

Robert Bowden, LSPC, All of Us or None, strongly opposition.

Juan Flores, with Ella Baker Center. Strong opposition.

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

Jeannette Zanipatin, California State Director for Drug Policy Alliance, in strong opposition.

Angel Rice with Empowered Women Impacted by Incarceration, in strong opposition.

Abigail Salim from Empowering Women Impacted by Incarceration. Strong opposition.

Emily Wonder from Sister Warriors Freedom Coalition, in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no more opposition, questions or comments from Committee Members? Before we do that, we want to establish a quorum real quick.

[Roll Call].

Okay, thank you. We have a quorum. Questions or comments? Mr. Lackey?

Yeah, first of all, let me just say thank you for addressing a very important topic, and I would like to be a co-author to your measure here, and I just have a curiosity question. Has there been any collaboration with Assembly Member Jim Patterson? Because he had a proposal that's very, very similar.

Yes, he is actually a joint author.

Okay. Thank you.

Mr. Zbur, then Mr. Alanis.

So I want to thank the author for bringing this important bill. I have a question about some of the details on the length of the additional penalties compared to existing law. So I voted last year for the Villapudua bill, and the reason why I did that was because I thought it was focusing on really sort of the folks that are making the decisions to put these things out in the streets, and I think had a demarcation between those folks and folks that are maybe--may not understand that they're dealing in fentanyl and had small quantities.

And so generally, the, you know, most of the studies show that increasing the length of penalties on almost any kind of crime doesn't really result in deterrence. It's really the likelihood you're gonna get caught and the likelihood that you're gonna have a, that you're gonna have a penalty. So I understand that the 28.3--was it 0.8425? Where did that come from? Where, how did that, how was that arrived at versus the one kilogram that was in the Villapudua bill?

I think for us, what is important is to ensure that the punishment that we are trying to increase is commensurate with the danger of the drug. And so I think for us, realizing that such a small amount can kill someone, I think for us is important in making that difference, in making sure that folks understand that they're going to be held to a higher standard and have a higher punishment, given the fact that this drug is much more dangerous than cocaine or some other type of drug, which we've dealt with in the past.

Yeah, I mean, I don't have a philosophical issue about sort of reducing the quantities to the extent that when you actually treat fentanyl in the same way you do heroin or cocaine, that you know that it's much more dangerous, and so smaller quantities perhaps result in an equivalent threshold, right, in terms of the punishment.

So what does your bill--with the Villapudua bill with one kilogram, essentially what you're doing, and I think what Assembly Member Patterson was doing was they were equating the 28.53 grams to the one kilogram standard that we had before under current law. Under current law, you would have had an underlying penalty, plus then the penalty enhancement of three years. So with your bill, what does that do with the underlying penalty and the penalty enhancement from the Villapudua bill at 28.35?

Cory, do you want to maybe?

Sure. Through the Chair, Assembly Member, I think, as you noted and as the author noted, that distinction between the quantity enhancements that Mr. Villapudua's bill addressed last year start at that one kilogram, this 28.35 grams, this one ounce, right? I mean, that's what we're talking about here. It does reflect the danger and it is that base crime. So, ostensibly, there's still those enhancements exist for the excessively large quantities. So I think what I hear you asking is the sort of how the--how base term and an enhancement or an enhanced base term coexist. Is that what you're getting at? Sorry.

Yeah. So what this would do for 28 grams, what would it do to the base penalty?

So it would specify that if you're--if you possess for sale, then it's--then there's one set of penalties if you transport, sell, furnish, give away. There's a second triad, and then if, again, inter-county transportation, there's another triad. So that's the, as I understand--I'm sorry, don't have a copy of the bill in front of me--but my understanding is it sets that base term based for those specific trafficking related offenses at those higher triads than what exists under current law, under 11351, 11352.

And what are those? I mean, what is it under current law for 28 grams? What would it be for those three things? And then what it is under this? I just want to understand what the base is. Then I assume if we--if the Patterson bill does not get out of Committee, the enhancements would be the same as you would under the Villapudua bill, so the enhancements would start at one kilogram, is that right?

The quantity enhancements, yes, are in statute, and those start at one kilogram, which, as you noted, is an excessively--or as has been noted, is an excessive amount of fentanyl, especially, comparatively speaking, to the other controlled substances. So, yes, the possession for sale--again, through the Chair--possession for sale would go from two, three, or four-year triad to four, five, or six, and then the transportation selling would go from three, six, nine to seven, eight, or nine and then transportation to contiguous county would go from three, six, nine to seven, 10, or 13.

And just to note, Mr. Zbur, the Patterson bill is pulled today and won't be heard this year. So this is the--this is the bill we're hearing.

Okay, great. Okay, I think you've answered my questions. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Mr. Alanis.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just real quick, just want to point out as far as uses in grams, usually like one-tenth of a gram would be like a use that we would have for fentanyl. So that's essentially--I mean, I'm not a mathematician, but that's like 300 uses with your 28.35 grams, just to give you guys an idea of what we're talking about. Don't think that's just one use right there. I mean, that would kill tons of people right there.

But thank you for bringing this as well. For the opposition, you were talking about how your mom felt or did not get the help that she needed. Was that ordered or was that volunteered?

The point that I was trying to convey in that is that I think that something that this body often misses the mark on is we want to nitpick and say, let's, you know, increase the criminalization here. Let's add, you know, a couple years here and there, but the point is that families who are suffering from this actually need more non-carceral resources in the community.

And particularly for people who are low-income, most of the rehabilitation centers that are available are either court-ordered or even if they're not court ordered, they feel carceral. There's a treatment center that's actually very close to our house that people don't want to go to because they're continuously in locked facilities, and we don't have access to the nicer facilities, like, you know, the Malibu rehab centers that have much higher effectiveness rates.

In fact, after my mom was arrested and was sentenced to court order rehabilitation, she was sent to a facility that only had a three percent success rate. So the point overall that I'm trying to convey here is that I understand we all want to address the fentanyl crisis. I want to address that, but I think solutions like this are missing the mark, and what we really need to do in a meaningful way is invest in non-carceral community solutions.

So the facility you were talking about that only had a three percent success rate, was--were those people--

It was court-ordered.

Were they allowed to leave as they wanted to?

No.

Okay. I don't have anything further other than just, again, thank you for doing this. Obviously, we've brought this up. Fentanyl is a big problem. I feel that, in my opinion, in my professional, old career, people don't volunteer to usually just go to rehab.

Usually it has to be court order that does help it. I've seen people be successful with it in drug court, Prop 36 Court myself. People actually thanked me when I've arrested them, and they got the help they needed. So I think this will help them as well, and it will get them the treatment that they needed, so thank you.

Thank you. Assembly Member Reyes.

I think, as my colleague has stated, there's no question there's more that needs to be done. I appreciate not only what we are doing here in the Assembly, but also in the Senate. They have, there are a number of bills that are coming our way, specifically dealing with fentanyl as they've taken the lead on that particular issue while we've taken the lead on retail crime, so to speak. And I appreciate my colleagues' questions. It appears as though it is an enhancement over an enhancement.

And that was my concern with this. As was noted in the analysis, we're in the midst of a tragic increase in drug overdose deaths, and we all recognize that, and we know fentanyl is something that when you look at the increase from that, something needs to be done. But I want to more specifically address you.

I want to appreciate so much that you came here to talk about something that is so personal for yourself. The fact that your mother, you saw your mother as a young woman, you were a young woman, that you see your mother go through what she did and knowing that what you wanted more for her is for her to get help and to know that the system failed her, and now your mother is in a vegetative state. And we have to acknowledge that. There is so much more that we can do. I will--sometimes we talk about other bills that are pending.

I have a bill that will require--that will take away the need for pre-authorization when the treatment needs to be provided, when somebody leaves the emergency room after they've come in for an overdose, because you go in for an overdose, you're given a prescription, and now you need pre-authorization, you don't get it, you then go back into the same thing, and then you're back into the emergency room.

Although I do have issues with the bill as it is written now, I know the Chair is an 'aye reco.' I will follow the Chair on this, but I hope that there are going to be other amendments to the bill. I'm glad Assembly Member Patterson's bill is not going to come forward this year, so it's going to your bill that we're going to be looking at, but I do think that, as it appears, it's enhancement over enhancement.

And I don't think that's really what we're trying to do. If we know that studies show that the penalties, as my colleague has said, it's not the penalties that are going to result in the deterrence, not the increase in penalties. We have the penalties. We have to figure out how we're going to deal with this crisis. Thank you for presenting it to us, though.

Thank you. Briefly back to Mr. Zbur.

I just want to sort of follow up on my colleague's comments. I mean, I'm also going to follow the Chair's lead today, but when I look at the level of the increases in the penalties, it just--it just seems like they're sort of too deep when you start adding everything up with the potential, with the enhancements, especially given, you know, we want there to be a strong penalty. We want there to be enough of a penalty to deter it.

But at some point, we go from three years to seven or eight or nine years; all you're really doing is you're putting people in prison for longer periods of time and not increasing the deterrence. So I'm hoping that the author will continue working with the opponents and really take a strong look at whether or not the penalty levels are really necessary to provide deterrence. So thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Do we have a motion? Do we have a motion? And a second. Please call the roll. Oh, I'm sorry.

I was going to say additional comments, but I'll keep it short. I ask for your aye vote.

Yes. Thank you.

On AB 3171 by Assembly Member Soria, the motion is 'do pass as amended to the Appropriations Committee.' [Roll Call].

Thank you. That measure passes. Next author is Assembly Member Bonta.

Okay, please proceed.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. I would like to express my appreciation to your Committee staff for their time working on this Bill. I authored this Bill because AB 2354 because I heard all of the calls last year to support survivors of violence and provide them with the resources that they need. In the many conversations I had with organizations who serve survivors and with survivors directly, I heard expanding vacatur relief was a crucial need.

Currently, California Vacatur Law does not provide an opportunity for vacatur relief for all survivors of human trafficking, domestic violence and sexual violence. And due to biases in our legal system, black, brown, immigrant and indigenous, queer and transgender Californians are disproportionately harmed by laws that exclude certain convictions. Every person deserves the opportunity to live free of trauma and violence and to receive protection, healing and care when they are victims of violence.

Victims of intimate partner violence, human trafficking and sexual violence need protection, healing and care for rebuilding their lives. Not criminalization and punishment from California's legal system, which does not consistently consider relevant information about victimization. According to January 2023 National Survivor survey, 90% of human trafficking victims who had been arrested reported that all, or at least some of their criminal records were a result of their trafficking victimization.

I'm uplifting this data point and others because unfortunately, the Committee analysis didn't really talk about the, the impact and the benefits of lifting vacatur for survivors. In that same study, of those survivors who reported having a criminal record, 69% reported that their record prevented them from getting or keeping a job, 59% of them reported their records affected their ability to get good, safe housing and 63% reported that it affected their ability to receive education, training or professional license was impacted.

AB 2234 takes a focused approach and ensures that all survivors can petition the court to vacate or remove a sentence resulting from their abuse and victimization. It does this by providing judicial discretion to weigh whether or not the victim has met standard of clear and convincing evidence. This relief critically removes roadblocks to accessing essential resources such as housing, job training and employment. AB 2354 is an essential Bill that allows us to treat all survivors of violence equally. Thank you.

And with me today to talk more about the survivor centered Bill that this is, as Phoebe Nielsen, who is a Member of the Community Against Sexual Harm (CASH) Advisory Board, and Maureen Kildee from the San Francisco Public Defenders Clean Slate Unit.

Thank you. You have five minutes amongst yourselves.

My name is Phoebe Nelson. I am a survivor of exploitation and human trafficking. I am here to testify in support of AB 2354. This Bill is important because it would allow me and others like me, more opportunities for better and gainful employment, safe and secure housing, and overall better quality of life for us and our families. When I was 23, I was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon. The life that I was living was very unsafe, and I was around very unsafe people.

During this time in my life, I was being sex trafficked by several different traffickers. I was forced by my traffickers to have sex for money, money that I never got. At court, the judge recognized that human trafficking played a very significant and devastating role in the events that led to my conviction. Because the judge recognized me as a victim of human trafficking, the judge diverted me to Communities Against Sexual Harm, also known as CASH program, an organization in Sacramento.

This program saved my life in many ways. After going through CASH, I have been able to do things I am so proud of, including becoming a mother to my son, working with people I never have. I would have never on the survivor advisory council and living a life free of violence and abuse.

Through cash, I have been able to work on and publish a report with other survivors showing the scope of human trafficking in Sacramento, the first report of its kind, as well as other publications that highlight how folks like me are impacted by human trafficking. But even so, I am still facing the undue burden of carrying a criminal record that prevents me from pursuing the type of life that I am capable and deserving of living.

For example, I sit before you today because I am not able to go to work because of changes made by the company I work for. My employer had to do another round of background checks. Mines is the only one that has not passed. It is heartbreaking to think that I might not be able to go back to work. I want to work to earn a living, to provide for my son.

Maybe it is a blessing that I couldn't work today, but I can sit here and advocate on behalf of this Bill. This Bill is so important because the people that will benefit are like me, survivors that are trying to rebuild their lives after years of abuse. I appreciate all that has been given to me, all that I have made happen, and I want to be able to continue moving forward. I urge you to vote aye on 2345. Thank you.

Thank you, Phoebe. All survivors of human trafficking, sexual violence, and domestic violence should be treated equally by our legal system because all survivors have the right to safe and stable lives. Survivors with felony convictions face many obstacles to receiving basic necessities, as Phoebe has explained to us.

At the public Defender office, we assist clients with putting the trauma of their past behind them so that they can get jobs and participate fully in society without the barrier of their conviction, but also without the stigma of their conviction following throughout the rest of their lives. One of our clients entered foster care at 13 years old.

She ran away from foster care and ended up being trafficked by someone who first treated her well and then controlled her by abuse and violence. She ended up with prostitution, drug and theft charges, and after that she did the hard work to separate herself from her trafficker. She used all the resources available to her as she aged out of foster care and ended up with an associate's degree. But she still had barriers to moving her life forward.

She was able to get a vacatur under the current version of the Bill because of the nature of her crimes, and she works in a county health department serving the community in which she lives. She deserves this to be free from her past, even if she had committed more serious crimes. Vacatur applications will go through a serious review even under the changes in the Bill.

For a survivor to obtain vacatur relief under the proposed changes in the Bill, they still must prove that they were a victim of trafficking or violence and that the arrest or conviction was a result of that trafficking or other kind of victimization. The burden of proof remains on the survivor to provide the evidence to support these claims, they have to present evidence such as their own declaration, declarations of witnesses and others, official records or communications from the abuser, et cetera.

Further, the survivor must still establish these claims by clear and convincing evidence, which is a very, very high standard of proof. It is the level of evidence that the state needs to take a child away from its parent or guardian. Extremely high. The only higher standard is proof beyond a reasonable doubt which we use in criminal jury trials. AB 2354 opens the vacatur process to all survivors so that they will have an equal opportunity to petition the court for vacatur relief.

And I respectfully request your yes vote on this Bill.

Thank you. Others in support.

Good morning. Chair and Committee, April Grayson from the Sister Warriors Freedom Coalition, proud co sponsor of this Bill.

Margo George, on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association, in support.

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

Melanie Kim, San Francisco Public Defender's office, co sponsor of the Bill.

Kellie Walters, Staff Attorney with Legal Services for Prisoners with Children and strong support.

Ashley Chambers with the Ella Baker Center and strong support.

Marlene Mercado on behalf of UnCommon Law. Strong support.

Juan Flores with the Ella Baker Center, strong support.

Lawrence Cox with LSPC and All Of Us Or None in strong support.

Joanna Williams with LSPC, strong support.

Philippe Kelly with the Ella Baker Center and strong support.

Ed Little, on behalf of Californians for Safety and Justice and Crime Survivors for Safety and Justice and proud co sponsors and support.

Leena Dinh, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children and strong support.

Gilbert Anthony Murillo, LSPC and strong support.

Emily Wonder, on behalf of the Alliance for Children's Rights, Alianza Buen Vecino, Children's Defense Fund, California Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice, Community Legal Services of East Palo Alto, Inland Coalition for Immigrant Justice, Justice At Last, Messaging for Success, Parenting for Liberation and Shared Hope International and strong support.

Leela Chapelle, Coalition to Abolish Slavery and Trafficking and the California Partnership to End Domestic Violence, as proud co sponsors and strong support. Thank you.

Robert Bowden, LSPC, All Of Us Or None. Strong support.

Angel Rice, I'm going to mention a few #MeToo's, with Empowering Women Impacted by Incarceration, Jesse's Place Organization, Prison From The Inside Out, Restoring Hope California and the Parallel Change Project. Thank you. In strong support.

Abby Salim with Empowering Women Impacted by Incarceration and strong support.

Hi, my name is Erin McCall. I'm with Underground Scholars Initiative at UC Berkeley in support. Thank you.

Jonathan Goldstein, attorney, totally against this situation, but complete in support.

Thank you. Seeing no others in support, we have opposition to this Bill. Please come forward.

Good morning, Mister Chair and Members. Ryan Sherman of the Riverside Sheriff's Association and the other groups I mentioned earlier in opposition. I apologize for getting our letter in late, but I did want to reference a few things that are in the Bill that we have some concerns with.

Current law requires that any vacatur under these provisions is required to be conducted if it's within the best interest of justice. This Bill strikes that provision from law for both the code sections that are being implicated here. So that's definitely a problem. Current law also provides that this vacatur relief is limited only to misdemeanors or, I'm sorry, to nonviolent offenses. And this expands it to any felony, rape, murder, robbery, anything would be allowed under this Bill. And that's another concern for us.

There's also a drafting concern that we have sections 1 and section 2: subsection D, states that if there's no opposition from the prosecutor, the court shall deem the petition unopposed and shall grant petition, grant the petition and issue order of vacatur. It seems pretty clear cut. However, section F, subsection F of Section 1 and 2, says that if the court otherwise Deems it necessary, it shall schedule a hearing on petition even without opposition.

So it seems like they're saying it's a mandate in one section and then it's possible or permissible in another. Lastly, we're concerned with all the mandates in the Bill and the removal of judicial discretion. Judicial discretion is taken away from these judges, requiring courts to hear all cases when the vacatur or petition is opposed. It also mandates court to issue a vacatur if no timely opposition is filed by the prosecution, there is no discretion.

It also mandates vacatur for all traffic, intimate partner violence or sexual violence petitioners if the crime is a result, but not a direct result of trafficking. And it mandates vacatur if that clear and convincing standard is met, regardless of the interests of justice. Lastly, after considering the totality of the evidence presented, the courts are prohibited from considering, again, whether vacating the arrest and conviction is in the best interest of justice. So for these and other reasons, we remain strongly opposed to the Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Others in opposition seeing none, questions or comments from Committee Members. Assemblymember Wilson?

Well, good after, no, it's not afternoon. I think that's wishful thinking. Good morning. Thank you to the author for bringing this forward. I know there was lots of discussion last year about human trafficking, about the impact that that has on the actual victims and making sure there's protection there. So thank you for bringing this forward.

I do have a follow up, a few follow up questions as it relates to what I read in the opposition letter, and then also what was brought up here today. And the bills and the Committee analysis and notes on item number four, it says, requires the court issue an order of vacatur if the applicable prosecutorial agency does not file in opposition to the petition. What does that mean? So if the prosecutor files an opposition, what happens?

So this essentially requires a petition to be heard, for a petitioner to have their day in court. It absolutely does not remove judicial discretion beyond that because the judge at that point gets to hear by a very high standard and make a determination of whether or not the petitioner, by clear and convincing evidence, has provided enough evidence to be able to grant vacatur. That is the court's, that is at the court's discretion.

This Bill really creates an opportunity for people like not only Miss Nelson, who presented here, but people like Marissa Alexander, who defended her life from abusive, from an abusive husband by firing one warning shot that caused no physical harm. She was targeted by a racist smear campaign. And this is a case in Florida by a Florida state attorney, Angela Corey, designed to frame her as an angry black woman, but never as a victim of domestic violence.

She was prosecuted and sentenced to a mandatory minimum of 20 years in prison. Or people like Kai Peterson was told that he is a Trans man, was not a believable victim of rape after defending himself against a brutal sexual assault, and he was bullied into signing a plea deal of 20 years in prison. This gives people like Miss Nelson, Marissa Alexander, Kai Peterson, an opportunity to have their day in court with a petition, by having the court grant the petition.

The judicial discretion then has to make a determination of clear and convincing evidence. That is a very high standard for petitioners to have to meet. It puts the burden on the petitioner to meet that standard. And the judge can grant or deny that petition for vacatur. This allows them to be able to do that.

And so if there's no opposition from the prosecutor, then the judge would be required, though, to do it, right?

It requires the judge to hear a petition. Yes, procedurally to hear the petition.

Okay. I thought it says issue, but which is okay, I'm fine with that. But I was just wondering about the opposition part. And then last but not least, current law allows for it to be vacated for these other types of vacations. It allows the vacation, but still requires financial restitution. So this would say no financial restitution at all.

And so I was wondering, because there is some type of victim that at that point, through the court process, decided that they needed restitution, why we would then take that completely out and that would be vacated as well. So I was just wondering thought process on that.

Yeah. So if a survivor's application is granted, which is essentially saying that they've met clear and the clear and convincing evidence that it essentially removes the conviction from their criminal record.

It essentially says that there's new evidence to essentially to show that this case should have been treated differently at the first conviction. So with that, if we're requiring the petitioner to continue to pay restitution, that's not really serving justice. It's having somebody essentially pay for. Continue to offer restitution for a crime that has now been deemed through clear and convincing evidence, was not a crime.

Okay, I see the vacating prior sentencing as it relates to those that experience human trafficking, you know, domestic violence, all of those kind of things. In the existing law, it notes that there's basically some type of overriding evidence that says that it was a direct relate to that incident and that's why they committed the crime. But there was still someone who was harmed, and that's why originally it didn't relieve the financial restitution burden. And so expanding it, I think, is fine.

My only concern is about that financial restitution burden that existed in the original language, that I don't know if that's the same for me, because there is someone was harmed. Typically, it's not the person who is doing the harm. That's why they're usually that financial, as I understand it, that that financial restitution is related to someone external who actually didn't do the harm, but somebody who was harmed, absent of the person who inflicted the harm on the person who's doing the harm.

And so it's concerning, a little bit concerning that part. Not enough for me to not to not support this today because I understand the intent, but that's something to think about, because there is a harm related to someone, someone was harmed. And it's one thing to say that the sentence is no longer valid, but it's another thing to say that that person shouldn't experience restitution just because the person who victimized them was victimized themselves. And that's how I understand the original law.

But that would be my only concern. But I'm definitely happy to support the Bill and we'll make the motion.

Thank you so. Assemblymember Zber.

So thank you, assemblymember for bringing this Bill. I think it's an important one. I will be supporting it today, and I think it is necessary for us to do more to protect victims. I do have a couple concerns about the details of it that I'm hoping you'll continue to work on. And they relate specifically to 236.14 G. And that's the area where you sort of change the.

Where it's proposed to change the standard from requiring three items, which would be that the petitioner was a victim of human trafficking before it was a victim. Second, that the arrest or conviction was a direct result of the human trafficking. And then the third, that it's in the best interest of justice, taking out the direct and the best interest of justice.

And then on top of that, making it mandatory that the vacatur take place would allow, for example, even though you have to prove it with clear and convincing evidence. You would have to prove clear and convincing evidence that human trafficking occurred by this to the victim. And that, I think, is sort of easy to prove. Well, yeah, but it is.

And then the second is that it is a result of human trafficking, which could mean that you actually have someone who is basically in a position where a lot of crimes occurred, and you could have, for example, sort of a murderer that is basically meets sort of a lower standard and then the judge doesn't have discretion because the best interest of justice taken out doesn't have the discretion to not vacate in those circumstances.

So I just to clarify, the judge does have discretion to vacate or not vacate. What they don't have discretion around is hearing the petition. They still need to, they still need to be able to meet the, they still will make, use their discretion to make a decision around whether or not the plaintiff or, sorry, the petitioner brought forward clear and convincing evidence. So ultimately, the judge does have the ability to do that.

So G, when I read G, it says, after considering the totality of the evidence presented, the court shall vacate the conviction and the arrest and issue an order if it finds both of the following. That is, that's mandatory, I think, unless you've changed it in the amendments.

I'm not. Do you?

I think it's sort of a semantics. The judge has discretion under the judge's judicial review of the situation, they would have discretion to determine whether the person was trafficked and whether that crime was a result of there being trafficked. So it's not tying their hands in that way.

But this law, just like many other, or several other vacatur laws, penal code Section 1016.5 and 1473.7, say that once you have met this very high standard that the law requires, the judge can't, for reasons outside of the statute, decide to deny you that relief when you have complied with all the requirements of the law, is what I believe with the question you were asking.

Yeah, I'm not going to go back and forth on this. I mean, I support the Bill. I think it's good that it's expanding the victims that it's applicable to. I think it's good that it's expanding the, you know, the violations that are subject to it. I think all of those really move in the right direction and provide much greater relief to victims. I still do.

I think I'm nervous about the discretion of the judge, given that language in G and the removal of the best interest of the serving the best interests of justice, and just would ask you to think about that more. So thank you.

Thank you. Assemblymember Reyes.

My colleagues have shared the concerns that I have also. I think that as it is written, it does take away the discretion, judicial discretion. But I'm hearing you say that that is not the intent. So I think that your language, as you're sharing with us, may be different from the way it is written. So I think making sure that it is written the way you do intend it to be. I want to thank you, Miss Nelson, for coming and sharing.

You say maybe it is a blessing that you don't have a job. We all look at the best side of things, right? But the fact that you continue to be victimized today is not okay. I appreciate the fact that Assemblymember Bonta has presented this Bill to try to correct that. It is important that we figure out ways to correct it. But that discretion taken away from the judge, I think is a very issue of concern. I will support the Bill, as my colleagues have stated also.

But that particular part, I think your intent, as you're stating here, may be different than the way it's written. Thank you.

Thank you. We have a motion. Do we have a second? Yes.

Further questions or comments from Committee Members? Seeing none, you may close.

Thank you. I just want to note that Georgia, Louisiana, Nebraska, New York, Wyoming allow for vacatur no exclusions based on offense, thus treating all survivors equally. Georgia, a far more conservative state than ours, passed in 2020, provides vacatur relief for all crimes, with no exception for human trafficking survivors. This Bill was signed by a Republican Governor. The lead author and co authors are also Republican.

In Wyoming, similarly led by Republican authors, Wyoming passed a Bill with bipartisan support that broadly declares that a victim should not be criminally liable for acts that occurred during their trafficking. Nebraska as well. California would actually be joining a list of very conservative states in providing the opportunity for a petition to be granted for vacatur. I believe that the judicial discretion is squarely in place because the judge can still hear and requires clear and convincing evidence to ensure that this vacatur is granted should it be.

I appreciate my colleagues concerns and will certainly make sure that the drafting of the language in 236.14 G ensures and clarifies that absolutely. This Bill is very important to me, my community, and to all survivors because it provides necessary relief. That's why we have an amazing coalition of co sponsors and supporters of this Bill from across the state. I ask you to listen to them today and urge you to vote aye on this critical piece of legislation.

Thank you. Please call the roll.

On AB 2354 by Assemblymember Bonta. The motion is do pass to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

That measure passes. Thank you.

Thank you. Next measure. Assembly Member Ta, item number two, AB 18576. Right? Let's do item number two first.

Thank you, Chair and Members of the Committee. So I'm going to speak on AB 1856 first. I'd like to thank the Committee staff for their work on the analysis and for working with my office. And I also thank my I want to thank my joint author, Assemblyman Evan Low, for his leadership and collaboration on this legislation. AB 1856 would make a misdemeanor for person to knowingly distribute artificially generate sexual image and video of an identifiable person without that person can sense.

Artificial intelligence programming or AI is a useful tool in the right circumstance. However, it can also be used to create deepfake computer generated image and video of people that appear genuine. Deepfake technology has become more widely accessible in recent years and can be used to quickly create fake digital content that is realistic, that is difficult to tell if it is real or not. Pornographic images of an innocent person are on the Internet permanently and can destroy a victim's life.

It is virtually impossible to prove that the images are not real. Opposition to this Bill will state that this view may be unconstitutional. I will say that the First Amendment does not protect someone for destroying other person's reputation and well-being. Another argument that the opposition is making is that unnecessary as existing law allow for civil lawsuit to be filed. I disagree with that. Existing law does allow individuals to take civil lawsuit.

However, that action is not accessible to most people, particularly low-income people who don't have the large resources required to file a civil lawsuit. And with a new innovative technology, artificial intelligence can improve people's lives. However, this fact makes it possible to fabricate harmful pornographic digital media without consent. It posed a serious threat to the health, prefrontal and financial, and mental stability to target individuals.

New York passed a similar law last year, but I believe that California should be the forefront of this issue and Ivy Fitzpatrick with California District Attorney Association will be my witness.

Good morning honorable Chair and Members. My name is Ivy Fitzpatrick. I'm Managing Deputy DA in Riverside County and also a Member of the California DA's Association. I'm testifying in support of this legislation. As this Committee is aware, AI, or artificial intelligence, has really proliferated in recent years and it is certainly a useful tool, but it has the potential, as we're seeing, for negative applications and the law, and all of us are sort of catching up to this unfortunate reality.

Specifically, AI in this context, can be used to create what are called deepfake, computer-generated images and videos of people that appear absolutely genuine. These images can be created very cheaply, very quickly, and with the use of the Internet, unfortunately, proliferated and distributed nearly instantaneously. Indeed, there's recently an increasing online trend of posting pornographic photos and videos of innocent people without their knowledge or consent, we can all imagine the long-term consequences of those actions.

The images are so realistic, it's nearly impossible for the person depicted to prove that it's not them. And the images are proliferated so quickly and so widely online that it can literally, the distribution of them online could literally ruin a person's life and their reputation. It can ruin their financial well-being, and certainly, it can very much impact their mental health, causing lasting trauma and distress. As we all know, when something is out there on the Internet, it is very hard to have it removed.

Often these victims are young people and with their lives fully ahead of them. So the law already appropriately criminalizes revenge porn, as this Committee is aware. But there is a gap for AI-generated porn, which is equally destructive to a victim's life. Also, this Committee is where, as the silly Montau mentioned, that in AB 602, in 2019, the law created a civil cause of action for the creation and distribution of unauthorized AI images.

But the problem is, not all victims have the means or knowledge to go file a civil case against someone. Legislation has certainly taken steps in the right direction in this area in revenge porn, but more must be done to protect victims and recognize this AI technology and to hopefully deter this behavior. And I thank Assembly Members Ta and Low for authoring the important Bill. As Assemblyman Ta mentioned, it would make it a misdemeanor for a person to knowingly distribute without the depicted individual's consent.

AI-generated sexual images that appear authentic to a reasonable observer. While the creation of the images is disturbing in and of itself, it's important to note that this Bill only criminalizes the distribution, the act which causes the greatest, excuse me, and lasting harm to victims. And that kind of distribution is not protected by the First Amendment. Respectfully, on behalf of the California DAs Association and the Riverside County District Attorney, Mike Hestren, I ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Moving to me too comments. Name, organization, and position.

Madam Chair and Members. Randy Perry, on behalf of PORAC, in support.

Are there any others?

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

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

Ray Grangoff, on behalf of the Orange County Sheriff's Department, in support.

Thank you. Now, moving on to are there primary witnesses in opposition? Are there any? All right, you have five minutes between the two of you at your convenience. Thank you.

Good morning. While we appreciate the potential harms that can be caused by deepfake technology. We do have concerns and fears that this improperly restricts lawful speech and raises several First Amendment concerns. The constitutional requirements that are most relevant here are that even false speech against a public figure, such as a politician, cannot be prohibited unless the plaintiff can show by clear and convincing evidence that the speaker acted without actual malice.

Under the Bill is currently written, someone who distributes a deepfake depiction of a politician who distributed the deepfake but believed it was authentic would be subject to criminal penalties. Lastly, we fear that AB 1856 will result in further criminalization of our youth, particularly youth of color, who engage in the prescribed behavior. A recent study found that 73% of teenagers 17 or older had been exposed to online pornography. Young people access pornography in a variety of ways, including by sharing it with one another through social media.

Under AB 1856, a young person could be convicted of a crime and sentenced to jail if they share deepfake pornography with a peer under the circumstances outlined in this Bill. While this conduct may be very well, maybe inappropriate and sometimes harmful, sending young people to jail appears overly punitive and counterproductive to the the goals. Thank you.

Good morning again. Margo George, on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association. AB 1856 is not necessary. It's not narrowly tailored, and it does not address a compelling government interest. There already exists a civil cause of action to address this issue of deep fake sexual activity. It was enacted in 2019, merely four years ago. There's been no evidence, newspaper articles, or anything presented to show that it's not adequately addressing this issue. Criminal statutes are not the answer to every problem.

As Mister Coney said, it's not narrowly tailored to address the issue of maliciousness. And most important, it runs afoul of the First Amendment and would be found unconstitutional because it singles out a particular category of speech, deepfakes. And then, because of its context, content bans it or in this case, criminalizes it. And as embarrassing or hurtful, or as sexual activity being posted on the Internet may be, courts have allowed this, this kind of ban only when there is a compelling government interest or reason.

For example, courts have found that prohibiting or banning child pornography meets that standard because there's a legitimate government interest in safeguarding the physical and psychological well-being of minors. Courts have not accorded government attempts to ban depictions of sexual activity of adults the same level of deference. For those reasons, we respectfully ask for your no vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else in opposition, please come up. State your name, group, and opposition.

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

Thank you. Anyone else? Hearing none. We'll bring it back to Committee. Committee, any questions? Miss Reyes.

Seems like just last week we saw, we heard a similar bill from Assembly Member Berman, and he had a young woman who had been the victim of this artificial intelligence. We supported that Bill last week. I will support your Bill today, but I reserve the right to, if it's duplicative of what we're already seeing, come through, there really is no need. So you may want to talk to Assembly Member Berman about his Bill also.

I really appreciate that.

Thank you, Mister Zbur.

Oh, so thank you for bringing the Bill. I actually do think there is a need for a Bill like this. But I do have concerns that were raised in the ACLU letter. I looked at this carefully. I do think that it runs afoul of the Constitution because I don't think that with respect to public figures, that it meets the standards.

So, and I think it would chill, you know, someone who does not know that the AI depictions are fake and actually uses that against a public figure in the context of issues that are, that that public figure is making decisions on. It doesn't sort of meet the standards that have actually been prescribed by the court in that. So I'm hoping I'm going to support the Bill today as well, because I think the underlying issue is something that we need to deal with.

I think when these AI is progressing rapidly, I think we have to get ahead of it. I think it's consistent with what we've done with revenge porn. And I think, but I think when you get to the area of public officials case law out there. I agree with the ACLU that it doesn't meet constitutional standards, and I hope you will work with them to work on revising the Bill.

Assembly Member Wilson.

Thank you. Will be supporting the Bill today and just echoing some of the remarks from my colleagues and adding in the comments around underage distribution and making sure we're not targeting or criminalizing our youth and maybe having different types of. Because they shouldn't be doing it either. Right?

And we want people to be held accountable for their actions and so maybe considering something more. If they're underage, it's probation or not actual jail time. So. But thank you.

Thank you.

I'll move the Bill.

Thank you, Assembly Member. We have a motion and a second. Assembly Member Alanis.

Thank you, Mister Chair. As one of my colleagues had already mentioned, yes, we had a brave young lady that came forward and did talk about a crime that we probably wouldn't have thought about being a thing when we were growing up. And so I'm very happy that we are trying to get ahead of this and work on policy now before it gets really out of control. So with that, I will second. Thank you.

Yes.

We have a motion and a second. And a second. Seeing no more questions. Would you like to close, Mister Ta.?

I really want to thank you for your support and I understand your concerns. My office, we continue to work with an organization who had concerns and I humbly ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Please call the roll.

On AB 1856 by Assembly Member Ta. The motion is do pass to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll call]

Thank you. That measure passes. Next measure. Assembly Member Davies. Oh to second bill, Mister Ta.

Oh, thank you, Chair and Member of the Committee, AB 2547 will ensure that homeless people who are tried by collaborative court will receive the proper care they need to start a new life. As you know, we have a huge homeless rise in California. Millions of people on the street without their basic needs. And one of these basic needs is mental health services. According to studies done by National Alliance of Mental Illness, more than two-third of homeless people in California have a prevalent mental health disorder, while only a third of those have received any mental health treatment.

Only 6% have access to any addiction recovery treatment even though the majority of homeless people struggle with addiction. Under current law, the state use collaborative court to ensure that homeless people get the right mental health services they need to start a new chapter in life. These collaborative court are designed not to incarcerate people, but to help them get the mental health services they need.

These court aim to address the root of their problem and direct them to proper treatment. Individual who go through this court are statistically less likely to re-offend. However, current law said that if a collaborative court finds that a person is not mentally well enough to stand trial, the court can dismiss all charges and just throw the person back out on the street without any proper care. This is done not for due process reason, but because it is not easy to help them.

Without the proper services that collaborative court can provide, these people have no means of recovering and start a new life. I see this not only as human rights problem, but as our duty to help them. AB 2547 would strike out that option to throw homeless people out and would require the collaborative court to do the job and help homeless people get the care they need. These are the people who need help and we can give it to them.

This Bill will allow a party to the proceeding to request a re-evaluation of the defendant. Combatant AB 2547 would reduce civilism as homeless people have a higher chance of re-offending. Helping homeless people is more cost-effective than throwing them back out on the street, where they will likely re-offend and will eventually be in casserole. Thank you so much for your time and consideration.

My honor to introduce Alison Roach from District Attorney Office and Tammy from E Plus R Project their expertise on this issue will shed some more light on why this Bill is more important.

Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Allison Roach. I'm a deputy district attorney in Riverside County, and I handle all of the incompetent to stand trial diversion cases, as well as our military treatment court in Riverside County. Anyone working in my field knows that homelessness and severe mental illness are connected, and certainly, homelessness, severe mental illness, and the criminal justice system are inextricably linked.

And we also all know that such a small percentage of our homeless population is taking advantage of the mental health and substance abuse treatment that is available to them and that they are entitled to. And in the courts, when an incompetent individual, because of mental illness is charged with a misdemeanor, things like domestic violence, vandalism, driving under the influence, our courts are dismissing those cases under Penal Code Section 1370.

They're dismissed without mental health treatment, dismissed without medication management, substance abuse treatment, or any of the tools to establish long-term psychiatric stabilization, which should be the goal of all collaborative courts. Does that seem compassionate, to release these homeless and incompetent individuals to the streets without the tools to manage their severe mental illness? They most certainly are going to be victimized or commit a new crime that's going to land them right back in the system where they came.

It's not fair to the victims and the communities. No one benefits from these dismissals. We have to stop making the legal outcome the priority of these statutes and making the person the priority of these statutes. Our collaborative courts are equipped with many tools to handle and help these individuals who are incompetent and inflicted with such severe mental illness. We have homeless courts, care courts, drug treatment courts.

That is the solution we need to help these individuals so that we stop the revolving door of the criminal justice system and protect our communities. Thank you for listening.

Thank you.

Hello. My name is Tammy, and I'm with the Empower and Resilience Project. I'm here today to talk about an important role that the criminal justice system plays, or should play when it comes to the well-being of those who suffer from mental health issues and substance use disorders and cannot speak for themselves. My situation is a bit different, but does parallel the intent of this Bill. My son suffers from a substance use disorder.

He was clean for almost two and a half years because he was held accountable. In September of 2021, he relapsed and quickly found fentanyl. This was a game-changer. For the first time in his life, he cut off all contact with friends, family, and loved ones and made his way to San Francisco to live homeless due to the easy access to to fentanyl, the open drug market, and zero consequences of the criminal justice system.

I was forced to file missing persons reports every four to six weeks just to know if he was still alive. I quickly learned that I was able to track him within the criminal court system online in multiple counties due to the number of times he was cited and released. He had multiple charges for drug possession, paraphernalia, and petit theft.

He had over 30 citing releases that I know of and over 20 failures to appear. He never once appeared in court on his own. In the end, all resulted in zero consequences and zero services for his drug addiction. He was simply let go. With time served for the couple days he would spend in jail, he had no reason to stop. I received paperwork in the mail for at least six overdoses where he was taken to the hospital and brought back to life. Sorry.

He still couldn't stop on his own. Fast forward to November 22023 where he was caught stealing a little over $1,000 from Target, which was now considered a felony. He was ultimately sentenced to state prison, where I was told he would be evaluated at a reception center and sent to a prison that could help provide him with services he so desperately needed.

I had hoped he was transferred to Avanal state prison a few months ago, where he currently sits on a waitlist to receive drug treatment. He still received no services. The system has once again failed. This could have all been prevented had the criminal justice system stepped in while he was committing misdemeanors for the previous two years, held him accountable, and offered him treatment and services in lieu of jail time rather than doing nothing.

We need to do better and help those who suffer from mental health issues and substance use disorders. The issues and challenges are very similar.

Thank you. Others in support? Seeing no others in support. Opposition? Let's come forward. Can you scoot over one seat? Thank you. Thank you. You have five minutes.

Margo George for the California Public Defenders Association, in respectful opposition, I want to say that I'm sorry about your son. I don't think that he would have fit under the parameters of this Bill. This Bill applies only to people who are so mentally ill that they're incompetent to stand trial, which is very high standard. I do want to address what is happening, though.

As recently as 2022, the United States Department of Justice found that LA County was imprisoning an average of 5,700 people a day, mainly people of color with mental illness. Their conditions were horrific. And these are people, many of them, who were incompetent to stand trial. They were allowed out of their cells a few hours a day, where they were shackled to tables. They were wearing gowns that were tear-proof so they would not commit suicide. Some of them smeared feces on the walls of their cells.

People were screaming, pacing back and forth. Their cells were overflowing with garbage. Most of these people, 5,700 people a day, were not getting any kind of mental health treatment in the jail. A 2020 report by the well-respected RAND Corporation found that more than 60% of these individuals could be diverted from county jail. And that's what misdemeanor mental health diversion for IST sought to do. And it's a process where if someone is incompetent to stand trial, they meet that heavy, that high standard.

Then the judge can divert them into mental health diversion. If they don't qualify for that, then there's assisted outpatient treatment. Laura's Law that this Legislature passed. And then most recently, there's care court, which is just being implemented in LA County and most of the state now. So the courts are not abandoning people. They're not sending people willy-nilly out onto the streets to re-offend or to be without treatment. That is only the last resort.

And again, this is just low-level offenses and people who are mentally incompetent to stand trial. I want to say that this Bill, AB 2547 is an attempt to keep people in the jails. In Riverside County, they are waiting misdemeanors six to seven months before they can find mental health treatment beds. We respectfully ask for your no vote.

Thank you. You have bout a minute and a half.

Sorry.

Good morning. My name is Roberto Evangelist. I'm a deputy public defender in San Francisco County. I've been a public defendant for 23 years and I've had the privilege and burden of the last, the heavy burden, in the last five years of working in the mental health unit, specifically with LPS conservatorships, care court, assisted outpatient treatment, and mental health diversion. This proposed legislation presumes that the thousands of prosecutors, public defenders, and judges are not doing their job.

When we get initial reports of incompetent reports indicating the person is incompetent to stand trial, reports are comprehensives. The very few psychologists, psychiatrists who are on panels to conduct these evaluations are instructed to consider whether clients would benefit from other programs. This legislation doesn't provide any safeguards to do a redo over. It presumes that the initial report was sometimes was flawed.

It presumes that somehow something happened between the time the court received a report in order a referral to a program or found that they were not suitable, that something happened. There's no justification. The Bill has no studies or any evidence that would indicate that there would be any different results. What does this cost? It's going to cost us a lot of money. It's going to cost us money holding people in jail. It's going to cost us money in appointing new experts to do revaluations.

It's going to add additional costs in litigation. This Bill is flawed and I would encourage you to reject it and instead focus on services and providing things that actually help.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Gave you the extra minute. Thank you. Others in opposition, please come forward.

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

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

Duke Cooney with ACLU in opposition. Thank you.

Ashley Chambers with the Ella Baker Center in opposition.

Juan Flores, with the Ella Baker Center, opposition.

Michelle Maxwell, Underground Scholars Initiative at UC Berkeley. In opposition.

Thank you. See no other opposition. Questions or comments from Committee Members? Assembly Member Wilson.

Thank you to the author. Definitely understand your intent, and I don't believe I'm there yet in supporting, but I had a few follow-up questions. So as I understand it, this Bill would require them to hold a hearing, not just dismiss. So they would have to hold a hearing, but then it would take away their right to, at the end of that hearing, still dismiss.

Yeah, I like to respond. So basically, the intent of the Bill that we had the option for the court to provide the mental health treatment for homeless, a person who is mentally incompetent, to stand for any trial. So I think that we understand the homeless crisis is now one of the major concerns for everyone who lives in California.

Yeah. But I think it's broader than homeless. I think it's anyone with the mental health issue and their ability to, if they are so, I don't know what the right word is, but basically they met that standard of being incompetent to stand trial, which is pretty huge standard in saying that that person definitely needs support. Then what are the avenues of support? And then we do have a right to due process and so being able to, even if you require.

So I think I was fine with maybe if it was just a requirement that there was an actual proceeding versus automatic dismiss, but then you take away that right to dismiss if need be. And I'm sensitive to this. I recently went to a retail center on this past Thursday to do a tour and to see the impacts of retail theft.

But what was really interesting is in conversations with the managers and employees, although there is an issue of retail theft, there was a greater issue of threats and harassment from people who were mentally ill, who weren't, who didn't subsequently steal something, but maybe through something or was just, you know, harassing and committing what could be considered misdemeanor offenses. But even if they were arrested, which there was an issue of police response, they would be back later that day or the next day.

So I am really looking for vehicles to be able to address that issue that people are experiencing, that people are afraid to go to grocery, to retails for that. But I don't know if this is the way, I think this might be too hard of a hammer, so to speak. And I think there might be a lighter opportunity of you can't just dismiss without doing that extra, very public step of, or very open step of making sure you've exhausted all the remedies.

And then if you've exhausted all the remedies and they're not eligible, then dismissing, because there is this due process thing, which is fundamental to our involvement in the criminal justice system. And so I think the hammer might be too heavy, but I get where you're trying to go, and so I'm gonna hold off today, but if you get there, I might be there with you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Well, and if I may add the.

I don't think she had a question for you. Assembly Member Zbur.

Thank you for bringing the Bill. I think I share a lot of the concerns that my colleague here has. You know, in particular, this issue of not being able to dismiss at all. When I look at what the Bill does, it requires the court, if a person is found ineligible for diversion, to determine whether one of these four things are available. And so order modification of a treatment plan, refer to defendant to outpatient treatment, refer defendant to conservative proceedings, and refer the defendant or to the care program.

I wanted to ask Miss George or the other witness, are one of those options always available in a short period of time?

I think that my colleague who's actually in the trenches, is better able to answer that.

So I can speak for San Francisco County and a little bit for Placer County. So when we get the evaluation from the alienist, they will always make a recommendation as to whether programs a client or inmate may be eligible for, and the court decides whether to refer them to those programs or not. We do have a hearing. We hear, we have a report. There's a prosecutor there to advocate for or against a referral to a program.

But if someone. But if there isn't a program, that is, if none of those options are available. I mean, what I have concerns about is if none of those options are available, then the defendant is sort of in a. You know, what happens? Are they just held in prison without a trial for a long period of time?

Yes, that's what happens frequently in San Francisco and other counties. They linger in custody waiting for some program to appear, or some judges will hold clients in custody until they're maxed out, where they've charged a full sentence, and only then will they release them and dismiss the charges. There's not an overflow of judges dismissing misdemeanor charges when the clients are filing a comment to stand trial. That doesn't really happen.

Yeah, I mean, I sort of share the concerns of my colleague that sort of taking away the ability for the judge to have the discretion for the dismissal, especially in cases. I think what's good about the Bill is requiring that the judge consider all of these things. If diversion is to try to get people into something that will help them.

But if there's nothing available, and I think that's true in many parts of the state, then taking away the ability to dismiss compliance completely, to me, just seems like it's too far. So I don't think I'm going to be able to support this today, but encourage you to think about whether or not this could be tightened up. So thank you.

May I just say one thing? I think that the care court is only now being implemented statewide, so there will be more treatment opportunities. But again, if there's nothing for someone, you can't just hold them because they're mentally ill.

Okay anything further? All right. For the DA, if you could also, I know you wanted to answer your question. I'll let you get to that. And then I have a question for you.

Thank you. I think we need to draw a distinction. A lot of the questions I'm hearing address kind of our felony level, incompetent people, at least in Riverside County, our misdemeanors, the large majority, are not in custody at all pending this assessment of incompetence. Our felonies certainly are. There are no bail, suspended proceedings there in custody. So I think it's important we see that distinction. Of course, there's always the commitment clock we're working against, right? A two-year felony clock for restoration of competency.

One year's for a misdemeanor. If we don't achieve competency in that period of time, of course, the court is left in that decision whether or not to dismiss that case. But practically, at least in Riverside County, what's happening is the misdemeanors, those who have misdemeanors, who aren't attached to a felony case, they are being dismissed.

Leaving on the table the vast variety of resources we have at our disposal that might be able to make a difference for them and returning these incompetent people with no effort to restore their competency and treat them, returning them right back to the streets where they came from.

Thank you for explaining that. Any further questions? Okay, I'll just end with the author. Thank you for bringing this. Oh, Mister Ting has a question.

Just going back to the District Attorney. So then you mentioned these misdemeanor cases get dismissed. Is it because the judges, is it because of lack of services in the county and the judges don't have a place to send, I mean, what, I mean, you could tell the judges to consider these services, but why do you think they're getting dismissed right now?

The Department of State hospitals has a long waitlist. It's getting much better, exponentially better. But that's part of it is as the person charged with a misdemeanor is on the wait list if they're not placed in that period of time. I think that the courts do take too much time making the referrals for investigating whether or not these services could benefit them. That should be the first priority in my opinion.

But that the clock for commitment, the one year, is what we're up against, and that's what causes the court to have to make that decision in the back end to dismiss the case.

A point of clarification, but I'm still. I'm so sorry. Go ahead.

Yeah, it's not, you get to call when you get to speak, when you're called on. So this is how we do things in the Committee, right? My recollection. But just going back to the District Attorney. So again, if the waitlist is long and let's say the Bill is in effect, how would the Bill change what happens? Wouldn't they just be held longer in jail?

The code section, as it currently is constructed, does not lay a roadmap for you must do ABCDE first, right?

Yeah.

The court could, as it's currently constructed, jump straight to the dismissal.

Yeah.

And that often is how it's happening as a boots-on-the-ground practitioner, because of lack of resources, of course.

And I think you're not hearing any opposition from the Committee to say, hey, you should go through and consider these four or five things. I think we all feel very supportive. I think the question is why are you taking that authority of the dismissal away?

Well, I think if it would assuage the Committee's concerns, ensuring that the judiciary actually goes through the litany of choices before they even consider dumping a criminal case is what needs to happen, certainly.

Yeah. I mean, at least for me, I wouldn't have opposition with that. I would be curious as to what the opposition would think about that.

So I believe that the prosecutor is mixing up misdemeanors and felonies. Misdemeanors do not get sent to the Department of State Hospitals. There's no provision for them to do that. They're not on the wait list. This Bill is only applied to misdemeanors.

Understood. Yeah.

ISTs.

So what happens to misdemeanors then?

I believe my colleague from San Francisco Public Defender's Office can tell you clearly.

So in San Francisco, the courts can do appoint an alienist, to do both, everything at once, determine whether incompetent and whether they qualify for any of these alternative programs. And like as mentioned earlier, when do we do make those referrals? Sometimes we can't place the clients because there's no facilities to take them.

There's a lack of services there.

Yes sir. Yes. So they linger in jail in San Francisco until they're maxed out and then they dismissal sometimes, not always.

Well, I think the Bill, you know, one of my concerns with the Bill is there is this assumption that somehow there are all these empty service slots and they just aren't being filled.

That's incorrect.

For us. And I'm sorry, ma'am, to hear about your son's situation in San Francisco and that, but it's sort of like the fact that, you know, we have an issue. We only have so many slots available. We only have so many services available. So that's one of the challenges, right?

It's like this again, I don't, I wouldn't have an issue of saying hey judge, please consider all these things. But even if they look at all these things and it's like full, full, full, full, it's one of the challenges that we face. It's not that we have these empty slots and no one's filling them up. That's my understanding for our city in San Francisco.

Very true.

Okay. I think at this point I think this, it's clear this Bill still needs some work. I think I personally really appreciate this thought process and really trying to make sure that any judge is really looking at a variety of treatment options first. I think I completely support that. I think the way the Bill has constructed today, I don't know that I could support that right now. But really do appreciate the author for, you know, taking a shot.

And I think calling attention to this issue, I think it's, I think you're definitely on the right track.

Thank you. Mister Ting. Any others from Committee? Okay, again, thank you for bringing this Bill forward to us. I'm going to be moving the Bill and it looks obviously like our colleagues are almost there with you, but we'll get some work and I need a second. Hearing a second. You ready to close?

Oh, I humbly ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Please take the roll.

On AB 2547 by Assembly Member Ta. The motion is do pass to the Appropriations Committee. [Rol call] That measure's on call.

That measure is going to be on call. If need be, would you be requesting a reconsideration?

Yes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We'll make note of that.

Next, we have item number 11, AB 2308. Miss Davies.

Move the bill.

Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chair, Mr. Vice Chair. Members, today I'm here to present AB 2308. I first want to thank committee staff for working with my staff and stakeholders on this measure. I will be accepting the proposed committee amendments. Under current law, victims of domestic violence and other sexual offenses can petition a court for a protective order form from their abuser. These orders usually last around 10 years.

However, data showed that unfortunately, during and after the pandemic, there has been a rise in domestic violence cases. According to the Harvard Gazette, domestic violence cases in 2021 and 2022 rose between 25 and 33%, depending on the severity of the case. Members, AB 2308 is a common-sense and narrow measure to increase the time amount of a protective from 10 to 15 years in the case of a worse type of domestic violence crime, the one that involves corporal injury and leaves the victim in a traumatic condition

These are victims that are physically beaten so severely they require immediate medical attention, oftentimes require stays in the hospital. While an additional five years may not seem like a lot, this is a of valuable time a victim could use to recover from their trauma, as well as raise their children away from a partner or spouse who posed an immediate threat to them.

The bill is sponsored by the Conference of California Bar Association and has support from major law enforcement groups, as well as the California partnership to end domestic violence. With me here to testify and answer any questions is Michael Fern from CCBA. On behalf of the victims who cannot be here today, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Michael, you have five minutes.

Thank you. Good morning. My name is Michael Fern and I am here on behalf of the Conference of California Bar Associations. AB 2308 will help address the disconnect between the domestic violence restraining order issued by a family court, which can be for a permanent duration, versus a restraining order issued by a criminal court following domestic violence conviction pursuant to Penal Code Section 273.5, which is capped under current law at no more than 10 years and cannot be renewed regardless of the facts.

Unlike family court, criminal courts afford defendants significantly greater due process protections. They have the right to counsel, the right to trial by jury that must reach a unanimous verdict. They have the right against self crimination, and the right to have the charge of domestic violence proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

These rights don't exist for civil defendants and family courts where a defendant who cannot afford an attorney must represent themselves can be required by the court to testify and have no right to jury trial, and where the facts are decided by the court based on a preponderance of the evidence. But for domestic violence survivors who participate. In a criminal case all the way through conviction, whose factual circumstances warrant a restraining order that will not simply lapse in 10 years, these survivors must file a separate civil action against the defendant, suing them and serving them on their own.

This imposes unnecessary costs, burdens, and risks for everyone. As amended, AB 2308 would allow a criminal court to issue a domestic violence restraining order that can last up to 15 years instead of 10 years when a court finds that a longer duration is warranted by the factual circumstances. While this does not fully resolve the discrepancy between civil courts and criminal courts and the issuance of restraining orders, it is a significant step forward that will save judicial resources, provide for greater peace of mind, and improve public safety outcomes.

And I'd like to address three specific points about restraining orders. First, what does it take for there to be a violation? Under the law as described under CALCRIM 2701, the criminal instruction for violations of restraining orders, the restrained person must have actual knowledge of the order, must engage in the prohibited action, and must do so willingly or intentionally. The defendant's knowledge and state of mind at the time of the act must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and an act that is neither intentional nor willful violation of an order is not a crime.

Second, can restraining orders, including permanent ones, be changed after they're issued? The answer is yes. The issuing court can always shorten an order's duration, modify its conditions, and even terminate the order on its own motion or at the request of a party based on changed circumstances.

For example, California Rule of Court 5.445 calls for family courts and criminal courts to communicate whenever there are overlapping domestic violence and/or child custody orders to ensure that they do not conflict and to make modifications as needed. And then, third, does the duration of a domestic violence restraining order actually make a difference to public safety?

The answer is yes. While each individual case is unique, studies have shown that there is a positive correlation between the duration of the order and survivor safety. In this regard, I would refer the committee to the expertise and scholarship of Professor Jane Stoever, who serves as the director of the domestic violence clinic at UC Irvine School of Law.

In her law review article entitled 'Enjoining the Case for Indefinite Domestic Violence Protection Orders,' Professor Stoever noted the following. 'The social scientists have found that lengthier orders produce more substantial safety outcomes. Multiple studies have now found a correlation between the duration of the protection order and the survivor safety, which researchers have described as a dose-response relationship according to the duration of the civil protection order.

Maintaining the court's protection over time, therefore, is key to significantly increasing or sorry, significantly decreasing future violence and sustaining an end to all forms of abuse.' Because AB 2308, as amended, will save judicial resources, provide for greater peace of mind, and improve public safety outcomes, we urge your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else in support, please step up. Name an organization.

Mr. Chair and members, Cory Salzillao, on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association, support.

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

Good morning. Ray Grangoff, in support of the bill, on behalf of the Orange County Sheriff's Department, thanks.

Ivy Fitzpatrick, California DA's Association, Riverside County District Attorney, in support.

Thank you. Anyone else in support? All right, seeing none opposition, please come to the table. Thank you. You'll have five minutes.

I'll be rather quick. My name is Kellie Walters. I'm a staff attorney with Legal Services for Prisoners with Children. I came here prepared to oppose this bill with remarks regarding the justice, rehabilitation, and proportionality concerns of any type of permanent protective order. However, it came to our attention this morning that the author has amended the bill to a 15-year protective order rather than a permanent, and we would like to take the opportunity to review the amendments.

Great. Thank you very much. Anyone else in opposition, please step up. Name and organization and your position.

Margo George. On behalf of the California Public Defenders Association, I want to thank the author and the committee for working and amending the bill. We're reviewing the amendments and may be able to withdraw our opposition. Thank you again.

Philippe Kelly with the Ella Baker Center in full opposition.

Duke Cooney with ACLU California Action, currently in opposition. Thank you.

Ashley Chambers with the Ella Baker Center in full opposition.

Marlene Mercado with Uncommon Law in opposition.

Juan Flores with Ella Baker Center in opposition.

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

Thank you. Seeing no others, I'll bring it to committee. Any questions or comments from the committee? All right, hearing none. No? Zbur.

So I have some concerns about the bill, but I am appreciative of the authors working with the opposition, and in order to allow that to continue, I'll go ahead and understanding that the chair is recommending an aye, I'll go ahead. And move the bill.

Thank you. Any further? All right, I let you just make some comments. As a prior domestic violence detective and for those out there who are survivors, I'm thankful for the author for bringing that to allow them a little more feeling safe out in the environment, at least another five years. So thank you for doing that and. I'll let you close.

Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

And I will second it. Please take roll.

[Roll Call]

That measures on call. We need two more.

Thank you.

Thank you. Miss Ortega, if you would.

Ms. Ortega, if you would not mind, Item number 25, AB 2959.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members for the opportunity to present AB 2959 before you all today. This Bill directly affects the lives of countless of families across our state. Currently, families visiting their loved ones in the CDCR facilities are confronted with extraordinarily high food prices. Additionally, visitors are limited in the amount of money they can bring into a facility. Families can only bring up to $70 per adult and $40 per child to buy snacks and food items.

While the amount of money a visitor can bring is regulated, the cost of food in these facilities is unregulated, which results in prices that are sometimes two to three times higher than what they would pay at a local store. Imagine the burden this places on families who often travel long distances just to spend precious amount of time with their loved ones. AB 2959 aims to rectify this.

It requires that food prices in prison vending machines align with the average market retail price in the community where the prison is located. This will significantly reduce the financial strain on these families. Visiting a loved one in prison can be distressing experience and the last thing families need to worry about is food insecurity, food quality and the prices. AB 2959 is a step towards fairness, affordability and dignity.

Today, with me in support is Lawrence Cox with the Regional Advocacy and Angel Rice, the Founder and Executive Director of Empowering Women Impacted by Incarceration.

Good morning. You two get five minutes together. Thank you.

Thank you. Humbled to be here Before you guys hearing this Bill. I should say my name is Lawrence Cox. I am the Regional Advocacy and Organizing Associate of LSPC. I'm also lead of coalition that's supporting this Bill. This Bill is a simple removal of barriers to what I feel is one of our most important tools for rehabilitation, which is visiting. I want to note that for sure, CDCR visiting rooms are the conduit to building and restoring family and community bonds.

So I believe therefore, that means that environment we create for visiting is just as valuable. That's why we felt it was important to ensure that the 6 hours a day that are spent creating uplifting moments, and for some that's difficult because when you're worried about the quality or whether you have enough money to feed yourself, your family, or your incarcerated loved one, it becomes a strain and a stress. This Bill seeks to reduce the amount and the rate that spoiled food is provided to visitors.

It seeks to encourage the addition of healthier choices and the price gouging that sometimes can be as high as anywhere from 300% to 500% markup. We agree that, of course, that not all vendors are bad actors, but for years, families have been subjected to a few bad actors, maybe more than we would like, and without any reprieve from CDCR or DOR.

We would like to note that we do have a main language that we are working on that addresses some of the vendors concerns and we also have been in communication with vendor representatives as well as CDCR, and remain committed to openly communicating with all stakeholders. Lastly, I would like to note I am system-impacted. I spent the last 17 years, the 18 years of my life incarcerated.

I believe that I am proof and product of rehabilitation and stand as a testament to what providing effective visiting programs will actually do. In the 14 months that I've been home, I've successfully discharged parole. I now coordinate all eight of our All of Us or None chapters throughout the State of California. I also coordinate and lead our CFU coalitions made up of over 30 other nonprofit orgs.

I say all that to point out rehabilitation is possible and we need to feel comfortable betting on creating an effective visiting environment and the results that it can produce. Thank you.

Thank you. Move to second. And you have two and half minutes.

Okay, thank you very much. Good morning, honorable Members of the Committee. Thank you for allowing me to speak today. My name is Angel Rice. I am a constituent of District 50 and also Co-founder of Empowering Women Impacted by Incarceration, which is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization dedicated to assisting families through the intricate paths of the criminal justice system by way of offering comprehensive support, resources, referrals and advocacy to families and their impacted loved ones towards their journey to rehabilitation.

I, along with my co-founder, have both been directly and indirectly impacted by incarceration. I am here asking for your support as I share with you the cost families, including myself, bear when supporting our incarcerated loved one. We carry the weight of restitution, canteen, quarterly packages, family visits, food sales, travel for visits, which includes flights, hotels and unfortunately, high-cost food items available for purchase through vending machines and through the vendor directly.

The average cost spent annually to support a loved one can range from $20,000 to $25,000 and often then creates financial strain. While unfortunately the cost isn't variable, we show up and we provide support. Since 2018, the need for quality, fresh food items and price reduction or markup capping in vending isn't a new request.

Our statewide Inmate Family Council and local family councils have brought these concerns to CDCR and, while in an attempt to resolve the issue, it was decided that families would be allowed to bring $70 per visiting adults and $40 per visiting child to purchase food items, which still isn't enough, and with the increase of allowable amount of funds to bring, we unfortunately were faced with an increased price in the food items. And again, we find ourselves having the same conversation.

It's not uncommon to see mothers or parents at tables who can only afford to buy food for their loved one and their children. In some instances, they may not be able to purchase any food at all. In addition to addressing pricing concerns, we urged significant improvements, particularly in food quality and safety monitoring. This comes after reports of families suffering from food poisoning, the sale of expired items in vending machines, and a lack of nutritious choices for individuals with dietary restrictions and/or allergies.

Both my husband and I face dietary challenges, mine due to allergies and diabetes, and his due to plant-based diet, leaving us with limited options. Typically, he will end up settling with a grilled cheese sandwich or cheese pizza if available, with candy, chips just to sustain us during a five hour visit, while I have a bottle of water and maybe a bag of chips because the food options are not available for me. This legislation is not just about food.

We are not asking to increase the amount of allowable funds to be brought in. It's about maintaining the dignity and respect for families, facilitating healing and support, which are fundamental to the reintegration process. Therefore, I urge for your support for AB 2959 to reduce the financial burden on families and support our loved ones to return to our communities. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support?

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

Taina Vargas, Initiate Justice Action in support.

Philippe Kelly with the Ella Baker Center in support.

Denise Aguilar, Freedom Angels in support.

Tara Thornton, Freedom Angels in support.

Kellie Walters, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, proud co-sponsor of this Bill.

Juan Flores with the Ella Baker Center in strong support.

Joanna Williams with LSPC in support.

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

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

Marlene Mercado on behalf of UnCommon Law, strong support.

Lena Den, Legal Services for Prisons with Children, All of Us or None, in strong support.

Robert Bowden, LSPC, All of Us or None, strong support.

Jennifer Penrose with Power in Unity Fellowship in strong support. And I also would like to read a list of organizations also in support: the Coalition for Family Unity; a New Way of Life Alliance for Boys and Men of Color; California Families Against Solitary Confinement; Empowering Women Impacted by Incarceration; Community Works; Changes; Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice; Jesse's Place Organization; Drop LWOP; East Bay Family Defenders; Felony Murder Elimination Project; Families United to End LWOP; Place for Grace; Prison from the Inside Out Incorporated; Sister Warriors; and Starting Over Incorporated. Thank you.

Irena Grimaldo, Empowering Women in strong support.

Antoinette Ratcliffe with Initiate Justice in strong support.

Abigail Salim, Empowering Women Impacted by Incarceration and two other organizations in support, the Change Parallel Project and Restoring Hope California. Thank you.

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

Ashley Chambers with the Ella Baker Center in strong support.

Su Kim with UnCommon Law in strong support.

Erin McCall with the Underground Scholars Initiative at UC Berkeley in support.

Michelle Maxwell with the Underground Scholars at UC Berkeley in strong support.

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

We have opposition to this Bill.

Hi. Hi. My name is Max Delorete. I'm a blind entrepreneur in the Randolph Sheppard Program. Randolph Sheppard Program is a, there's a Randolph-Sheppard Act that, that it provides a priority for the blind to run vending machines in state and federal locations. I've been the vendor at California Station for Men and California Station for Women for 22 years now. And I'm very proud of my business, and I love my customers as well. I started losing my eyesight at 21 years old, and it was very difficult.

It happened abruptly. In the time span of about a month, I couldn't drive or read, and it's still difficult. But at that time, I was. I was worried that I wouldn't have a job, a life, a wife. You know, like, what did I have to offer a family? But this program came, and it's been wonderful. My wife and I have been able to afford a home and provide a nurturing environment for our two children. You know, I've worked every weekend for the 22 years I've been there.

And every Christmas, New Year's, 4th of July, you know, I said goodbye to my children and I went to work to fill the vending machines. And I'm not mad about that. I'm proud of it. I taught my kids a really good work ethic. You know, I sell vegetarian items. My son's vegetarian. I sell fresh fruit. I sell salads, and. And I think I do a very good job. I'm proud of my business.

There may be a few bad apples out there that need to be worked with and worked on through the Department of Rehabilitation, and we are working on those folks through a lower level, on the permit level. Through contracts is where we should handle these things, and not through legislation. There are 33 state prisons. We're over 20 vendors, blind vendors out there, and we shouldn't all be persecuted for the acts of a couple.

I believe that through the permit level and with the collaboration of the vendors and the actual state, some other stakeholders that have not been quite at the table. The way this Bill is written, it's going to be devastating on a lot of blind vendors. In rural areas, it's already difficult enough to find workers. It's difficult to get clearances for workers. Sometimes it takes us an average of three months to get clearances for our employees to get in there.

And there are many other hardships for the blind vendors to get this job done. And unfortunately, the pandemic hit. For two years, visiting was closed down. There was no visiting. We still had our same expenses for warehouses, for trucks, for employees, for electricity at our warehouses. And we endured those for those two years. And when we came back, wow, inflation really hit all of us. And fruit that I used to sell for $2.25 is now costing me $2.15.

So I believe it was a shock that all my prices went up, but all the prices went up on all of us for everything we sell. If I remained at the prices I was at, I would have gone out of business in the first, you know, week. But unfortunately, we had to raise our prices. Raising our prices isn't fun. You know, I've stressed out many nights over it. You know, how am I going to explain this? What am I going to say?

And, you know, when I have to raise my prices, it's not to make more money, but it's to stay at the same rate we raise them when things go up on us. The Department of Rehabilitation oversees our program and we have business consultants that help us with overseeing the everyday business practices. And our food cost percentage is a part of that. We pay 6% of our profits back to the State of California to administer the program.

And so they scrutinize where that money is because it is off the profit and not the gross. So they have standards that are already set that should be adhered to and maybe a better line of communication is what's needed and not a law. Thank you.

Thank you. You have less than a minute left.

No problem. Jennifer Roe with Capital Advocacy. We represent the California Automatic Vendors Council. Max is a member, so just here to be with him and just let you all know that we are working with the author and the proponents of the Bill and appreciate the conversations that we've had thus far. We know that there's language forthcoming and further conversations to be had. So thank you.

Thank you. Others in opposition? Seeing none. We have a motion in a second. Questions or comments from Committee Members. Mister Alanis.

I want to thank the author of the Bill. Also want to congratulate your witness on his rehabilitation as well. Congratulations on that. Obviously, it's costly to families, both emotional and financially. And I unfortunately see that burden when unfortunate decisions are made and consequences unfortunately also have to be paid forward.

But it's also interesting to hear the other side as well, with your family as well. And I want to say that we all feel the pain with you as well. Obviously with inflation going statewide and it affecting all of us. So thank you. Thank you to the author for working with the opposition as well. I'll be in support of this. And thank you again.

Thank you. Would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Okay. Thank you. Please call the roll.

On AB 2959 by Assembly Member Ortega. The motion is do pass to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll call]

Your measure is on call. Next author is Assemblymember Dixon. Item number three, AB 1931. Good morning. Please proceed.

Good morning Mister chair and Members. Thank you for allowing me today to present Assembly Bill 1931. AB 1931, also known as Kayleigh's law, will allow a judge the discretion to issue a lifetime injunction against a defendant at the time of sentencing for a serious felony, a violent felony, or a felony sex offense. Current law allows for temporary restraining orders or protective orders in criminal court.

However, in civil court, a judge does have the discretion to allow a lifetime restraining order for domestic violence cases rather than filing a separate case in civil court, Kayleigh's law allows the protective order to be attached to the conviction. California's violent crime rate is up 13 and a half percent compared to pre COVID numbers in 2019. This number indicates potentially thousands of crime victims that continue to fear for their safety, if not under court protection.

This Bill is critical to ensure that we are protecting the vulnerable Member of our community from retaliation, continued violence, stalking, and harassment from their perpetrators. Under current law, survivors must repeatedly face their abusers over and over again in court proceedings to get basic protections. This creates unnecessary and repeated trauma for survivors. In a few moments, I will turn the microphone over to Kayleigh Kozak, for whom this Bill is named.

Kayleigh successfully passed this Bill, the same Bill, into law with bipartisan support in Arizona and Wisconsin in 2021, and is tirelessly working to protect victims across the nation. The policy is currently working through the legislative process in Missouri. In addition to being introduced here in California. In the year following passage of Kaley's law in Arizona, over 1000 victims received lifetime protections from their perpetrators.

My primary witness today is Kayleigh Kozak, for whom the Bill is named after she will be filed by Christy Von Waldberg, a resident of Orange County who connected Kayleigh and me over a year ago. Kayleigh.

Yeah. Five minutes amongst your panel here.

Good morning, Members. Thank you for the opportunity to be here, and thank you to Assemblywoman Dixon for sponsoring this Bill. I am Kayleigh Kozak. I am a survivor of childhood sexual abuse and the namesake behind Kayleigh's law, a complete bipartisan initiative that has gained nationwide support and recognition. This law has been successfully enacted with the backing of both Democrat and Republican leaders. Please do not let California be the first state in the nation to deny victims this lifetime protection.

Are you aware that in 2023, California ranked as the number one state for reported rapes? There were 18,116 reported rapes. Rape is the least common of the sexual offenses. Can you imagine how many other sexual crimes were committed? There is no conflict between protecting victims and pursuing criminal justice reform. It is possible to achieve both goals simultaneously by providing flexibility within the criminal justice system to uphold victim rights while addressing the need for reform.

Implementing a law that only prevents convicted perpetrators from contacting their victim is not cruel and unusual punishment. However, denying victims protection from the protection that they deserve and only serves to revictimize them, that is, cruelty that cannot be ignored. The current law only allowing an order of protection for up to 10 years only prolongs a victim's suffering, and expanding an additional five years is not comforting.

Additionally, having to continually go through the process every 10 or 15 years is burdensome for every party involved, including the already overwhelmed courts. Extending the length of protection for victims is not a matter of constitutionality. It allows a judge's discretion at the time of sentencing. This also saves the state time and money. This approach considers the well being of victims, ensuring that they are shielded from further harm, and potentially offering other opportunities for reform for the perpetrator.

If you choose to vote against this Bill or abstain, please do not offer explanations or apologize to me. Instead, I hope that you can find it in your heart to apologize to every victim you're failing to protect in the State of California. It's not too late to vote yes in supporting victims and providing them this needed protection. Please pass this Bill through Committee and allow for a further discussion on the floor with your colleagues.

A vote against this Bill exposes where you stand and that protecting victims is not on your priority list. You'll be playing a direct role in laying the pavement for them to continually be re victimized and re traumatized, and you'll be remembered as the reason that California denies victims this essential protection. If you choose to deny victims this protection, victims will continually suffer as a consequence of your decisions today. If you can rest at night with that, then so be it. But know this, regardless of the outcome today, I will never stop fighting for victims and survivors because you still matter. Thank you.

Thank you. Next witness.

Okay, I'm gonna hold my sheet up because I read better that way. Hello, my name is Christy Von Wahlberg. I'm an OC resident. I'm a wife. I'm a mother. I'm a survivor of childhood sexual abuse. I know firsthand the impact physically, mentally, spiritually, emotionally, and financially that trauma takes on a person and their loved ones, and it still affects my family life. On March 29th, 2024 President Biden proclaimed April as national sexual assault and awareness and Prevention Month.

And I quote him, "Sexual violence affects every community in this nation, leaving millions of Americans, our neighbors, friends, colleagues, and loved ones scarred. For many survivors, healing can take years. And for some, the pain never heals completely. We recommit to standing with survivors, holding perpetrators accountable, and bringing an end to the culture that has allowed sexual assault to occur for far too long." In March of 2019, my identical twin sister and I faced our childhood sex abuser in court after over 35 years since he took our innocence at the age of seven.

Statute of limitations prevented us from seeking legal recourse. We did assist the prosecution, and he is currently serving 30 to 60 years in prison. Healing from my childhood trauma was not easy. Right now, I feel like the nine year old girl standing here, and when you are reading, looking at your cell phone, it makes me feel like you don't care. Mister Mccarty, excuse me. I met Kayleigh.

I'm actually using my personal pain for a voice for others. I met Kayleigh three years ago, and I knew immediately that California needed this law. It gives much needed and overdue support to victims, to the survivors, and adding a level of protection for their healing and justice. Like our President, we want to see an increase in legal advocacy for victims so that we can swing that pendulum back, balance the justice process indefinitely for the good of all of our communities.

Every 68 seconds, another American is sexually assaulted, and every eight minutes, that victim is a child. Are you a parent? This Bill supports victims and holds those who violently and heinously sexually abuse accountable. Not everyone has a strong support system when they report abuse. If these victims are brave enough to step into a courtroom, face their perpetrator, go through the legal process, let's offer them lifelong protection and safety so they can step into their own sovereign healing and then serve their communities.

We have a chance today to unify for good of all of California. I urge you to vote yes on AB 1931. Will I be able to share with the press, other victims and survival organizations that this Committee chose to stand with women, children and victims? Or will you choose criminals? Seems like an easy choice for me. Please vote yes. A vote yes means this Bill will give victims voices and they matter and they will deserve the full floor vote, a discussion for your colleagues on the floor.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Others in support.

Ray Grangel, on behalf of the Orange. County Sheriff's Department, in proud support.

Ivy Fitzpatrick, California DA's Association District Attorney Mike Hestren, in support.

Denise Aguilar, Freedom Angels, in support.

Tara Thornton, Freedom Angels, in support.

Courtney Graves representing mom army, in support.

Annabelle Velazquez with the Empower and Resilience Project in support.

Tammy Morgan with Empower and Resilience Project in support.

Mister chair. Members Cory Salzello on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association, support.

Thank you. Opposition, please come forward.

Margot George on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association and respectful opposition. First, I want to say to both of you, I'm really sorry for what you went through, and it's certainly heartbreaking. However, this Bill is much, much broader than sexual assault victims. in the analysis.

In the analysis, you'll note that this actually applies to over 80 different crimes of serious and violent felonies in the California Penal Code, and they include a lot of offenses where the perpetrator and the victim are strangers, have had no prior contact or opportunistic offenses such as robbery and carjacking.

In order to issue a stay away order, which this would be, you would then have to provide them the individual who committed the offense with both the name and the area where the victim lived in order to have a prohibition. So you would be giving them information they wouldn't otherwise have about the person.

Also, this would apply retroactively, and what it would do, as sort of noted in the analysis, is basically create a log jam in the courts of misdemeanor contempt citations, with tying up courtrooms, prosecutors and defense lawyers litigating these issues and wasting money. The resulting jail sentences could lead to more people being incarcerated and additional expense their lifetime impacts on the individuals and their families.

Youth who committed these offenses would not have a chance to rehabilitate and become productive citizens because their opportunities for education and employment would be foreclosed by a lifetime stay away order in a robbery. Adult individuals would be banned from living in certain areas, and for non citizens it could lead to deportation. So we respectfully ask for your no vote, and I turn it over now to my colleague from San Francisco.

Thank you. My name is Maureen Kildee. I'm a deputy public defense at the San Francisco public Defender office, and thank you for coming and share your stories. I know that cannot be easy. We do hear what you're saying, and we understand the author's intent behind the Bill and the heart that comes, that comes, that caused this to be before this Committee, and we appreciate the conversations that our office has had that have been ongoing regarding this Bill.

That being said, to increase the maximum length of a protective order from 10 years to permanent is a very drastic increase. Drastic changes in the law should be backed up by hard data, strong evidence that making this change will prevent violence and abuse while maintaining due process and opportunities for people to safely reenter society. I have not seen evidence that this particular configuration, particular very drastic proposal will have a safety impact on the community or victims of crime.

The covered as my colleague said, the covered crimes are everything under Penal Code Section 667.5 and 1192.7, which is dozens and dozens and dozens of crimes, some that are not, many that are not where the victim is sort of selected. It's not a personal victimization, not to discount it or to make light of it, but it's not something where necessarily a protective order of any length is going to have effect on the convicted person's future conduct.

For example, a young person could be convicted of carjacking or robbery in their late teens or early twenties twenties and have a lifetime protective order placed on them as a result of that crime. Given what we know now about juvenile brain development, young adult brain development, this is especially concerning.

This young person could move past that, commit themselves to rehabilitation, and still, when they are looking for employment, applying for a loan, or looking at other opportunities, the lifetime protective order could show up in Google results, in public record results, or in other record searches and prevent them from being a full participating Member in society, which is what we would hope would come out of, would be the result of any punishment following a conviction.

Wow. Wait a second. Sorry.

While victims can petition the court under this proposed Bill to remove these court orders, they understandably provide little incentive for victims to do so to have that order revoked. Setting a maximum length for protective order would ensure that individuals have judicial review of existing orders, have notice of changes in any prohibited locations that may come under that order, and allows an end date for orders that no longer serve a purpose. And thus, I respectfully, respectfully request your no vote.

Thank you. Others in opposition, please come forward.

Melanie Kim, San Francisco Public Defender's office and respectful opposition.

Felipe Kelly with the Elder Baker center respectful opposition.

Duke Cooney with ACLU California action respectful opposition thank you.

Juan Flores, with Elder Baker center in respectful opposition.

Kelly Walters, legal services for prisoners with children, respectful opposition.

Marlena Mercado, uncommon law respectful opposition.

Lawrence Cox, all of us or none. Opposition.

Lee Nintend, LSPC, respectful opposition.

Joanna Williams, LSPC, respectful opposition.

Gilbert Anthony Murillo, LSPC, respectful opposition.

Robert Bowden, LSPC all of us none. Respectful opposition.

Bill Melendez, smart justice California. Respectful opposition.

Okay. Seeing no more opposition, questions or comments from Committee Members. Mister Lackey.

Yeah. First of all, I have a question. Does this Bill apply to juveniles?

Does it apply to juveniles? Not unless. No, they're just adults, I believe only if they were tried as an adult.

Okay, thank you for that clarification. I would just like everybody to try to balance your thoughts relating to the recovery of victims and these kinds of offenses. They deserve permanent relief from reengagement with these types of offenders, in my opinion, and I- do we really need confirming studies to validate the trauma felt by victims. I think the brave testimony offered by the witnesses. If you didn't feel something, you're different than me.

I'm thankful that I didn't have to go through that kind of torture, lack of a better term. And I think this is the least we can do, is offer this kind of relief from reengagement with the person that inflicted that kind of trauma. And I'm in full support of this. And I admire your courage for coming today. Thank you.

Mister Zbur.

So I want to thank the author for her focus on protecting victims. I do think that this is something that is just way overly broad. It applies to not the kinds of things that you. Not only the kinds of things that you're raising as the examples, but things like burglary of inhabited dwelling, arson, robbery, or bank robbery, carjacking.

I mean, there's lots of things that would, you know, that I can't even imagine what the circumstances would be to require protective orders of even limited amounts, let alone lifetime protective orders. So I just think this is. Just needs a lot of work and refinement. And so I won't be able. I appreciate your, your focus on this, but I won't be able to support the Bill today, so thank you.

Mister Alanis.

Thank you, Mister chair. So I want to thank the author for bringing this Bill forward, obviously for the witnesses as well. I'm sorry you guys had to endure that. As a prior crimes against children's detective. Interviewing, being a forensic interviewer, my job as a forensic interviewer was to make sure that I got all the information, not only from the victim, but from the person responsible.

To make sure that my victim did not have to relive what they went through to get there. And I see that's what this Bill is doing right here with the lifetime restraining order that we're getting. Because they do like to re victimize. They do like to rehear it.

I've seen it sometimes where the responsible has got to be the attorney and got to ask the response or the survivor the questions that it's just sickening listening to them trying to relive it and them getting joy out of that. And again, we forget about our victims. The testimonies that I hear from the opposition, not one thing did I hear that had anything to do with the victims. Not one thing about the perpetrator re entering into society, they're already doing that.

They just won't have anything to do with the victim is what they do. And when we're brought, bring up stuff about them being strangers, then let them stay strangers and let the court say let them stay strangers. But we're not looking at it that way. I see it was already addressed about juveniles. That is wrong. If they're tried as an adult, this Bill does cover that.

So we don't have to worry about juveniles and ruining their lives as said earlier, and then being banned in area if they did do something, that again are consequences. Those are consequences to their choices. This is a big world. They can go anywhere they want after that. And so that's what I think they should do. I'm obviously in very strong support of this Bill. I know just earlier we listened to a Bill with another Member in regards to domestic violence.

Domestic violence is usually for the most part known by the survivor. We're talking about those that may not be known by the survivor. And now we're debating this. I'll be in obviously strong support. Thank you again for coming up here. No further questions, Mister chair.

No more questions. Comments from Committee Members. Move the Bill. The motion is second. You may close.

Thank you, chair. And I just want to comment just on the clarification on the list of crimes that it's judicial discretion. The judge will be making the final, the ultimate decision on whether the permanent restraining order is granted and it is dependent upon the relationship with the victim, the likelihood of continuing harm to the victim, and the current restraining order issued by the civil criminal Court. So if it's a carjacking and there's no current restraining order, then it's not even eligible for this.

But our emphasis is on sexual crimes, and that is what we're really focused on today. And I want to thank you for allowing Kayleigh and Christy to have this space to share their traumatic experiences. Unless anybody has been in their shoes, it's hard to be judgmental. And for them to even come and have this kind of presentation is traumatic. Kayleigh's law is critical to ensuring that our justice system provides necessary protections to victims and survivors of some of the most heinous crimes.

The necessity of this Bill is compelling for victims of crime in California and reflected in the overwhelming bipartisan support it received in Arizona and Wisconsin and Missouri. I want to thank you, and I respectfully ask for your, I vote. And this very important statement to primarily women in California who have been victimized as children and are here today as adults continuing this traumatic discussion so that they may be protected against further victimization and traumatic experiences by a perpetrator of the most heinous sexual crimes.

Just think about that. If California wants to protect primarily women, it could be men and women, and that does happen. So I don't want to exclude a man in this discussion, men or women, from sexual crimes, where they have to come back in court and face the perpetrator sitting and looking at them years after. Why subject a victim to that traumatic experience?

This will send a powerful message to all Californians that we as a Legislature protect victims of sexual crimes, primarily sexual crimes, if there is an interaction between the victim and the perpetrator of any crime, but primarily sexual crimes. And I'm grateful for your, and respectful of your support. Thank you very much.

Thank you, assemblymember. I appreciate your presentation and your advocacy. And I thank the brave witnesses for coming up here. I did read your story in between your testimony, and this is an important issue and a tough issue. But thankfully, we were able to work on another Bill, a companion Bill, about an hour ago, which we did narrow. I think it brings about more balance in the proposal we have here today. So with that-

-that's not really right.

I'm sorry, you had your opportunity to present. This is the close. Now, we have a motion a second. I can't support this in large part because we, I think, focused on a better approach about an hour ago with your colleague from Orange County with her Bill, and we offered some of the same amendments to you to narrow the Bill, to not have it so broad, to have a more, I think, appropriate extension of the protective order that was not accepted by you for your proposal. Therefore, I can't support this measure.

But the flip side, we do have another measure that's going through the process, and I encourage you to work with your colleague from Orange County and try to incorporate some of your ideas and your vision going forward. So with that, please call the roll.

On AB 1931 by Assembly Member Dixon. The motion is do pass to the Appropriations Committee. [Vote]. Measures on call.

Your measure's on call. Assembly Member Rubio, please come forward.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members, for allowing me to present AB 2382 relating to disorderly conduct. I want to begin by accepting the proposed amendments to the measure, which would permit a judge to consider the enhancements of disorderly conduct offenses relating to soliciting prostitution as either a misdemeanor or a felony for repeat offenders. I also want to thank the Chair and your staff for the work to ensure this measure meets the intended goal. This Committee knows all too well the impacts of human trafficking--the impacts human trafficking has had on our communities.

Trafficking comes in many forms. However, sex trafficking is among the most heinous. The high market demand for prostitution from solicit--I'm sorry--from prostitutes from solicitors and clients coupled with the use of force, coercion, and intimidation cause victims to feel trapped with no alternatives and no way out. These victims often come from disadvantaged Black and brown communities, and in many cases, are minors.

California has failed to provide strong deterrence for soliciting prostitution, thus allowing the illicit market to operate unimpeded. Under current law, solicitation of a prostitute is a misdemeanor, regardless of the nature of the offense or whether the perpetrator is a first-time or a repeat offender. By allowing, but not mandating, an enhanced punishment, this bill will ensure that the punishment meets the crime and that the more heinous offenses are dealt with accordingly. Our intent with this measure is clear.

We are not looking to criminalize sex workers, rather, the repeat offenders that support and proliferate an industry plagued by abuse. We introduced this measure with narrow and directed intent, which we thought we got correct considering the weeks we went without any opposition. I am committed to ensuring the bill before you is targeted to John Does by working with both Members of the Committee and the opposition as we approach the floor. Here to testify is Sergeant Nate Grgich of the Sacramento County Sheriff's Office, a Special Investigation Bureau. Thank you.

Good morning. Thank you for having me. I'd first like to thank you for considering us as part of this bill to collaborate with, and on behalf of Sheriff Cooper, he sends his appreciation. In the recent couple of years, we have seen a spike in human trafficking, especially when it comes to street-level prostitution. What we have seen, though, more importantly, is the blatant acts of perpetrators who actually trafficked these victims, and also by the victims as well.

What we've seen more recently, though, is a almost a drive-through effect of many of our streets where prostitution is taking place, where the men do not care and do not have any sort of fear of any consequences at all. Those consequences right now are a ticket. When you speed, when you drive through a stop sign and get pulled over by a police officer, you get the exact same ticket that you would if you were to buy a human being for sexual purposes.

This is a little bit disturbing on multiple levels because I consider a ticket as something that would be a life-altering decision. Most of these perpetrators do not feel that same way, and most of the DAs that we have currently completely turn a blind eye to it and do not file charges on it. What we're seeing, though, is a rise in this. We recently conducted multiple operations, including undercover operations where our detectives posted on sex-buyer websites.

What they were able to find is that within a 12-hour period of time, we had over 94 people solicit our undercover detectives for sexual purposes. This was a little bit disturbing because multiple of them would ask for different signs and symptoms that they were actually there for the purpose of buying or selling sex.

We've seen a rise in the traffickers as well, with very limited fear of enforcement because they do not believe that they can be really caught because of the traffickers or the trafficked victims being protective over their traffickers. So in our operations we've run over the last year, we have seen a rise in these men, specifically men in our jurisdiction, where they have again been stopped, been given a ticket, and then released on their own recognizance with the promise to appear.

A very diminishing number of them have actually had to go stand trial at court at all, and no one ever really knows that they've been stopped for those. We see as an important way to kind of combat this is to make it a serious offense on the second, third, fourth time, because there is no fear at all from these individuals who buy sex from these women. And it is becoming a problem.

Right now, the life expectancy for one of these female trafficked victims is about seven years. Either drugs will kill them from an overdose, they'll be murdered, or they'll escape the life after being contacted so many times by law enforcement, by nongovernmental organizations who will give them the shot that they need to actually improve their lives. We are seeing an epidemic, if you will, of people who are suffering from this, and it's not being addressed. And we need help. The streets need help, and we see this as a possible way to combat what is happening day-in day-out from these sex buyers. I appreciate your time.

Okay. Thank you. Others in support, please come forward.

Mr. Chair and Members, Randy Perry, on behalf of PORAC, in support.

Opposition, please come forward.

Duke Cooney with ACLU California Action, in respectful opposition. Apologies for not getting in our letter. We were under the mistaken assumption the bill was pulled today or we would have a little more time to have thoughtful discussions, but thank you for your staff for coordinating with us as well. First, while people of all races and economic backgrounds, low-income people of color and--sorry.

First, while people of all races and economic backgrounds are charged under these crimes, low-income folks of color are typically the ones who are arrested, charged, and convicted. Recent data shows that incredible racial disparities exist in arrests and prosecutions for purchasing sex work under Penal Code 647b, the coded issue. Second, increasing sentences for people who purchase sex work will not make sex workers or those who are trafficked safer. In fact, it will make them less safe.

Amnesty International has criticized this approach, emphasizing that it makes sex workers feel pressured to visit customers' homes so that buyers can avoid the police altogether. In other words, it gives sex workers less control and forces them into positions where they may have their safety compromised. Lastly, California, like the rest of the country, has a shameful history of using solicitation laws like this one to police gay men's sexual activity.

Even after Lawrence v. Texas, the U.S. Supreme Court case finding unconstitutional a Texas law that banned homosexual adults from engaging in consensual sexual acts, police departments in California continue to regularly target and arrest gay men on charges of solicitation and other offenses such as lewdness. California data shows that LGBTQ people in many communities are also simply more frequently stopped by police than non-LGBTQ people. Disproportionate enforcement is often fueled by purposeful and implicit bias that unfortunately exists and is rampant throughout California.

For these reasons, we are respectfully opposed to the measure as written today. And with me is Margo with CPDA for any technical questions that the Committee may have. Thank you.

Margo George, on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association, in respectful opposition. Want to thank the author and her staff and the Committee for the amendments. Unfortunately, we're still opposed to the bill, and there are two reasons. One: it's based on a flawed Nordic model, which is in effect in Scandinavian countries which actually decriminalized the sex workers, and we don't have that here, and importing that model into the United States without doing that will, as my colleague said, make sex workers' lives more risky and dangerous.

The second thing is the racial disparity that my colleague pointed out, I would also say it's a socioeconomic disparity because people who have means do not purchase sex on the street. They purchase it in hotels and clubs online. So this bill will specifically target the people who are on the street. Thank you, and we ask for your no vote.

Thank you. Others in opposition?

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

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

Erin McCall with the Underground Scholars Initiative at UC Berkeley, in strong opposition.

Juan Flores with the Ella Baker Center. Opposition.

Michelle Maxwell, the Underground Scholars Initiative at UC Berkeley, in opposition.

Marlene Mercado with UnCommon Law, in opposition.

Phil Melendez, Smart Justice California, in opposition.

Kellie Walters, with Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, in strong opposition.

Su Kim, UnCommon Law, in opposition.

Robert Bowden, All of Us or None, LSPC, in opposition.

Gilbert Anthony Murillo, LSPC and All of Us or None, in strong opposition.

Thank you. No further opposition. Questions or comments from Committee Members? Assembly Member Wilson.

Thank you to the author. Definitely understand your intent. I had a follow-up question. I know we had conversations, and I just wanted to make sure that my understanding was correct. There is an amendment in here that--a new amendment that wasn't in the print beforehand, but I don't see an amendment that changes the difference between someone who solicits and someone who engages, and I thought the purpose of this bill was focused primarily on the person who solicits and not the person when they engages, meaning the sex worker.

Yes, and that was part of the discussion. I can--that was the unintended, I think, when it went into print, that was put in there, and that's why I've been working through the Committee to make sure that we are very specific as to the solicitors, not the--to change that word from engagement to specifically those who solicit sex. And so we're still working with the Committee.

They've been amazing at helping us work through this, but I am committed to working--continue working on it to make sure that we are clear as to the intent. As I stated last night, the intent is never to criminalize the victims. I consider them victims. I've done a lot of work for children and foster youth in this space where they're being victimized, and so, again, the intent is not to victimize, revictimize already those folks that are in that situation. This is specifically for the John Does after multiple offenses.

I think part of the discussion is how many? We said more than two. We can say three, four. That's the part that we're still trying to narrow, but again, the intent is specifically for the John Does that continue to do this because, again, the sex workers are victims, in my opinion, and I think we all can agree that some of them are being coerced, some of them are being threatened, and so we don't want to further add to the situation that they're going through.

Okay, so the bill in print now and the amended--the initial amended version doesn't have that, but your commitment is that what finally gets into print before the floor would be, would exclude the basically the sex worker.

Yes, and if it does not get into print, I will pull the bill myself; just so that we're clear because my intent is absolutely to hold the John Does accountable and not revictimize. So, you know, if for whatever reason we can't get that amendment, I will pull the bill myself. That is my commitment. That's why I'm working closely with the Committee to make sure that we put that in print.

And you're also working with the Committee on the number of offenses?

Yes. That's where the discussion has been going, is, you know, two, is two enough? Is three? You know, where is that number that we, you know, we should come to?

Okay. Thank you.

Assembly Member Zbur.

Thank you.

So thank you for bringing this bill. I have very, very serious concerns about it for, I think, the reasons that the opposition stated. I do also want to recognize that we spoke this morning and you made the same commitments to me about trying to refine the bill.

Because of the fact that I have such respect for you, and I know that you are a champion of the LGBTQ community, I'm going to vote to continue this, to allow you to continue to have conversations to refine it, but I do have--I'm pessimistic given about the ability to sort of do that and differentiate the difference between the sex worker and the Johns, but I do want to give you an opportunity to try to continue.

Absolutely, and I did hear what you said, and, again, the intent is to protect more victims and how we do that is still depending on further conversation, so I appreciate that. But again, know that my commitment is to protect the victims in this case, and I believe that they're all victims. All of them are victims, you know, for different circumstances. Some of them are enforced.

Some of them are made, you know, some of these victims are made to believe that this is the only option that they have, and so I'm very, very aware of the consequences if we don't get this right, and again, my commitment is if we can't come to an agreement, I will definitely pull the bill myself.

Yeah, I hope that you'll maybe reach out and work with both the ACLU and Equality California on this, and I mean, I'll be looking to those two groups to help me understand whether or not this bill addresses the concerns that have been raised, so thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Lackey.

Yeah, I would just like to clarify something because it seems like there's a blur between the sex worker versus the John, and California Law 647 of the Penal Code, Section B1, 2, and 3 make clear distinctions between the John and the sex worker, and even the John versus a juvenile sex person. And so this bill clearly focuses on the Johns. That is very clear. You made that very, very clear.

I think it deserves to be explained from somebody who has an objective perspective on this matter, and you're to be congratulated on going after the Johns. They are the big problem in this industry. So I support this bill and thank you for having the guts to address it. Thank you.

Mr. Zbur, follow-up question?

Yeah, I just--I have great respect for my colleague here, but the way I read this, I don't think that it does go only after the John. So I hope that--I just want to confirm that you are continuing to work on this and understand that the bill in print that we're seeing requires further work to tighten it up.

Yes, thank you.

Yes. No further questions? We have a motion. Second. Before you close, you know, obviously I'm not an attorney or from law enforcement. I'm brand new up here, as you know, so my understanding that how the law works with solicitation, your intent is you want to go after the John or--it's not always that gender, of course, going after, but the--

John or Jane. How about that?

John or Jane. But the buyer--but the solicitation works, such as our Sacramento Sheriff's Deputy here. Sometimes if it's undercover and they go and talk to somebody, it can be reversed, the definition of solicitation. So your intent is to first go after the buyer, but you said you'll pull the bill back or drop it. But it's more than just a commitment. I think there's some underlying issues in the law which we need to focus on to make sure we don't have the unintended consequence of--

Yes. So, yes, I think what you're referring to is, you know, the sex workers are soliciting, you know, are saying, 'hey, come over here.' I understand that, and so if that's--with your guidance and your help, I think we can make that clear that it's specifically for the offenders, not the sex workers.

Well, it's not just soliciting. Like, if there's an undercover officer who goes up to the worker and starts the conversation, then there's--it's the opposite sometimes in the interpretation of the law. Anyway, we have a--but you'll continue to work with us?

Absolutely, and I'll look to your direction and to your Committee's direction for that specific language since I am a teacher, not a police officer or an attorney as well.

Yes, so you may close. We can take that as your close right there.

Absolutely. With all that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

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

On AB 2382 by Assembly Member Blanca Rubio, the motion is 'do pass as amended to the Appropriations Committee.' [Roll Call].

Yeah, that measure passes. Well, in the interest of time and our lunch, I'm going to keep the agenda going and proceed. But I don't have any witnesses for either Bill. But, yeah, we're just gonna roll with it. And, chair, this will be on item number six, AB 2106. You have the four? Yes. Thank you. I apologize. Item number 19, AB 2673. Okay. Which one do you want first? That. 126-73-2673. Item 19. Thank you.

This is a district Bill here for me in Sacramento county, put forward by our chief of police, Cathy Lester, and our District Attorney, Tien Ho, who aren't here with us today, and an amazing nonprofit called brother to brother. You know, this Committee has taken a lot of work over the years on reducing gun violence. And one of the innovative approaches through the grant programs, the violence intervention programs, programs that make a big difference in our communities.

This takes one of the recipients here and works with youth who are arrested for a firearm offense. And it would have them do a violence intervention program as far as. As part of their term of probation. And again, this would be a five year pilot here in Sacramento county. And with that, respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Any others in support, please step up. Name? Organization? Opposition. Seeing none. Any in opposition, please come up. We have one. Please have a seat. You'll have five minutes. Thank you.

Members. Duke Cooney, on behalf of ACLU, California action and opposition. Respectful opposition, sir, we understand that this Bill is intended to encourage a person to complete a drug program in an effort to tackle their addiction. However, we have considered.

This is the other Bill. This is the firearm Bill. So sorry. Apology, sir. You're good. Anyone else in opposition, please come up state for your. I have a move in a second, Miss Margot. Go ahead.

Thank you, Margo George for the California Public Defenders Association. We don't have an official position. We're tweener. But we have expressed our concerns to the author and would welcome a dialogue as well as the juvenile defenders, I believe.

Thank you. Seeing no others, Committee comments, questions? Seeing none. Thank you to the author for bringing this. I will obviously be in support as well, and you can close.

Thank you. Ask for your aye vote thank you.

[Roll Call]

Chair, that measure passes. We'll now move to item number six, AB 2106.

Thank you, Mister Vice Chair. This Bill adjusts probation terms for individuals convicted of a controlled substance offense and conversely, going through their drug treatment program. Two years ago, we adjusted the law, relate to probation terms and had a cap of two years. I supported that.

I think one of the shortcomings that we've discovered is individuals going through their drug treatment program sometimes can leave because they don't have the push anymore to keep them there. And we know that people on parole, only 2 and 5 today, complete their, their programs for drug treatment and people leaving the criminal justice system. Nearly 50% of formerly incarcerated drug offenders are reconvicted or re arrested. And we grapple with these issues of drugs and fentanyl and addiction and the swirling impacts of our unhoused population.

We need to realize that we need to focus on making sure people stay in their treatment programs, and this does just that. And with me today is a representative from the California Probation officers and respectfully ask for your I vote.

Thank you. You'll have five minutes.

Good morning, chair and Members. Danielle Sanchez, on behalf of the Chief Probation officers of California, very pleased to support this measure and the approach outlined in the Bill.

As the chair had stated, the approach outlined in this Bill really looks at restoring both the accountability and treatment measures while also making sure that we're bringing together the collaborative and meaningful supports to help transition somebody through treatment, but in a way that also recognizes the appropriate amount of time that is needed to complete those programs and successfully complete those programs.

Drug courts and treatment research based programs really strike this crucial balance between curbing the cycle of recidivism and also bringing to bear the treatment resources necessary to affect lasting and meaningful change. These specialized type courts intertwine judicial oversight, collaborative engagement, and dedicated substance use treatment services with intensive supervision and importantly, are offering an alternative to incarceration to make sure that, again, we're balancing those things, keeping somebody in the community working towards education, employment, and all of the things that we want to see them engaging in.

So I will say this Bill, from our perspective, is reflective of many of the things that the Legislature has put into place and is working on regarding balance of accountability and treatment ability for individualized responses, for addressing treatment and safety needs, and incentivizing successful program completion. So for those reasons, CPOC is pleased to support this measure and looks forward to continuing to work with the author on it.

Thank you. Anyone else in support, please step up. Name organization all right, seeing none opposition, is this the one you want to come up to? Gotcha. You both will be sharing five minutes. Go ahead.

Thank you. Duke Cooney with ACLU California action in respectful opposition to AB 2106 we understand that this Bill is intended to encourage a person to complete a drug program in an effort to tackle their addiction.

However, we have concerns that the approach of adding new condition, new conditions to probation terms won't be effective, largely due to many existing barriers to accessing quality substance abuse treatment, which unfortunately, this Bill does not address or improve. Probation is often a landmine where any misstep or technical violation can result in a lengthy prison sentence.

We have concerns that a person could actually end up spending more time in jail as a consequence of one of those violations than they would if they didn't participate in a diversion program. Forced treatment is not the most effective solution to substance abuse. Rather, greater investment in accessible, quality treatment would make a more effective approach to ultimately addressing the underlying issue, which is the substance abuse, and for those reasons, we're in opposition. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Kelly Walters, Staff Attorney with legal services for prisoners with children. We are here opposing 2106 respectfully, as has been made has been expressed to Assembly Member Mccarty. This Bill undoes the significant changes that were made in 2020 through AB 1950. Tellingly, the Bill would also direct a court to reduce the period of probation if the defendant successfully completes a court mandated drug treatment program.

This Bill appears to take a misguided approach to push individuals into completing drug treatment programs by offering incentives to reduce probationary periods and threatening incarceration. However, compelling individuals into treatment under duress, whether through legal mandates or external pressures, has consistently proven to be an ineffective strategy in the long term management of substance. Substance use disorders. Research indicates that treatment outcomes are substantially better when the individual engages voluntarily motivated by a personal desire for change rather than coercion.

Coerced treatment often results in lower engagement rates, higher relapse probabilities, and a General sense of resentment and resistance among participants. This is not only counterproductive, but can also exacerbate the feelings of helplessness and stigma that many struggling with addiction already faced. Secondly, individuals on probation are only ordered to participate in AA or NA programs which do not provide access to effective substance abuse treatment. It is well documented that managing an addiction to opioids through AA or NA meetings alone is unlikely to be successful.

Instead of increasing probation supervision, which is costly and can lead to cruel and dangerous periods of incarceration in county jails, we should focus on providing evidence based treatments that can lead to long term recovery and improved outcomes for individuals struggling with addiction. If we are truly here for public safety, we have to recognize that decades of criminalizing people has proven ineffective to reaching that goal, we advocate for policies that support an individual's autonomy and encourage voluntary participation in high quality treatment programs.

This approach is grounded in a compassionate understanding of addiction as a medical condition and not a moral failing. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in opposition, please step up. Name organization position.

Phil Melendez with Smart Justice California, in opposition.

Marco George I would thank the author's office for the conversation. Unfortunately, we're in respectful opposition.

Thank you.

Tyena Vargas, Initiate Justice, Action in opposition.

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

Felipe Kelly, Della Baker center respectful opposition.

Michelle Maxwell, the Underground Scholars Initiative at UC Berkeley, in opposition.

Erin McCall, the Underground Scholars Initiative at UC Berkeley, in opposition.

Juan Flores, with the Della Baker center and respect for opposition.

Lawrence Cox, LSPC all of us are none respectful opposition.

Joanna Williams, with LSPC, respectful opposition.