Assembly Standing Committee on Public Safety

Good morning. We will call this hearing to order. We will start as a Subcommitee, just the Vice Chair and I, so we won't take any action just yet. So first of all, we're going to list the bills that. That are pulled off the calendar for today. They were not updated.

They were updated. But I'll just list them once again for the record. AB 2296 Villapudua AB 2391. Vince Fong AB 2470 Joe Patterson AB 2603 Low AB 2604 Low AB 2790. Pacheco AB 2823. Joe Patterson AB 2824. McCarty AB 2850. Rodriguez AB 2964. Hart, AB 3032. Hoover, AB 3071. Patterson and AB 3231 Villapudua. Again, these bills will not be heard today nor tomorrow, so they're off the calendar.

And with that, we'll proceed with the regular business. Our first author that signed, signed in here this morning is Miss Addis. Please come up. This is AB 2295. When you're ready. Yes, please proceed.

The Child Sex Abuse Justice act that removes the statute of limitations for criminal cases involving the sexual abuse of a minor, allowing two main things. One, for survivors to seek justice, and two, the opportunity for repeat child sex offenders to be stopped. I want to thank our witnesses who are bravely joining us and have driven great distances to be with us today. I also want to say thank you to all survivors and their families who fight this battle daily.

Some of them are able to speak out, but some of them cannot. And we know that they're in this fight with us no matter what. I want to thank the former opposition who helped make this legislation better, as well as Committee staff and my own staff for their tireless work. And to be clear, I do accept the Committee amendments. So a little bit of background child sex abuse occurs across all societal groups and with all types of institutions.

Studies show that at least one in five girls and one in 13 boys are sexually abused as children, and trauma from child sex abuse affects survivors throughout their lives, including disrupted neurodevelopment, PTSD, increased risk of alcoholism, drug addiction, depression, and familial or relationship issues. Unlike other crimes, the tendency to commit child sex abuse does not decrease significantly in frequency or severity as offenders age. Some child sex predators abuse a high number of victims and continue abusing children well into their elderly years.

One study found that of child sex offenders, 30% had 10 or more victims, and 55% reported that their offenses became more serious over time. Additionally, when child sex abusers are not convicted, they are not added to the sex offender registry, which leaves them free to access paid and volunteer positions that put them in close contact with the very people they should be away from, which are children. So we have a statute of limitations, which is an arbitrary deadline for prosecuting child sex abuse.

And that statute of limitations is both unfairly short. It also prevents access to justice, and it can allow repeat child sex offenders continued access to children. Currently, the statute of limitations for child sex abuse is by a person's 40th birthday. However, over half of survivors don't come forward until 50 or afterwards. One study showed that the majority of survivors come forward between 50 and 70 years old, and some don't come forward until they're between 70 and 90.

And there's complex reasons for this that include trauma, inability to recognize that abuse happened until much later, shame and self bullshit. Blame, fear or real. Excuse me? Fear of real or perceived retribution or not being believed, stigma, lack of trusted adults, and negative consequences of disclosure, such as losing relationships or further victimization. The reality is that the statutes of limitation for child sexual abuse are arbitrary and unfair.

They silence survivors, they prevent survivors from seeking justice, and they can leave other children vulnerable to offenders, sometimes for years. So AB 2295 creates a solution by removing the deadline by which a child sex abusive survivor must come forward, allowing them, regardless of age, to seek justice, and possibly preventing repeat sex abusers from future victimization.

This Bill does apply prospectively, meaning only to future cases of child sex abuse that occur beginning January 1, 2025 or in cases where the statute of limitations has not run of that date. I do want to say thank you again to the former opposition for working with us to craft amendments that add three important requirements. The crime must involve substantial sexual conduct as defined in current law.

There must be independent evidence that clearly and convincingly corroborates the survivors allegation, and the criminal complaint must be filed within one year of the date of the report. These amendments have moved much of the opposition to neutral, and we have two witnesses here today, Deanna Hampton, mother of Trevor Martin, as well as Brittany Barber, a survivor and advocate from my district. So I want to turn it over to our witnesses for their stories.

Thank you. You have two witnesses. Two minutes each.

Thank you. Mister Chairman and Members, my name is Deanna Hampton. I'm here today to express my strong support of AB 2295 to eliminate the statute of limitations for criminal cases of child sexual assault. My son, Trevor Martin, was a victim of sexual abuse by a priest at the age of 10. And I'm here to advocate on behalf of all children of sexual abuse. I firmly believe that this legislative change is crucial to ensure justice for survivors and holding perpetrators accountable for their unspeakable actions.

I've witnessed firsthand the immense challenges survivors of child sexual assault face in coming forward with justice. The trauma inflicted upon victims of such abuse often leaves deep emotional scars that can take years, if not decades, to confront and process. Many survivors struggle with the feeling of shame, guilt and fear of retaliation, making it incredibly difficult to disclose their abuse and pursue legal action.

My son, Trevor Martin, did confront the priest, the abuser, and it was only after Trevor attempted suicide that I learned about this abuse by Father Michael Kelly, a priest from the Stockton diocese. Had I not learned about the abuse and pursued justice for my son, I truly don't know if or when Trevor would have been ready to confront the priest, and I will never know the answer to this.

As my son passed away in 2016, eliminating the statute of limitations will get dangerous predators away from our most vulnerable population, our children. It will also help identify institutions that have facilitated the abuse of our children. Research has shown that the average age in which a survivor of child sexual abuse comes forward is often well into adulthood, in their fifties and later.

Pedophiles should never, ever have the hope of escaping punishment simply because their victims were unable to come forward within an arbitrary timeframe dictated by law. AB 218, passed in 2019, gave sexual abuse victims another opportunity to come forward. It created a three year window where the victims, who were previously barred from filing by California's law, were able to seek damages from sexual abuse. This demonstrates the there were hundreds and hundreds of victims that came forward in that window.

This demonstrates the urgent need to eliminate the statute of limitations to ensure that victims of these crimes are not denied justice. Some argue that evidence degrades with time. Victims of trauma, like child rape, do not forget the details. At the age of 58, I can recall every detail of a babysitter that molested me at the age of eight. I have remembered for 50 years.

In conclusion, I urge you to support AB 2295 and advocate for the removal of the statute of limitations for criminal cases of child sexual assault. By doing so, we can send a powerful message that survivors voices will be heard, perpetrators will be held accountable, and justice will prevail. Thank you very much.

Thank you. You have a little over a minute.

Good morning. My name is Brittany Barber. I am a survivor of childhood sexual abuse and my abuser was my biological father. He was arrested in 2019 when another child had come forward during an investigation. His physical abuse lasted through childhood. But the mental horrors that he put me through lasted until he was arrested in 2019. As a survivor, I can tell you a few things. She's right. We do feel shame. We do feel that our voices don't matter.

We feel that nobody will care enough or that it won't matter enough to take out that one predator. But like they said, there's never just one predator. There's never just one victim. There's always multiples with every one of the predators that I've ever heard of. And we shouldn't be silenced by anything that. By a law that is arbitrary. And it takes us longer to process, because a lot of the times we are trying to process things.

You're expecting children to process these things when they don't even have the faculties to understand that a lot of the things that have happened to them were wrong. We don't have support. We have secrets. We have to keep things hidden. And we have to maintain a facade to everybody around us that everything is okay. And there should never be a timeline on a child being able to come forward and say that what happened was not okay. There should never be a timeline on our children's futures and their emotions and their mental states.

Thank you for your testimony. Others in support, please come forward.

Mister Chairman, Members, my name is David Bunn. I'm a volunteer with.

Actually, Chair, hold on 1 second. Are you here for support? Yes. I'm going to have you go up to that microphone right there. I just need your name, your organization, and obviously you're here for support. And if there's any others, please line up as well.

David Bunn with Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests in support. Thank you so much.

All right, seeing no others, any in opposition, so please come up.

Good morning, Mister chair Members. Ignacio Hernandez, on behalf of the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice Statewide Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, we were opposed. I want to thank the author and the Committee for the Amendments. We're reviewing them. We may have a couple of suggestions going forward, so look forward to working collaboratively as Bill moves forward.

Thank you. Any others? Seeing no others, turn it to Committee. Ms. Nguyen.

Thank you, sir. I want to thank the author for bringing this Bill forward. And thank you both for coming out and sharing your story. I know that that wasn't easy, you know, and I know that there are many more just like you that are out there being so brave and sharing this story and letting others know that there is something that is going to be done and that they don't have to live with this for the rest of their life. I have two little girls.

And so when I hear your story, it makes me think of my little girls as well, too. But it's not just little girls or boys that this happened to. I mean, you know, it runs the gamut.

But being so brave and sharing your story that I know many, many others are not willing to, or not ready to or still feel that shame or that they're at fault, you really are a role model for others that are going through this that really need to come out because I've met other individuals that have shared stories like this with me, and I know sometimes it just lifts this whole entire weight off of them just to be able to talk about it and share the trauma that happened to them. So I want to thank you again for bringing this forward and when the time is appropriate, will support this Bill.

Thank you. So we're still operating as a Subcommitee, otherwise I'm sure we would have a. I'd be moving or she'd be moving and I'd be seconding as well. To the survivors. Thank you for coming forward.

As a prior crimes against children's detective with the sheriff's office and working with many survivors, victims and hearing their cries for help and trying to be a voice for them is something I try and continue you here as well, and glad to see that my colleagues as well are doing this also. So I appreciate you for being here, and I thank you, the author, for having this. And if you want to close, you can close.

Well, I want to say first and foremost, thank you to our witnesses. We all know how challenging it is to share your story and travel great distances to do so. And I think it speaks to how important this issue is. AB 2295 will end the arbitrary time limit on when justice can be sought.

It will make a tremendous difference for survivors, for children, for their families across California by allowing survivors to seek justice and healing, by protecting children from repeat sex abusers, and by elevating survivors voices to reduce the stigma around child sexual abuse. So with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. We'll move forward. Thank you guys for coming. We're going to start with 2519 with Mister Maienschein.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and members .Under current law, Penal Code Section 29805 prescribes a number of misdemeanor offenses that upon conviction, prohibit a person from possessing a firearm for a period of 10 years. Some of these offenses include threatening public officials, assault and child abuse. However, if a defendant is charged with one of these crimes, and is granted misdemeanor diversion. There is no ban on firearm possession.

AB 20519 prohibits a defendant who receives misdemeanor diversion for a crime listed in penal code Section 29805 from possessing a firearm until they have successfully completed diversion. Thank you and I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Any witnesses here in support? Name and organization, please.

Good morning. Sasha Horwitz, Los Angeles Unified School District, in support.

Ivy Fitzpatrick, California DA's Association, in support.

Thank you. Any others in support? Seeing no other. Any opposition? All right, seeing none for opposition committee. Ms Reyes, any questions? Okay, she may have questions. This is on 20519 originally number item six.

Is it accurate that the bill now takes away judicial discretion?

Well, that it takes away judicial discretion. I don't believe it takes away judicial discretion. In all cases, it would be under the same law as other gun surrender programs, except this time it adds diversion to that. And I just confirmed it does not take away judicial discretion.

Very good. Thank you.

You may close.

Thank you and respectfully request an aye vote.

As soon as we get a quorum, we will do that. We'll move to your next one. I have here AB 3064.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. AB 3064 would require manufacturers of firearm safety devices to mark their produce products with make and model information. Firearm safety devices lock and prevent unauthorized users from discharging a firearm. Safety devices must be used when a firearm is transferred through a dealer or when transported in sensitive places. The DOJ maintains a roster of laboratory tested approved firearm safety devices listed by manufacturer, model name, and model number.

However, manufacturers are not required to place this same information on the actual devices, making it next to impossible for law enforcement and consumers to tell one from another, much less an approved device versus an ineffective look alike. More importantly, if a consumer owns a safety device that has been recalled, is defective, or has a warranty issue, they are unable to identify if their particular device is affected. This may result in the continued use of an unsafe or ineffective device.

AB 3064 will require firearm safety device manufacturers to place make and model information in a visible location on the product. The bill also requires manufacturers to notify the Department of Justice in the event of a recall, and it authorizes the Department to charge a fee on manufacturers to have their device listed on the roster. This is a common sense bill to assist both law enforcement and consumers. I respectfully request your aye vote. And with me to testify and support is Deputy Attorney General Candace Chung.

Thank you. You both be testifying? Either way, you guys got five minutes together.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. My name is Candace Chung. I'm a Deputy Attorney General with the California Department of Justice, which is the proud sponsor of AB 3064. I'm joined by our Bureau of Firearms Assistant Director, Peter Wold, who will be available to answer any technical questions that the Committee might have. On behalf of the Attorney General, I'd like to thank Assembly Member Maienschein for authoring this bill to promote the effective safe storage of firearms and to modernize the reporting process.

As the Member mentioned, current law already requires the use of DOJ approved firearm safety device in certain circumstances, and it's likely that the need for such devices will continue to grow. But right now, there are over 2,300 different models on the DOJ's roster, and of those, approximately 75% do not have any markings on the actual device. And that's because manufacturers are not required to do so. And a lot of these devices look exactly alike.

Without markings, it's nearly impossible for both law enforcement officers and consumers to tell just by looking at the item if it matches one of the models on the roster and thus legal compliant. And this is really a consumer safety issue as well. Recalls do happen. There were several models that were recalled by the US Consumer Product Safety Commission in October, and then another three in just in February. So these devices are designed to prevent unauthorized access to deadly weapons.

Maybe it's, you know, perhaps by curious children, perhaps it's by thieves. So the consequences of unknowingly using a faulty device are serious and possibly tragic. Regarding concerns that were raised by the opposition, I will note this bill does not expand or alter when and how an approved device is to be used. Nor does it require manufacturers to make any other changes to their devices.

It simply requires manufacturers to begin placing make and model information on their products, just like most other consumer devices on the market today. This bill will impose an annual fee on manufacturers for each FSD model placed on the roster. This is similar to the fee that's charged to place products on the handgun roster. The fee will be tied to, and cannot exceed, the DOJ's cost to maintain the roster. This is a reasonable fee. It's unlikely to create a burden on manufacturers.

Just for reference, manufacturers pay an annual fee of $200 for each model placed on the handgun roster. Additionally, this bill will modernize the existing process for reporting certain firearm transactions, such as the purchase of antiques and curios, or when a new resident moves into the state, bringing their guns with them. Even though the DOJ's computer systems concurrently accept these reports electronically.

Existing law specifically directs that the forms be submitted to the DOJ by mail or delivered in person, and then, which means that this information must then be manually inputted into the system and transferred into the databases. This bill will simply update the statute to make clear that electronic submission is an additional option for submitting these forms, which will be easier and more efficient for both applicants and for the DOJ staff. I thank you for your time, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Good. Okay, any others in support, please come up. Give your name and organization. Okay. Seeing none, any opposition, please come up to the table. You'll have five minutes.

Good morning, Mr. Chair, Members of the Committee. Sam Ferretas, representing Gun Owners of California. I'd like to point out a couple of things right off the top. Mandatory storage of guns in the home is unconstitutional. It was declared so in Heller v. Washington DC in 2008. And then two years later, in 2010, the Supreme Court came back and said, this is so important that this also applies to state and local governments. You cannot mandate safe storage. Now, that's the background.

And ultimately we will find out in court. Yes, there was one case that was submitted to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court decided not to take it because it was not the right case. Secondly, this mandating of certified firearm safety equipment, locks, whatever you want to call it, puts the law abiding citizen in peril. Because if a manufacturer either drops off the list, for whatever reason, they no longer make that model of lock. It's become obsolete.

They have new models, and there are millions of these in the state of California. Now, law abiding citizens are using unapproved locks. If something were to happen, they would be charged with the crime of having their firearms stored within California, not approved safety device. That is a big issue. And with regards to the cost to manufacturers, it's obvious to those people who make comments that this is not a big cost. Everything is a big cost.

And this will incrementally drop off the people that are on the lower end of the economic spectrum from being able to afford to defend themselves in their homes and protect their homes with whatever means they believe is necessary to do so. Now, accidents in the home is a very rare occurrence in the state of California. It really is. And the number of deaths that occur because of, you know, access to firearms by unauthorized people in the homes is very small.

But this is putting millions of lawful gun owners in harm's way. Because if, for whatever reason, I pointed out, their locks, and this doesn't even address the issue of safes. Safes are not included in this thing. If they fall off the list, these people are now basically setting themselves up for criminal charges if something were to happen, heaven forbid. For those reasons, the National Rifle Association and other pro-gun organizations are in opposition to this bill.

Now we are the ones who promote firearm safety in the home more than anyone in the country and here in the state of California. The Department of Justice does not have a very good record of informing the general public of what the laws are. They don't send out notices to all gun owners as to what they might do. So how are people to know any of this stuff? This bill is completely unnecessary. It will put law abiding citizens in harm's way.

And bottom line, mandatory government imposed safe storage in the home or locked up storage is unconstitutional. Thank you very much. If anybody has any questions, I'd be happy to answer.

Thank you. Any others in opposition, please step up. Name? Organization?

Rick Travis, California Rifle and Pistol Association and Safari Club International. We oppose.

My name is Elizabeth Rosemaves. I have a CCW and I hunt and I'm opposed.

Thank you. Any others in oppose? No others in opposition? Seeing none. Committee, any questions? No questions. You may close.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and Members. Respectfully request an aye vote.

Great. We're still on a Subcommitee and we'll get back to you on that. Thank you for coming in. Looks like I have Assemblywoman Ms. Davies, if you want to come up. We have item number 10, AB 2406, it's all yours. 2406, right?

2518. AB 2518. We can do that first.

You want to do that one first? You got it. 2518: Item Number 12.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. Today I'm here to present AB 2518. I first want to thank Committee staff for working with my staff and stakeholders on this measure. Under current law, if an adult is convicted of a felony offense, such as murder, upon their release, as a condition of their release, they are prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm for life. However, the same condition does not apply to a minor convicted of the same crime.

Upon their release, as long as they are over 30, they may walk into a firearms door and begin the process of attempting to purchase a firearm. AB 2518 is a common sense and narrow bill to say that any minor convicted of three heinous crimes, murder, attempted murder, or manslaughter, is subject to the same lifetime ban as an adult.

As noted in this terrific analysis for this bill, this type of proposed prohibition for a minor was deemed completely constitutional in People versus Villa, wherein the courts held a juvenile's Second Amendment's rights were not infringed by a firearm prohibition. According to the Los Angeles Times, approximately 14 percent of all violent crimes in both Orange County and San Diego Counties where I represent, involve the use of a firearm. More must be done to ensure criminals are not finding ways to cause more turmoil for our neighborhoods.

This type of policy proposal has varied implications as recent tragedies in this scenario has occurred here in California. In December of 2023, a Fresno County 14-year-old killed his parents and attempted to kill his younger sister as well. If and when he's convicted of these crimes, at the age of 30 and upon release, he will be able to purchase a firearm. We cannot let individuals like him own firearms again. Members, I firmly believe in second chances.

I believe people can reform themselves and after their incarceration, go on to live full lives and productive lives for their communities. However, there is nothing that says a person convicted of a crime like murder needs to own a firearm to live a productive life after their release. Again, this type of prohibition already applies to adults. There is no reason someone who is 17 and commits murder should be able to own a firearm again while someone who is 18 will not be able to.

This is a common sense change in the law to help get guns out of the hands of criminals and off our streets. With me here today to testify in support is Bradley Schoenleben from the Orange County DA's Office. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. You have two minutes per witness. Two witnesses.

Thank you. My name is Bradley Schoenleben. I'm a Senior Deputy District Attorney for the Orange County District Attorney's Office. Again, I'm both humbled and honored to speak before you all today in support of Assembly Bill 2518. I'd like to thank Member Laurie Davies for authoring this bill. There's a loophole in our system that would allow a person who's committed murder to legally own a firearm. This bill would close that loophole.

There's been a clear preference in the Legislature and in the courts to treat minors in juvenile court rather than criminal court, even when those crimes result in taking someone's life, such as murder. One of the many byproducts of this shift is that those found to have committed murder would be able to own firearms after the age of 30. This is true regardless of how heinous and violent their crimes may have been.

This certainly could not be the intent of such a shift and must be resolved. When looking at the people affected by this bill, we are not talking about minors who had youthful indiscretion. We are talking about murderers, those found beyond a reasonable doubt to have killed or attempted to kill another human being. Currently, legislation is already in place to prohibit firearms for those adults deemed unfit and dangerous.

This bill is narrowly tailored to address the ownership of firearms by those that are a danger to society in the most extreme ways. The bill is drafted in such a way that does not have a broad, sweeping effect, but is focused on those crimes that are a direct threat to public safety: murder, attempted murder, manslaughter. These are all crimes in which the perpetrator has shown a disregard for human life, and as such, that person cannot be trusted to own a firearm. A firearm in the wrong hands can be deadly. AB 2518 is a step toward preventing that. Thank you.

Thank you. Next witness. Okay. Thank you. Others in support, please line up and state your name and position only.

Rick Travis, on behalf of the California Rifle Pistol Association, Gun Owners of California. We support.

Ivy Fitzpatrick, California DA's Association, in support.

My name is Elizabeth Rose May. I'm a two-time violent crime survivor, and I am in support.

Thank you. Witnesses in opposition, please come forward. Four minutes total. Two minutes per minute.

Thank you. Good morning, Margo George on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association and the Pacific Juvenile Defender center, this erodes the progress that the Legislature has made regarding record sealing for youth. The current law was a careful balancing of the competing interest, and there's no data showing a need to change the law at this point. One thing that is important to take into account is overcharging of assaults as attempted murders in juvenile court.

There is no right to a jury trial where many of these charges could not be proved. They're adjudicated by a court without a jury, which takes into account rehabilitation in what is a quasi-civil criminal proceeding. The current ban on firearms to age 30 recognizes both brain science and adolescent brain development. The lasting consequences of records not being sealed affects someone's employment, education, and housing.

And particularly salient, as noted in the analysis, is the issue of whether such a ban on firearm possession is constitutional based on a civil proceeding. And this is an issue that is currently before the United States Supreme Court. So I think it behooves this Committee to wait on the resolution of the United States Supreme Court, which is reviewing the case of Rahimi versus the United States, which is related to the constitutionality of civil prohibitions on firearms ownership.

Although the Rahimi case deals with domestic violence restraining orders, the inquiry principally revolves around prohibiting firearm possession based on a civil proceeding. It is unclear as to whether this restriction is the type contemplated by the framers of the constitution. But given the standard expressed by Bruin, which largely abandoned the existing legal standards for other Bill of rights violations, it is strange in its application. Litigation, if this Bill is passed, is inevitable. We respectfully ask for your no vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Next witness. A little over a minute.

Good morning, Mister chair Members. Mica Doctoroff I'm a senior Staff Attorney at the ACLU of Northern California. Here today on behalf of ACLU California action and respectful opposition, we recognize the terrible tragedies that result from gun violence. But we do not believe that this Bill meaningfully addresses those issues. Youthful mistakes do not and should not forever define or limit a young person's life. Current law allows a ban on possession or use of a firearm until the age of 30. This is certainly a sufficient collateral consequence.

Any illegal use or possession of a firearm after the age of 30 is still punishable as a crime, but the punishment should not be made harsher because of youthful mistakes. Youth who are adjudicated in juvenile court must have an opportunity to move past their juvenile records rather than face lifelong collateral consequences. For these reasons, we are in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Others in support, please. I'm sorry, there's an opposition. Please come forward.

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

Good morning. Henry Ortiz, All of Us or None in Sacramento in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Questions or comments from Committee Members? Miss Reyes.

I really appreciate. I appreciate the analysis provided by the Committee. I think it puts things into perspective. We are talking about a juvenile. I think that the laws are very different when we're talking about a juvenile, although, as was mentioned, we're talking about a juvenile who committed a very serious crime, murder. You've also included two others, but very specifically murder. In the analysis. It talks about the fact that California realizes youthful indiscretions and mistakes should not have eternal consequences.

But what we're saying here is that they should. Youth who are adjudicated in juvenile court must have an opportunity to move past their juvenile records rather than face lifelong collateral consequences. We're saying we no longer believe that. Also, it says that and something that was mentioned. I think it's important to remember that when a youth is a juvenile is adjudicated. There is no jury. There's no jury of their peers. They are adjudicated by a judge.

Everything is handled very differently because of California laws, the way we have treated juveniles throughout the years. And we're going to change something should the Bill move forward. We're changing the laws as to those juveniles, and we are now saying no. Now you will have not just a prohibition from owning and possessing a firearm until the age of 30. Now, we're saying you were going to. You weren't adjudicated as an adult, but you will now suffer the consequences as an adult.

Another part of the Bill also, as I understand, is to amend the welfare and institutions code to prohibit the sealing of the juvenile record. Is that accurate? Go ahead.

It's accurate only as it relates to 76, which. Which would be the destruction. The ceiling and destruction of those records.

I'm sorry.

Yes, ma'am. It would only relate to the destruction of those records. So should this Bill go into effect, you'd still have the ceiling option under 781, but law enforcement would have access. Department of Justice would have access which would be necessary to prevent someone from being able to walk into an outdoor store and buy a firearm at 30 when those background checks are run. Department of Justice law enforcement would have access to that. So you'd still have nothing in this prohibit ceiling of those juvenile records.

It prohibits sealing and destruction under 786, which stops the destruction of those records.

Miss Reyes, can we just stop real quick and just take the role so. We can establish a quorum. Please call the roll.

[Roll call]

Yeah. Please continue.

So I do want to be sure that I do understand then, in the argument in support, California District Attorneys Association says that it would also amend the Welfare Institutions Code, section 786, to prohibit the sealing of juvenile records for youth who have sustained petitions for crimes listed in the subdivision, which are the three that we're talking about here, correct?

Yes, ma'am. Yes, ma'am. It would under 786, but nothing prohibits ceiling under 781, which is a different section. 786 allows for the ceiling and destruction. And so you wouldn't, you wouldn't need to destroy those records. They'd still be, they'd still exist.

Very good. Is there, there was a comment made about the fact that there is no data showing the need to change the law. Is there data?

No, ma'am, there wouldn't be data because if the easy way to put it is this trend in terms of in the past, so you have to look at it historically. In the past, there's been the opportunity to direct file juveniles into adult court or a much easier path to 707 those juveniles into adult court. So only over the last five years or so, we've seen a large number of minors who committed murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, be utilized in the juvenile court.

And the reason that's important is because that's. So you say five years, that would put someone, let's say they're 175 years ago, they're still in their twenties. You wouldn't have hit that 30 year mark. So to the idea that there's not enough data, I think the point of this Bill is we don't want to have to wait for that 17 year old murderer to walk into a store when they're 30 and buy a gun without having some type of flag for, for Department of Justice.

So there wouldn't be data yet because this is to prevent a problem from happening.

I think when we're talking about data, I would imagine that it is showing someone who had been convicted of murder before and after 30 has now committed murder again.

See? Right. Well, I can tell you I have defendants in our office who we are prosecuting. We're prosecuting a gentleman right now who is previously committed, convicted of murder and just recently committed another murder. I mean, we have people who have committed murder, who have gotten released and then committed another murder.

The trick that we're talking about is we're in unfamiliar territory, because only in the last few years have we seen those murders be minors, treated in the juvenile courts, and then their release date would be when they're 25, and then we don't have data after that because we haven't hit that mark yet in broad numbers. If your question to me is, am I seeing people who have committed murder and murder again?

Yes, we have defendants who have committed murder and murder again, there's no question for that. I don't have data in front of me that would say this many people who committed murder when they're 17, then got out and committed murder again. We haven't looked far enough back to say how old were they when they committed that first murder, if that makes sense.

It does. But it tells me also there is no data then as of now, anecdotally, you're able to, because you have been involved. You can give us examples, but I'm talking specifically where we're talking about juveniles who had been adjudicated as juveniles rather than tried as adults.

Yes, ma'am. Because that hasn't come yet. Right. So what's going to happen is in a few years from now, we're going to see the reckoning of this, right? We're going to see these juveniles who hit 25 and they're being released on those homicides, or who hit 30 and now can legally own a firearm with records being destroyed. So that hasn't happened yet. We haven't seen that because just the timing issue hasn't happened.

But I can tell you, two weeks ago, I watched a video where a 17 year old beckoned over a young man on a bicycle. That young man came over completely unaware that he had a gun, that the suspect, the miner, had a gun behind his back, pulls out a gun, fires multiple shots from feet away into this kid's abdomen. In 13 years from now, that 17 year old murderer. Well, let me back up that attempt murderer. The victim survived not for lack of trying.

And 13 years from now, that shooter will be able to walk into a turner's or an outdoorsman type store and just buy a gun. I guess our point is we don't want that to be able to happen. I understand the idea that we want to rehabilitate, we want miners to be able to move on. That's why this Bill is narrowly tailored. It is narrowly tailored to those limited individuals who have shown a disregard and willingness to take human life.

Thank you. Thank you, Mister chair.

Thank you. Mister Alanis, just real quick, opposition.

You brought up some points. I was hoping you can give us a little bit more into that.

I'm sorry?

I was hoping you can give us a little bit more rebuttal on the opposition that they had earlier. I think. Did you maybe answer those questions already?

I believe so. Again, I disagree with the concept that there's no ceiling allowed at all. 781 still does allow for ceiling. It just allows us to keep those records of people who have been convicted or been found true to be, have committed murder, attempt murder, manslaughter to be in the realm.

The other thing I wanted to point out would be we did address the numbers in terms of it not being right because of the timing and the shift that this body in our state has taken as relates to juveniles.

I do want to address one thing in terms of overcharging, the idea that it was put out there, as if the prosecutors would overcharge an assault with deadly weapon, and therefore this Bill would unduly cover, in essence, what would be a 245 or an assault with deadly weapon and wrap it into the attempt murder category. I want to remind this body that as this body already knows in the juvenile court, it's still proof beyond reasonable doubt.

I've personally done almost two dozen court trials in the juvenile system. I had a serious and violent felony caseload. So my specialty was the violent offenders, and I did it in juvenile court. I called witnesses, they were under oath. Evidence was presented. We had to comply with the rules of evidence, and a court had to find beyond reasonable doubt that this minor did, in fact, commit murder, attempt murder, or manslaughter.

And so I would certainly push back on this idea that this would allow some type of overcharging and abuse by prosecution agencies throughout the state. Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Further questions or comments? Seeing none. Do we have a motion? A motion is second.

You may close.

Thank you. Just a quick comment in regards to the opposition. When we're saying youthful mistakes, youthful mistakes are shoplifting, stealing something, it's not murder. I don't look at a youthful mistake as being murdered or attempted murder. And again, this is a very narrow Bill that we're putting in there, and I think we see how many times we want to make sure that we are protecting both the victim as well as the person getting out there. So I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you.

[Roll Call]

The measure's on call. Next measure. Next item says AB 2406.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members, today I'm here to present AB 2406. I first want to thank Committee staff for working with my staff and stakeholders on this measure. From my time up here, I have watched the Committee do the right thing when it comes to protecting minors and ensuring adults who use them for nefarious purposes are held accountable. Under current law, depending on the amount of goods stolen, theft is either a misdemeanor petty theft or an alternate felony misdemeanor grand theft.

Theft is grand theft when the amount stolen exceeds $950. However, there is no standalone crime or punishment if an adult causes employees or uses a minor to commit an act of shoplifting, petty theft, or organized retail theft. AB 2406 is a common sense measure to give the court and prosecutor the discretion to change an adult convicted of doing this with either a misdemeanor or a felony.

Before I begin explaining why this bill is needed, I want to recap what the bill in print is and where we came from. While working with Committee staff, we amended the bill via the following. We eliminated the probation section. We added language clarifying this wouldn't apply to minors who coerced other minors to violate this section. We eliminated the 2, 4, and 6 language for the higher theft related offense, that is, grand theft, burglary, etcetera.

We eliminated the sentencing to be in state prison and instead choose county jail. We do, however, keep the ability for a violation of this new section to be charged as a wobbler. Members, I do not need to sit here and tell you the obvious fact. Organized retail theft rings are out of control. In February alone, the Los Angeles District Attorney announced that in 2023, over 200 cases of organized retail theft were filed with his office.

Since its recent creation, the CHP organized retail theft task force has been involved in more than 2,300 investigations leading to the arrest of more than 2,200 suspects and the recovery of hundreds of thousands of stolen goods valued at more than $41 million. Members. This isn't just a bill about crime, it's a bill about justice for the thousands of mom and pop shops who have had their livelihood destroyed by their thieves. It's a bill to protect consumers.

Constituents come up to me all the time and tell me how sick they are of going to their local supermarket or convenience store, and more items are locked away behind a glass shelf. Adults who use minors do their dirty work should have extra penalties placed upon them. They are knowingly putting the lives of the minors at risk and leading them down a path of illegal behavior.

I'll end with saying this bill has the support from major law enforcement groups, from our business groups in our league of cities, because everyone knows the status quo isn't working. With me here to testify in support is Bradley Schoenleben from the Orange County DA's office, the sponsor of the bill. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Two minutes per witness, four minutes total.

Thank you. My name is still Bradley Schoenleben and I'm a senior deputy district attorney for the Orange County District Attorney's Office. And thank you again for allowing me to speak before this body. And I'd also like to thank Member Laurie Davies for authoring this bill, Bill 2406. Minors throughout California are being used by thieves as instrumentalities of crime. When a minor is employed or persuaded by an adult to commit crime, the adult has taken perfect advantage of the system.

If the minor steals for an adult criminal and gets caught, the minor gets very little consequence. If the minor doesn't get caught, the adult criminal gets paid. This is a win-win situation. These thieves understand our limitations on prosecuting minors and are taking full advantage. In our county, we have seen the employment and recruitment of minors to commit theft by gang members, organized crime groups, and even their own families.

Minors make the perfect tool in committing widespread theft, and we must discourage this alarming and damaging trend. I do want to take a moment to address concerns I've heard a number of times in this room, that the idea of a deterrent or punishment for deterrent does not work. I would only push back on the concept of I'd like this body to focus on crime as it relates to a business model.

In my experience where I've seen criminals who use crime as a profit making enterprise, punishment does work because what they do is they go through path of least resistance. They will look to the crimes that are the softest targets and have the lowest risk for committing that crime because the idea is a cost benefit analysis for them. While often seen only as a property crime, theft is mislabeled as a low level crime. However, the impact of theft can be and has been devastating.

This devastation results in prices going up, businesses going under, and employees either losing their jobs due to business closure or being afraid to walk into work. Additionally, when a minor is used as a tool for theft, the results can also be damaging for the minor. The minor will learn that theft can be their way of life. They are trained that there are little consequences for criminal behavior, and they are pushed further away from a life of good and towards a life of crime.

Again, also, in reading the analysis, I want to address a concern. I appreciate this was addressed in the analysis, the idea that this bill would rope in, say, a single mom who uses her minor to feed, put food in their belly, in essence, steal a loaf of bread. I can say, first of all, in 17 years of doing this, I've just never seen that happen. That's not a thing in my county.

I've never seen someone be prosecuted for trying to put food in their belly. What I can tell you is what I am seeing. And by the way, to get there, you'd have to have a perfect scenario of that mom willing to steal to literally eat, then not only willing to steal, but then utilize the child to make that theft happen. And then, on top of it, you'd have to have a prosecutor who'd be willing to file as a felony.

Then on top of it, you'd have to have a judge be willing to make sure that that felony went through and not 17, be it to a misdemeanor and so on. What we are seeing instead is we are seeing that this is a tactic used by criminals. I've spoken to defendants. I've spoken to minors. I've spoken to shop owners. Minors are, in fact, being used as a tool, and a deterrent for criminals using minors to commit crime must be in place.

AB 2406 will not only assist in fighting back against widespread theft plaguing California, but it will also help protect minors and deter them from using the minors tools of their trade. Thank you.

Thank you. Your partner only has 20 seconds. Okay, we're all good then. Others in support?

Mr. Chair and members, Julienne [Unintelligible], on behalf of the League California Cities, in support.

Jerred Kiloh, here for the United Cannabis Business Association, representing hundreds of cannabis retailers in support.

Thank you. Opposition, please come forward. Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. Mica Doctoroff, senior staff attorney at the ACLU of Northern California here on behalf of ACLU California action in regretful opposition this bill creates a new crime with increased penalties for conduct that is already criminalized under existing law. As we have seen time and time again, increasing penalties for conduct that is already punishable does not deter crime. In this case, it will serve only to further crowd our jails and to further criminalize young people.

AB 2406 would create a new crime subject to to incarceration of one to three years for persuading a minor to engage in a theft related offense. Current law already addresses this conduct. Penal Code Section 31 provides that all persons counseling, advising or encouraging children under the age of 14 to commit any crime are principles in any crime so committed, meaning that the person can be treated as though they themselves committed the crime.

The same is true of anyone who advises and encourages any person, regardless of age, to commit a crime. This applies to both misdemeanors and felonies. Penal Code Section 272 makes it a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year if a person causes or tends to cause or encourage a young person under the age of 18 to commit a crime, even if the person did not participate in the crime themselves. There is no indication that existing law is insufficient.

We are likewise not aware of any information or data that suggests that there is a rising trend among adults enticing minors to steal. Rather, the most likely scenario is that this bill would be used to prosecute minors who steal with other minors. This is the last thing California should be doing. For all of these reasons, we're in regretful opposition.

Thank you. Next witness.

Good morning.

Glenn Backes for the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights. The bill is overly broad and overly punitive. The actions described by the District Attorney, by my colleague from ACLU and the ones that I will describe are already crimes with severe penalties. We don't need a new statute that says if a person is 18 or 19 and goes joy riding with a peer who's a couple years older than them, that they would be subject to a felony and three years in jail.

We don't need a new statute that says if an 18 year old encourages a 17 year old to steal $10 worth of socks or boxers, that the 18 year old or 19 year old would go to jail for three years. We certainly don't need a new statute that says if a parent and child goes into a store to steal food, baby formula, hygiene products, that that parent can be sent to jail for three years.

The district attorneys don't need another lever, they don't need another hammer to force young adults or Low income parents into accepting unjust plea deals where they're sent to county jail or sometimes prison, separated from their families, separated from their jobs, separated from their apartments, with no plan afterwards to prevent them from joining the tens of thousands of homeless people in California on our streets.

Felony penalties for being poor exacerbate and accelerate the downward spiral into homelessness and ensure the intergenerational transfer of poverty in families, particularly Black, Latino and indigenous families in California. We respectfully urge your no vote.

Thank you. Others in opposition.

Natasha Minsker, Smart Justice California, in strong opposition.

Marlene Mercado, policy manager, Uncommon Law, strong opposition.

Joanne Scheer, Felony Murder Elimination Project, in strong opposition.

Adrianna Griffith, with Initiate Justice, in strong opposition. Thank you.

Thanh Tran, Ella Baker Center for the Human Rights, strong opposition.

Henry Ortiz, [Unintelligible] in Sacramento, opposition.

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

Tannah Oppliger with Californians United for Responsible Budget or CURB, in strong opposition.

Morgan Zamora from the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, in opposition.

Isa Borgeson, Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, strong opposition.

Margo George from the California Public Defenders Association, in opposition. Thank you.

Melanie Kim, San Francisco Public Defender's Office, in opposition. And on behalf of Initiate Justice Action, in opposition.

Ignacio Hernandez on behalf of The California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, the Statewide Association of Criminal Offense Lawyers, in opposition.

[Unintelligible] with the Center on Juvenile and Criminal justice and on behalf of California Alliance for Youth and Community Justice, in opposition.

Thank you. Questions or comments from committee members, Mr. Zbur?

So I wanted to sort of ask the author and the witnesses in support what data is out there that demonstrates that the existing law which was articulated is not working. There wasn't anything that was cited in any of the staff reports. I mean, what is, you know, you say that you, that you've never seen circumstances where either an adult or a child is ever coming through actually stealing some small amount, a loaf of bread or a sandwich because they're hungry.

But in fact, this bill does exactly that. It allows people to be charged for a felony and put in prison for up to three years for these very minorities activities. And so I'm just wondering what data that you're relying on to justify the need for this bill.

Go ahead.

First, I'd like to address your comments backwards. I would disagree with you, respectfully, that it's a minor crime. The crime that we're looking at isn't just the use of, isn't the theft itself, it's the idea of using a minor for committing that theft. And so I want to point that out like, the focus is on the criminal intent on the defendant in this situation would be the person who is utilizing the minor as the tool. And then in terms of data, we don't stat data.

In terms of. Okay, the age of this defendant versus the age of this defendant, what I can tell you is over the last two years, I spent mine almost seven days a week. Quite honestly, in this field of retail theft and crime, in talking with minors defendants, whether it's residential burglaries, retail theft, et cetera, just theft crimes in general and across the board.

What we're seeing, what law enforcement's telling me, what juvenile courts are telling me, and what retailers are telling me is they're seeing an influx of minors. And the minors that we're seeing are not the minors where we're seeing the, you know, a couple kids steal a candy bar, and it's a 19 year old and a 17 year old, still a candy bar. What we're seeing is the employment of minors.

Specifically sought out, recruited and sent in by professional thieves.

But you don't have any data. This is just all. I mean. Where's the data?

Correct. I do not have the numbers to be able to tell you. This is how many adults we're talking about. What I can tell you is we've seen this is a problem. And quite frankly, the excitement as a prosecutor, for me in this bill is not the idea that I want to put more people in prison. It's that I want to determine the business model of theft in utilizing minors because I do not want them to commit that life a crime.

But you already have tools to do that. I mean, there was just. The staff report identifies a whole host of tools that seem to be commensurate with the kind of underlying activity. And you've got those tools already. I mean, you want the tool to be able to put someone in prison for three years for stealing a sandwich.

A mother asking a child to steal a sandwich would allow you to put someone to charge someone with a felony and put them in prison for up to three years.

First of all, I do not want a tool to put a mother who's trying to.

But you're asking for that tool. That's what this bill does.

No, I'm not. And in fact, even in the three year scenario, again.

That is in fact what the bill does. And I want to ask the author, I understand that there are a number of amendments that the committee staff asked for to try to focus this bill more. And I was wondering why those were not accepted.

Actually, we did accept all of them except the last one. And one, I would like to just say, is the concern about minors working with minors. And we added the language clarifying that this would not apply to minors who curse other minors to violate this section. So we took four of the five, and again, that fifth one basically would make it a wobbler. They'd have an opportunity to decide if they would be a misdemeanor or if it would be a felony.

It doesn't make it a felony. You have the discretion of the courts to decide that. And also, from what I believe a misdemeanor is in three years, it's one year in county jail.

Okay. I think I've, you know, I actually think that this is a bill that is just way, way over broad. I mean, the ability to literally put someone in jail for, you know, a homeless family where a mother and a child steal a sandwich from a convenience store would result in the mother going to prison potentially for up to three years. And to me, that just seems way over broad.

And I think you've got significant tools to address those situations, I think, as articulated both in the staff report and as the opponents articulated. So I'll be, I'm not going to be able to support the bill today.

Thank you. Assemblymember Wilson.

Thank you. Thank you to my colleague for answering, for asking quite a bit of the questions that I wanted to ask. So I'm going to ask a follow up related to your response and then a new one. So in following up, you said that this bill, you said you didn't have any desire for a mother, father a parent to entrap a parent into this particular law. But can you agree that this allows a DA to do that?

Not whether it's desired or fruitful, but just does this language allow someone to do that?

Is there a hypothetical scenario in which a prosecutor could, in theory, prosecute a parent for a state prison sentence for theft? Yes, the likelihood.

I'm just, I would push back. First of all, I don't, I wouldn't, it's not three years, because to get to three years, as this body knows you'd have, that's an aggravating term. And to get to the aggravating term, there'd have to be some facts that pled improve the justification to justify the upper term. So this, the Low level, insignificant criminal background, criminal theft, et cetera, really, you're talking, and I know that may not make a difference to you, but you're really talking to two year max.

And again, I do think the reality. So, yes, that could, in theory, happen.

But without, which is what he was getting to. And I just want to make sure I understood that it's likely not the desire, there's child negligence. There's other things you can focus on and not this, but it does allow for that.

And then the follow up question I had is, based on your testimony, you were talking about what's happening now, although you didn't have data, and I assumed, I'm gonna take you at your word, that the way we classify certain crimes, the data doesn't exist in that way. So you are talking anecdotally what you're hearing from others.

But isn't it true in that anecdotal, because I read the newspaper and watch news on TV, that the youth who are involved in some of these criminal theft rings are technically employed by the person who's over the age of 18, so they're giving them resources to actually commit these crimes, aren't they primarily that or, no?

Wait, so I'm not sure I understand. Can you repeat the question?

Adults are using youth to commit these retail theft crimes.

Yes.

Right. Yes. And is it not true, based on anecdotally. You're using anecdotally, I'm saying anecdotal from news and newspapers getting money, that the kids are getting money to be able to do these crimes.

Yeah. So it depends. Right. So the groups that we've seen, and even I reference familial use of kids. Right. So the families where the mom or dad are using the minors, even in those situations, we haven't seen it from a poverty standpoint. In fact, we've looked back at them and they have cars that are a lot more expensive than mine, which isn't saying much, but like, nice homes or nice cars, nice things, that kind of thing. But, yeah.

What we'll have is you'll have a fence who will put out a request. The adult will then start recruiting minors to go into the store because they know the challenges in terms of handling the minor cases. And they will send those kids in so they may steal, say, $1,000 worth of Nike shoes. Those kids come out, they tend to keep it under 950, but they'll keep it under dollar 950, they'll steal those Nike shoes, and then they'll get a cut or some money.

And again, anecdotally, to your point, so I suppose, yes, those kids are earning money, but when we've looked at those backgrounds of those minors, we're not seeing them. I mean, we're seeing, again, flashy watches, flashy cars, Airbnbs, $20,000 a month Airbnbs. I mean, we're not seeing it. I'm not saying it doesn't happen. I want to be very clear. I'm not saying that there aren't people in poverty who are utilizing this.

What I'm saying, saying is the organized criminal theft groups are without question exploiting minors because of our inability to talk to them, to prosecute them, et cetera.

But there are receiving, I'm saying because the bill is very broad in virtue of promote, employ, use, persuade, induce or coerce, versus trying to find an avenue where you're breaking that up by using those that are, that basically are employing minors and using that to be a different aspect than the others. And so I was just wondering the background on that, of what if you were trying to target that particular group, would there be a less broad way to do it?

But that was, that was what I was going with. You answered my question. I think we're good.

So I'm intimately aware of all the data related to retail theft and met with almost every stakeholder related to retail theft and have never once been flagged. That one of the primary reasons, one of the primary problems that's happening on retail theft was basically that the crime wings are using kids. Now, I don't doubt that that happens sometimes, but that is not one of the key things that came out of any, like literally any of the meetings, the hearings that we've had on that.

Not once did anyone raise that. I will point out that in the package of bills that was approved by this committee, there will be requirements for retailers to actually report data. And I think there will be data that will show at a later period of time whether or not this is an issue. So I just, you know, the fact that you're saying this is happening, it's anecdotal, but frankly, this was never raised by any of the major stakeholders about this issue with respect to kids.

Thank you, Senator Reyes.

Actually, Mr. Chair, the questions have already been asked, and I appreciate the responses. One thing, if I may, the bill talks about that it's a crime to promote, employ, use, persuade, induce or coerce minor in the argument. In support, the National Federation of Business says that they support the robust penalties under your bill for those who recruit, organize, supervise, direct, manager, finance. Another to act in concert with another to steal.

I know that this committee here and in the senate and also the administration have taken this seriously. When we're talking about not just retail theft, but organized crime in retail theft, this is something very serious. And in fact, there are a number of bills that have come through this committee that we all have voted in favor of.

I think the comment has already been made, and I, and I know that I'm repeating, but it's so overly broad the way that it's the way the Bill is stated, it does cause concern. The comment has been made about all of the laws that we have on the books already that provide the tools that are necessary to convict those who are involved in organized crime. Is there more that can be done?

Well, that's exactly what we need to do is figure out what more needs to be done, because organized crime, retail theft is one of the. I think the biggest problem here, as opposed to everything is a problem, but as opposed to the minors stealing or the parent who is having their child steal sandwich or something, but the organized retail theft is a serious issue and has been stated in the past.

I'm very proud of the work that the committee has been doing in trying to address that and getting those bills over to the Senate. Because of the way the bill is written and because it is so overly broad, I'm not going to be able to support it today.

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

Thank you. And I appreciate your comments. And I know myself working on retail theft, and I say thank you for the bills you guys have passed through. And I don't want the misinterpretation of this because of knowing retail theft. This bill really was there to protect the miners.

These miners are being used to do the dirty work of these ringleaders, and that's what they're focused on, because we don't want them continuing this circle, this chain where they become an adult, knowing that, hey, I can get away with this, and then bringing more minors in. This bill is specifically really focusing on keeping our kids, especially the most vulnerable, foster kids, lower income kids, safe, and not having the chorus and using them. That's what this was about.

It wasn't about taking a mom that gets a loaf of bread or something like that. First of all, obviously, it's a misdemeanor, but second of all, that was the last thing that I would ever do. And I think, knowing me, you know, that wasn't there, there. It really is protecting our minors. And that is my main goal here. And I appreciate that. But I think we probably need to get some stats because these were not made up.

You know, the attorney here sees these kids, they talk to them, they know that they are being used, and so we need to start getting data in there. But I think the first priority is that we take care of the minors that are being used and we don't just assume that this isn't happening, because it is. And that is my first priority. So I really appreciate it, I appreciate your time and I respectedly ask for a consideration, a courtesy vote to move forward. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you for your presentation. We have a motion a second. I will note that this was a bill that we took very seriously. We didn't vote on it a few weeks ago, we polled it. So we wanted to keep talking with you and working on it, because it is a big topic. And as our member from West Hollywood said, who's working with us on the select committee, this is a big, big, big topic.

And I will note that when I first got this assignment, a few days later, I read in the Chronicle there was some girl in the San Francisco south, just San Francisco, who was found, she was 14, I had 15 year olds and she had like $40,000 of goods with her. So she probably wasn't doing it alone and she probably had somebody helping with her, probably was an adult. And so I think that those are issues we need to address.

But is this the remedy that will just tackle that? I don't think so. And I think it does open up other parameters and we do have other laws we lay out. And plus there is discretion. This is a wobbler. So in these cases we think there is opportunity for that discretion to be utilized. Therefore, I'm not supporting this. Thank you for engaging with us. And please call the roll on AB 2406 by Assemblymember Davies.

The motion is do pass to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

[Roll Call].

That measure fails. Next measure: Mr. Low.

Thank you.

Okay, we have a couple bills for you. Which one do you start with? We'll start with--let's go with AB 2788.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and colleagues for allowing me to present Assembly Bill 2788. On August 16 of 2023, I was here in the state capital and received one of the most disturbing calls of my life, in which I was notified that there was a shooting, an officer violence shooting in the City of San Jose, in my district, and then subsequently was made aware that it was my brother and his partner that were shot at.

My brother's partner was hit, and she was the first police officer, female police officer, to be hit in the line of duty in the history of the City of San Jose. My brother would be here to testify in support, but he can not be here because of the trauma that he has endured. And this is, of course, an experience not unique to him, but so many others.

This bill, of course, attempts to be responsive to this issue at hand in making sure that we're keeping our community safe and addressing these issues at hand, and making sure that such repeat offenders are taken into account and individuals with serious crimes and repeat firearm charges. We address these issues in the State of California, and we're taking the right steps to address these issues as well. With me today is Jonathan Feldman with the Sheriff's Association to help answer any technical questions as well. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote and consideration.

Thank you.

Chair and Members, good morning. Jonathan Feldman, California Police Chiefs Association in strong support of a 2788, which gets at a priority issue for police chiefs across the state. And I want to highlight that whether it's retail theft, gang crimes, or violent offenders, repeat offenders who are the primary drivers of crime in our state, the small proportion of the population who commit a majority of the crime, that is a huge problem for the Chiefs Association and where we are looking for strength in our laws to address that population.

In this case, we are focusing on repeat offenders who have shown a pattern of recklessness and disregard for our laws and for the safety of others, those who were already prohibited from owning a firearm, committing another crime with the use of a firearm. AB 2788 also doesn't mandate any new penalties or enhancements, but rather preserves judicial discretion by allowing flexibility in dictating to our judges what factors they should consider.

These are similar provisions that we've seen in a lot of criminal justice reform bills where we outline the factors that we want judges to consider, whether it's mental health, homelessness, prior military use, whether or not they were victims of abuse themselves. We don't necessarily dictate exactly what the penalties are, but we do outline for judges the criteria that we expect them to consider and give great weight towards.

It also relies heavily on rehabilitation programs that we've stood up within our state prisons and county jails, utilizing those programs in these cases to make sure that those who have clearly shown repetitive behavior are given programming that will help hopefully lower our recidivism rates across the state. And for those reasons, we are in strong support of this measure and thank the author.

Thank you. Others in support, please come forward.

Ivy Fitzpatrick, California DA's Association in support.

Thank you. Opposition, please come forward.

Please proceed. You have two minutes each. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair. I'm Kenneth Hartman, Advocacy Director for Transformative Programming Works. We represent 99 community-based organizations that run rehabilitative programs in every California prison. I served 38 years in the prison system. I was commuted from a life without parole sentence in large part due to the rehabilitative work I did. I took some of the programs we now represent. I facilitated some of the programs we now represent. I even helped to create a couple of the programs we now represent. We opposed this bill for the following reasons.

We believe that this bill fundamentally misunderstands the rehabilitative process in ways that could harm the forward progress we've seen. I know the rehabilitative programs require several components to be successful. There needs to be trust in the process, knowing that everyone in the room is moving in the same direction so that participants do not feel alone, safety, confidentiality, and unity of purpose are also essential. Participants in rehabilitative programs often reveal their worst moments, profoundly opening themselves up to vulnerability. Most importantly, they must be voluntary.

Introducing a compulsory component into a program violates that voluntary quality and threatens to upend the necessary unity. It compromises existing programs and creates an additional burden on the state that from our own lived experience we know will be minimally successful at best. We think we're falling into the trap that presumes the state can decide what programs work best for people based on an offense type which has historically proven ineffective.

This moves away from the progress toward community-based solutions and back toward the failed policies that facilitated mass incarceration. I know that rehabilitation works because I've seen it work on thousands of people and, frankly, on me. I would not be here today without the benefit of the many hours of rehabilitative program that I was fortunate enough to participate in over the decades of my imprisonment, participation that was voluntary on my part. For these reasons, we stand in opposition to this bill.

Thank you. Next speaker.

Margo George for California Public Defenders Association, in respectful opposition. I want to recognize the trauma that Assembly Member Low's family and his brother's partner suffered. I, you know, I'm really sorry for that. Unfortunately, this bill is problematic for two reasons. One: research shows that longer sentences do not deter crime, and two: the actual way the bill is constructed, it runs afoul of both the U.S. Constitution and the California Constitution.

The support analogized it to the criminal justice reforms that give weight to various factors in striking enhancements or sentencing, and this attempts to do the opposite, which is give great weight to an aggravated term which runs afoul of U.S. Supreme Court precedent in Apprendi, which says anything that goes beyond the minimum sentence has to be submitted to a jury, that a judge cannot do that alone. Then the second problem is the attempt to abrogate Prop 57 credits.

And very recently, even the dissent in the California Supreme Court, Justice Jen, said that it remains an open question whether the voters have now taken that authority away from the Legislature and given it to the Executive. So there are two significant problems with the way this bill is crafted. It is most likely unconstitutional and will lead to extensive litigation. For those reasons, we respectfully oppose and ask for your no vote.

Thank you. Others in opposition?

Natasha Minsker, Smart Justice California. Again, with deep respect to Assembly Member Low and his family, we remain opposed unless amended.

Adrianna Griffith with Initiate Justice, in opposition. Thank you.

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

Respectfully, Joanne Scheer, on behalf of Felony Murder Elimination Project, in strong opposition.

Marlene Mercado with UnCommon Law, in strong opposition.

Diana Obligar with Californians United for Responsible Budget or CURB, in opposition.

Mica Doctoroff, Staff Attorney with the ACLU of Northern California on behalf of ACLU California Action, in regretful opposition with respect to Assembly Member Low and his family.

Henry Ortiz, with All of Us or None and Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, in opposition.

Lena Din, LSPC and All of Us or None, in opposition.

Kellie Walters, Staff Attorney with Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, in respectful opposition.

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

Thank you. I have two questions, one for the author and then a follow-up based on the testimony. So the first question for the author, thank you, you know, and definitely extend, you know, my appreciation to, you know, your family for their service and recognize them being in harm's way and how devastating that can be and the trauma that is experienced through that.

So extend my love and appreciation to you and your family. Noting that part of this is enhancements, and we definitely have a patchwork of enhancement laws here in the State of California, I was confused by the language in your bill, the language as it relates to the Committee analysis, what it actually does. Does it make things better or worse than in terms of the length enhancement? Is it longer or shorter than what currently exists in law today? Could you provide clarity to that?

Thank you very much, Assemblywoman. The question was, as you summarized the question about your belief that this was an enhancement, in the bill specifically, Section B clearly outlines that this section shall not be considered an enhancement. So it clearly specifies that. So might there be confusion on the specifics here? Or maybe perhaps there's an area that I may be able to help hone in on.

Okay, so you said--and I'm trying to look it up at the same time--so you said in Section B, it said it's not considered enhancement?

Correct. This section shall not be considered enhancement.

But it does, by definition, enhance. Isn't it an increased penalty? Or you're saying it's requiring the upper limit, but it adds additional components, does it not?

So as I'm reading the bill with you here, 'specifically that a court may use.' Judicial discretion is still intact. May versus shall. And again, in the Section 23, is 'shall not be considered an enhancement.' So again, attempting to answer the question about maintaining the judicial discretion is still intact with the language very specifically on those two elements.

And it does have the--when it looking at probation, that does get converted to a shall, right?

Shall be for a duration of five years. Yes, probation. The situation at hand, Assemblywoman, is, again, to provide additional context, as you can appreciate. If there is an incident in your district, we are here to help address these issues at hand, and crafting legislation to prevent such or circumstance from occurring in the future was important, while also maintaining the direction and integrity of the State of California not to over-incarcerate.

So this, in essence, presented before you in partnership and work with this Committee and the Committee staff, attempts to address the issue in maintaining the opportunity to retain the judicial discretion at hand.

But provide for an opportunity for greater punishment?

Greater accountability. The individual at hand, for example, in this case, already was possessing a firearm, so should not have been possessing a firearm, and so the second crime, while possessing that firearm, we are attempting to address that issue that already with the first case, that was not preventative enough. And so these are circumstances in which we want to outline the criteria to address that individual under this circumstance.

Okay. Thank you for that response. It's a great segue to my question to the opposition. You talked about that putting it in the hands of the Legislature or the state overall into the rehabilitation of a person, but as the author noted, this is not the first time this person has used a firearm in the commission of a crime. They've actually used it in a way that actually required, I think it was the ten years, right, or 20-year enhancement on it, potentially?

And so why would then, if they're allowed to, if they are free and do another crime, why wouldn't you want greater--I don't know what to call it now--greater accountability--for the author.

Thank you. And again to Mr. Low, your family, with great respect. I think what really what I'm saying is if you introduce a compulsory component to taking programs, which I think this bill does introduce a compulsory component prior to being able to earn good time off of your sentence, I think that upends the idea of participation in a rehabilitative program. It kind of has to be voluntary because if it's not voluntary, really, you just have people sitting in a room, right?

You want people coming to a program because they want to be in a program. And I, like I said, I was in prison for 38 years and I have been in places where there were sort of compulsory things. They don't have the same impact. They don't have the same effect. Our member organizations, who are all basically rehabilitative program providers, would want the people in their classes, the programs, whatever they are, are people there because they want to be there and you're going to get a lot more out of something if people are there because they want to be there. So I think that's fundamentally what I'm saying.

In this particular bill, it notes that in order to earn good credits, right, you have to have been a part of that program. So you, so they could--is it compulsory? I thought they couldn't do it, but they couldn't get good credits without it.

Well, I mean, I think that's de facto compulsory.

Okay, sounds good. All right.

Thank you.

Thank you. I think that's it for now.

Thank you. Mr. Zbur.

I'm not going to ask all the questions. I know that you probably answered them. I apologize. I had to get out and vote in another Committee that was ending. I just had one question about the--I have a number--but the one that is the most important is the issue of the no clear end date on the program and having the credits not earned until the completion and providing disincentives to going into programs.

Is there a way of addressing that issue in your bill where you could, where a program that is actually sort of ongoing without a specific completion date, you could address that so that you don't end up having disincentives to going into programs that may be ongoing? Because that seems to me like a big disincentive to go into programs, and of course, you know, we want people to do that.

If I might, through the Chair, Mr. Feldman might be able to answer it. Mr. Zbur?

Yeah. I'd first want to say I agree that voluntary programs are always going to be more effective. Always. So that's something that we all kind of agree on is common ground. But in certain cases where we see repetitive behavior, which was the argument, you know, I think the deciding factor in this instance and one of the problems that we see across the state is the repetitive behavior that's not changing. Lack of participation in some programming or really structured programming is causal in someone's continued illegal behavior.

And so the goal here is to identify a small group of individuals who have been shown to display a pattern of behavior that's causing severe damage and harm. And then in those cases, actually trying to outline the programming specifically so that we really are focusing in and, you know, trying to create somewhat of a balance between mandated program and voluntary program. I think there absolutely is a balance that we can try and create them.

Again, fully acknowledging that the voluntary programs are more effective, but, you know, if someone's not going to complete programs, they're not going to take that step on their own, and they've shown repetitive illegal behavior, sometimes there has to be some intervention at some point. So I think finding the balance between the two would be the goal and absolutely happy to kind of work towards a better balance there if the language doesn't quite accomplish that right now.

So I assume you'd be working--you'd be open to working with the opposition on identifying programs with a completion point so that the issue of earning credits is not eliminated for people entering programs.

That's correct, yes. Happy and committed to do so should this leave this Committee today.

Thank you.

Back to Assembly Member Wilson.

Okay, I think I figured out my question on announcements. So you read Section B or Item B, and in that section it says, as you noted, 'shall not be considered an enhancement for the purposes of Subdivision C of Section 1385.' And in reference to that section, this means that the judge does not have discretion to dismiss this enhancement. Is that how you understand it?

I'm sorry, Ms. Wilson. Which section are you reading?

So you read B and I'm looking at, I think it's line 23, right? You read that at the beginning saying how it specifically says it should not be considered an enhancement, and I'm saying, as it relates to the Subdivision C of Section 1385, 'removes the judicial discretion so it cannot be dismissed in any way.' So there is no discretion for the judge to adjust any of this. It is a 'shall' versus your comment earlier versus a 'may.'

Mr. Feldman?

Yeah, I'll help out a little bit.

Okay, thank you. We're getting real technical and I was asking questions I was working with. You don't have to help me.

I'm sorry. You know, some of this language was worked out with the District Attorneys Association, so I'm not as verse in the law as they are, but what I can try and help out with is it's not an enhancement, it's giving the judge factors to consider in choosing the upper term, right? Most of our criminal terms either have a low term, a mid-term and a high.

This is saying if someone has repetitively committed dangerous behavior in this case, being a felon, prohibited from using a firearm, who commits another felony with a firearm, the judge shall consider those factors in giving the upper term. Not an enhancement. Just the upper of the triad.

Right. Not more than.

And not mandating that they do it, but saying, these are the factors you have to consider. The provision below is making it clear that this is not an enhancement. That's not what we're looking for. We're talking about the triad and just saying the judge shall consider these factors, which again, we've required judges to consider factors in other instances in choosing the upper term.

Right. But when you look at Subdivision C of Section 1385, by referencing that, it allows, it takes away the judge's ability to dismiss it. And I think at the beginning of your testimony, you noted judicial discretion. And so I think that's, for me, is what's important to maintain.

I think there is a recognition that if someone has committed a crime and because of that crime has limitations when they go back out into the world and then they again commit another crime against those limitations, there should be ability for the judge to take into--for that to carry weight. And because of that weight, they could go to the far end of their ability the first time around, so to speak, is where I think you say you're going.

But I want them to keep that discretion, and so if there's language in here that removes that discretion of the judge and gets us into the 'shall' versus 'may,' that is very concerning to me. And also the conversation that you were having that we started and that you had with our colleague from West Hollywood in terms of making sure you're identifying programs that close-ended so it's not a forever and you're never earning good credits and things of that nature is really important.

And so given, you know, not only the sacrifice of your brother, but just the recognition that not just police officers are in harm's way, regular community members are in harm's way when someone chooses to use a gun that is not allowable, and focusing on public safety, you know, I am willing to let you continue to work on it.

But reserving the right that if on the floor, there's not that judicial discretion, it's not just may but shall, and that you haven't worked out programs, recognizing that we have, as a Legislature, created opportunities for rehabilitation and restoration in our criminal justice system, then it wouldn't be something I support, but I'm willing to let you--

I take that as a motion.

Okay. We have a motion, a second. No, we have Mr. Zbur real quick.

Yep.

I just, I'm sort of completely aligned with my colleague from Northern California and willing to move this forward today to allow you, but I think with the hope that with both of these issues and the discretion that you'll work with the opponents to make it clear that the judge doesn't have to impose the three-year, that it's just a mandatory that he consider this factor, he or she or they consider this factor, and with that, I think I'm aligned with my colleague.

Thank you. We have a motion and a second. Mr. Alanis, briefly.

Thank you, Chair. Just one hook that I'm stuck on right now is the judge's discretion with the upper term for both existing, preexisting, and then this one is--is that something that's going to be addressed or is that something that'll be worked on?

Happy to continue to address it, this part of the conversation earlier, should this bill pass this Committee.

Okay.

Okay. You may close.

Respectfully ask for your aye vote, colleagues.

Thank you. Please call the roll.

On AB 2788 by Assembly Member Low, the motion is 'do pass to the Appropriations Committee.' [Roll Call].

Measure's on call. You have one more measure, right? And then one on consent. So AB 3094.

Thank you very much, colleagues, for allowing me to present the second bill, which is Assembly Bill 3094. As this Committee well knows, I'm no stranger to these issues when it comes to survivor's rights, previously advocating and passing laws addressing the issue of the Stanford rape case, rape backlogs, and non consensual drugging. This bill before us is direct response to a number of issues that we've heard from survivors throughout, throughout the state of California.

With respect to roofing, the term that refers to the act of secretly administering drugs in social settings without consent. The tragic reality is that many victims do not come forth and has significant impact and provided greater evidence to address this issue in utilizing statistics and data points and keeping our community safe. I respectfully ask for an aye vote and I turn it back to you.

Thank you. Support?

Morning, Chair and Members. Jonathan Feldman again with California Police Chiefs Association. No official position on the bill, but we have worked with the Assembly Member on previous efforts in this space and similar issues and would say that this is absolutely covering a loophole that we think has allowed for lack of penalties and consequences in areas that absolutely deserve it. And so for that reason, we are looking to support the bill as he moves out of the Committee.

Others in support, please come forward. Seeing none. Opposition?

Margo George, on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association, again, in respectful opposition. As noted in the Committee analysis, this Bill is unnecessary and redundant. It's unnecessary because there are at least six felony punishments already ranging from 16 months to six years in county jail or state prison dealing with this area. Very quickly, 11350.5 possession of GHB, ketamine, the other drugs that we're talking about with intent to commit sexual assault is a felony.

There are two different health and safety code sections, 11377 and 11352, which prohibit administering any controlled substance classified in schedule three, four, or five, which is not a narcotic drug, which includes roofies, GHB and ketamine. Administering any of these substances now punishable by incarceration in the county jail for up to four or five years. PC 347 punishes willfully mingling any poison or harmful substance with food, drink, medicine, or pharmaceutical product. State prison two or five years.

Case law has found that roofies and ketamine, GBH and GBL are capable of destroying life. That's a poison, so they're covered under that. A sentence enhancement of three to six years can be imposed if the person suffers great bodily injury. I could go on and on, but it's very adequately already covered, and for those reasons, we respectfully ask for your no vote.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair and Members. Mica Doctoroff, senior Staff Attorney at the ACLU of Northern California, here today on behalf of ACLU California Action in respectful opposition. We appreciate the author's goal of protecting people from the harms of non-consensual administration of these substances. But like my colleague, we believe existing law already more than adequately addresses these harms. In addition to the statutes that my colleague named, there are additional statutes.

A person who commits enumerated sexual offenses, who administer a controlled substance to the victim in the commission of that offense can be punished by 15 years to life. There are additional code sections, as my colleague mentioned, and again, without minimizing the potential harms here, we think that existing law already addresses this issue, and that to the extent that existing law does not create a deterrent effect, creating a new penalty isn't going to serve as a greater deterrent.

And lastly, we understand that there is an interest in collecting data on this issue. If that is the goal of this Bill, is to collect data, there are other ways to do that without creating an additional unnecessary offense. So we would encourage the author and the Legislature to think about sort of non-punitive ways to collect data, if that is indeed the overarching goal here, to really understand better the problem underlying this legislation. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Others in opposition?

Ignacio Hernandez, on behalf of the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, for the reasons already stated. In opposition.

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

Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, strong opposition.

Morgan Zamora, Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in opposition.

Thank you. Committee Members? Assemblymember Wilson.

I just ask that you respond to the opposition in regard to. We already do this, right? There's already ways to handle this particular issue.

Thank you very much. And I would actually ask the opposition. I'm so perplexed actually about the opposition because understanding that the Bill in print, the Bill specifically would make this crime a misdemeanor and I don't know if the opposition was aware of that. They were talked about being in felonies. Yes. And so I would assume in theory that if there is concern about the penalties, this is actually lessening the penalties. Calling a specific section.

So perhaps just given also the flurry of information in this period of time, perhaps amendments were not made readily available to opposition. But again, the Bill in print specifically calls out this explicit section regardless of intent. And again, to address the issue of data points as well as clarifying as a misdemeanor, specifically.

The motion is second. Mister Alanis.

My concerns with this Bill, and I'm sure this may be an oversight, maybe something you're already working on as far as paramedics or medical professions who are doing their jobs, has that been addressed already?

It has not. So thank you for the reminder. Yes, to address the issue of medical professionals, first responders and providing that, should this Bill move out, putting that as well into exempt amendment.

Thank you.

Thank you. The motion is second. Please call the roll. Excuse me, you'd like to close?

I respectfully ask for an aye vote to protect everyday individuals. Thank you.

On AB 3094 by Assemblymember Low. The motion is due pass as amended to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

Measures on call, you need one more vote. Mr. Jones-Sawyer. Yes. So you're pulling one Bill? Two bills, 2456 and 2923, vote only. So you just have one Bill before us? Maybe 2136.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm here to present my last bill in Public Safety as a Member of this esteemed body. I would say last when I'm looking at Greg Pagan who I started in the Assembly with back again. So you never know. You may never come. You never know when you'll come back home again. I present AB 2136, which clarifies the legality of assessing and providing drug checking services in California.

The most effective way to address the presence of fentanyl and other analogs tainting the drug supply is through the evidence based health and harm reduction approaches. Increased access to Naloxone training, fentanyl strips help prevent drug overdoses and are keeping people safe and alive. Drug testing is simply another important tool at our disposal. Today, researchers and community based organizations throughout the state are offering to analyze small samples of drugs to reveal their components, including any traces of fentanyl.

They're checking for contaminated drugs in areas with the most vulnerable populations, like in my district, skid row in Los Angeles. But technically, this where technically this service is illegal. Although drug trafficking equipment and testing are permitted in California, the state's drug paraphernalia and possession laws prohibit drug testing and analyzing for substance users. Programs that are helping people make informed decisions about their health are currently operating under a legal gray area.

AB 2136 addresses the gaps in state law to encourage more cities to offer drug checking services in partnership with community based organizations, research institutions, and state and local public health departments. This bill also provides legal, criminal, and administrative protections for both the drug checking service providers and the participants. The intent is for the protections of AB 2136 to apply once the individual is at the testing facility. This is not a get out of jail free card.

I understand this provision is a concern, and I am committed to work on clarifying language as the bill moves forward. Members, it can take less than 10 minutes to reveal vital information about the contents of the substance people can consume. This is an opportunity to save lives. Let's make that illegal. With me in support of this bill. Let's not make this illegal. With me in support of this bill is Dr. Chelsea Shover.

Thank you. Please proceed.

Thank you very much. I'd like to thank Chair McCarty and Vice Chair Alanis for having me here today. My name is Chelsea Shover. I'm an epidemiologist and assistant professor in residence at the UCLA David Geffen School of Medicine. Today, I represent myself as an individual, and I do not speak on behalf of the University of California or any other organization. For nearly a decade, I have conducted public health research on substance use disorders, overdose, and infectious diseases.

Based on my own expertise, I view controlled substances testing, or colloquially, drug checking, as an important part of how we can curb overdose deaths in California. Assembly Member Jones-Sawyer's bill clarifies the legality of accessing and providing drug checking services, and provides essential protections for program providers and participants so that we can implement them at scale. Since January 2023, I have been the principal investigator of Drug Checking Los Angeles, a study that performs controlled substances testing in partnership with syringe services programs.

We set up a table in a community space, and participants who have something they want to test bring a small about the size of a grain of rice sample. We use a portable spectrometer and test strips to identify the primary components of the sample. I want to note that we are not doing quantitative testing to describe purity, but we are identifying the main components in a qualitative way.

So research has shown that being able to tell people what is in their substances can empower them to prevent overdose by either choosing not to use the substance or to use it in a different way, such as ingesting it slower. One life saving scenario is, of course, finding fentanyl or other strong synthetic drugs in a pill or powder that the individual believed was something else.

Our qualitative data also show that by offering drug checking in a nonjudgmental way, we have been able to build relationships and help participants engage in other services, including treatment for substance use disorders, HIV testing, prevention and treatment, housing case management, general medical care, and, of course, naloxone and other overdose prevention supplies.

Finally, health departments and other public safety agencies are really interested in drug checking because it can provide more timely and robust information about the drug supply than other sources like post mortem toxicology, which can take weeks or months, or law enforcement seizures, which are rarely shared with the public. Real time data can drive faster community response. A year ago, when we first identified the veterinary tranquilizer xylazine in heroin samples in one part of Los Angeles, we immediately notified the Public Health Department and our community partners.

Together, we mobilized to get xylazine test strips out into the community, make educational materials in English and Spanish, and provide guidance to clinicians about treating patients who use xylazine. Our work so far has been legal because we do it in the context of syringe services programs, but our reach has been limited due to the issues that this bill clarifies.

Some people have understandably been hesitant to participate because they are afraid of getting arrested for possession of the substance that they want to get tested. With the toxic illicit drug supply, anyone who uses drugs, whether that's taking a pill from a friend one time, experimenting, partying, or daily use, is at risk of an overdose. But not everyone who uses drugs goes to a syringe services program. This bill would remove these barriers and make it clear that our first priority is helping people stay safe.

We and other organizations like us could scale up drug checking to reach more people and communities. That would help us keep more individuals safe and gain a more complete insight into the illicit drug supply. Now is the time to adopt these measures. In a tragic example of traditional data arriving too late, far too many Californians, including many young people, died before we collectively understood the threat of counterfeit press pills.

More than once, I've had the grim task of leading a naloxone training at a high school as an all school assembly because a student had died after using what they thought was a prescription pill but turned out to be fentanyl.

Wrap it up.

It is my hope that comprehensive drug checking can help us understand the illicit drug supply to get ahead of the next wave, and I respectfully ask you to support.

Thank you. Others in support? Just need your name and position only.

Melanie Kim, San Francisco Public Defender's Office, in support, and on behalf of Initiate Justice Action in strong support.

Margo George, on behalf of the California Public Defender's Association, in support.

Glenn Backes, Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in support.

Joanne Shearer, Felony Elimination Project in support.

Adriana Griffith, statewide advocacy manager with Initiate Justice in support

Marina Quintanilla, and I'm providing me-too's on behalf of supporting organizations that could not be here: Glide, HopX, the Gubbio Project, San Luis Obispo Bangor Syringe Exchange and Overdose Prevention Program, PRC Black Leadership Council, Community Health Project Los Angeles, Young Women's Freedom Center, Participatory Defense of Inland Empire, the Sidewalk Project, and Any Positive Change.

My name is Thuy Do, and I am providing me-too's as well on behalf of those supporting supporting organizations who could not be here as well: Face to Face, Sonoma County AIDS Network, Tenderloin Neighborhood Development Corporation, Homeless Healthcare Los Angeles, Health Right 360, Delivering Innovation in Support of Housing, Safer Inside Coalition, Treatment and Demand Coalition, Bien Star Human Services, Inland Empire Harm Reduction, Harm Reduction Coalition of San Diego. Thank you.

Marlene Mercado, on behalf of Uncommon Law, in strong support

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Claire Simonich, Vera Institute of Justice, in support. Thank you.

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

Jeanette Saripatin, on behalf of Drug Policy Alliance as a co-sponsor and in strong support.

Isabel Lopez with El Reysa's Collective in strong support as well as San Francisco Community Health Center, National Harm Reduction Coalition, Humboldt Area Center for Harm Reduction, San Francisco Pretrial Diversion Program, HIV Education and Prevention Project of Alameda County, Up North Harm Reduction, NHEPC San Francisco, California Syringe Exchange Programs Coalition, Being Alive, and Fresno Needle Exchange Program.

Hi. Henry Ortiz with Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, on behalf of All of Us in Sacramento, and Community Healers in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Lena Dinh, LSPC and All of Us or None, in strong support

Kelly Walters, staff attorney with Legal Services for Prisoners with Children in strong support.

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

Mica Doctoroff, senior staff attorney at the ACLU of Northern California on behalf of ACLU California Action in support

Daniela Alvarenga on behalf of the Solis Policy Institute in support.

Mike Carroll, retired policy director for the Western Center on Law and Poverty in support.

Natasha Minsker, March on California, in support.

Danica Rodarmel on behalf of LA Defensa in support.

Thank you. Opposition? Come in support.

Alyssa Moore, All of Us or None, in full support.

Joanna Williams in support. LSPC.

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

Thank you. Opposition? Seeing no opposition. Questions or comments from Committee Members? A motion and a second. Questions or comment? Seeing none. Like to close, Mr. Jones-Sawyer?

Thank you. And really just there was a lot of concern about individuals, especially in suburban communities who were ordering pills to stay up all night, young students and they ended up being poised by fentanyl. Hopefully this will be an opportunity for them not only to seek drug information to get off of drugs, but also they can test it before we have that unfortunate thing of them dying from fentanyl and other drugs. So I respect the ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Please call the roll.

On AB 2136 by Senator Jones-Sawyer. The motion is do passed to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

Okay, thank you. Before our next author, we're going to dispense with the consent calendar. I'm going to read the items from the consent calendar. AB 1863, Ramos; AB 2020, Bonta; AB 2521, Waldron; AB 2544, Low; AB 2695, Ramos; AB 2710, Lackey; AB 2878, Gabriel; AB 2907, Zbur; AB 3108, Jones-Sawyer; AB 3222, Wilson; and AB 3235, Bryan. We have a motion a second from Ms. Wilson and Mr. Zbur.

Before our next author, we are going to dispense with the consent calendar. I am going to read the items from the consent calendar. AB 1863 Ramos. AB 2020 Bonta. AB 2521 Waldron. AB 2544 Low. AB 2695 Ramos. AB 2710 Lackey. AB 2878 Gabriel. AB 2907 Zbur. AB 3108 Jones-Sawyer. AB 3222 Wilson. AB 3235 Bryan. We have a motion and a second from Ms. Wilson and Mr. Zbur. Please call the roll.

On the consent calendar. [Roll Call]

Okay, consent calendar is adopted.

Our next measure is Assemblymember Petrie-Norris and that is AB 2210.

Good morning. Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. I'm here to present AB 2210, which relates to ignition interlock devices. I want to thank you, Mr. Chair, for your engagement on this Bill and for your staff's work on the measure. As discussed, I will be accepting the Committee's amendments. As you and I have discussed.

Given the Committee's volume of work and some of the last minute back and forth on the Bill in a couple of places, there are some technical clarifications that will need to be made to ensure that the language that comes out of the Committee in print reflects the spirit of our agreement. And certainly we'll continue to work with you and Committee staff to ensure that that happens and that we deliver on our shared commitment to stopping drunk driving tragedies with a thoughtful and common sense approach.

So with that, each and every day, drunk drivers killed 37 people in the United States. That's one life lost every 39 minutes. AB 2210 is an opportunity for us to stop these tragedies before they start. AB 2210 as it will be amended, will extend the sunset on the state's existing program that requires repeat DUI offenders install an ignition interlocked device, a breathalyzer. The Bill will also establish a pilot program in five counties for first time DUI offenders.

The good news is that we know this program works. 35 states across the country have implemented a law that requires a breathalyzer for first time offenders. These states have seen a decrease in DUI related deaths and accidents. AB 2210 is a common sense approach that will save lives. I am pleased to be joined today by Sonia Satchel from the Sacramento District Attorney's Office and Rhonda Mcdaniel from others against drunk driving. I am also joined today by Kelly Carr and her daughter, Angel.

With Kelly and Angel's permission, we will be amending the Bill to call this Bill Angel's law. In honor of Angel. Thank you.

Thank you. Please proceed. You have four minutes. Amongst all of you.

Good morning. My name is Sonia Satchell. I'm a Deputy District Attorney with the Sacramento County District Attorney's office, and I have been a prosecutor for 17 years. Undoubtedly, the most difficult part of my job is not the trial itself, but it is sitting down with the families, explaining to them the criminal justice system, looking them in the eye and having to walk with them through their pain.

Undoubtedly, DUIs and DUI vehicular manslaughter cases are probably the most difficult crimes to walk families through because they are the only crimes that are 100% preventable they are the only crimes that do not need to occur. Currently, California law mandates ignition interlocks device for only repeat offenders, while first time offenders face a choice between installation and license suspension. Well, we know that driving without a valid license occurs on a daily basis. Drunk driving deaths in California have soared by 53% since 2019.

In Sacramento county alone, we have filed 70 cases related to vehicular manslaughter deaths due to DUIs. That is 70 lives that we could have saved, 18 of those alone last year. But that number does not account for victims like Kelly and her daughter angel, who have been. Their lives have not been lost, but have been deeply impacted by the effects of driving under the influence. AB 2210 is not about punishment.

It is for protection and prevention of innocent lives that families are torn apart. A DMV study revealed that an interlock ignition device yields a 74% reduction in DUI recidivism. I ask you to please stand and protect lives. Protect lives that do not need to be impacted by an entirely preventable class of crimes. Thank you.

Thank you.

Sure. Okay. Hi, I'm Kelly, and this is my daughter, Angel. We're here today to be the voice for the voiceless. Angel, when she was 16 years old, was walking her dog in her neighborhood and was ran over by a drunk driver. She was left there to die, and sometime later, a good Samaritan found her. Numerous hospitalizations and numerous surgeries. Angel has suffered a severe traumatic brain injury, and she's completely paralyzed. She cannot talk.

Her brain forgets to swallow, so she chokes on her saliva numerous times a day, has been dramatically affected by drunk driving. And at 16 years old, she got her life basically taken away. And this is her for the rest of her life. So what I'm asking for is AB 2210 to be passed, because if this device would have been implemented in this drunk driver's car, this could have been prevented.

So I thank you for the progress on this Bill, but let's keep all of California roads safe. Thank you for passing on Angel's law.

Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Rhonda Campbell. I am the California manager of victim services for Mothers Against Drunk Driving. Thank you for letting me have this moment this morning. I just want to share with you that this is my baby sister, Irene. Irene was killed 256 days after my organization was founded by a four time repeat offender drunk driver, who ultimately ended up spending 18 months in jail.

But the real thing is, if he would have had this device in his car, this would have been one more line of prevention to prevent my family what to go through, what they went through. I'm here to support this Bill. And what I really want to say about it is I'm very happy with the progress we're making and the five counties that we're going to be covering in the State of California with this all offender ignition interlock device. But drunk driving is not a county problem.

Drunk driving is a state problem. It is a United States of America problem. My hope is that when these pilot results start coming in and we see that this is an effective tool, that you will all understand the magnitude of how badly this is needed. And I hope in the meantime, none of you are handed your baby shoes like my parents were. At the end of a day. I urge you to please pass this and move forward, making this a statewide Bill eventually. Thank you.

Thank you. Others in support?

Mister Chair and members, Mike Knudsen, on behalf of the Automobile Club of Southern California, AAA strong support.

Mister Chair and members. Beverly Yu on behalf of AAA Northern California, in strong support.

Hi, my name is Brenda Lopez. I am a survivor and mothers against drunk driving advocate, volunteer, advocate and I'm in strong support.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Bonnie Masters, I'm. A mother of a survivor, victim advocate with MADD and I strongly support this Bill.

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

Thank you. Opposition? Oh, more support. Thank you.

Yeah, sorry about that. Chair and Members, Jonathan Feldman, California Police Chiefs Association, in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Others in support? Seeing none. Opposition, please come forward. Yes. Can you, one of you two at the end, step up? The DA representative from Sac County, use these two chairs. Please come forward and sit down. Thank you.

Good morning.

You have four minutes for opposition. Thank you.

Good morning. Brandon Greene, Policy Director for the Western Center on Law and Poverty. Thank you. While advancing road safety is notable and stopping fatalities is also very important, this Bill would actually do neither. So first, we know that there's racial disparities that exist. Black and brown folks are overrepresented in DUI stops and arrests, despite there being no evidence of higher usage rates. Currently, there's no enforcement mechanism for the existing ability-to-pay program.

So while company manufacturers can be fined for up to $1,000, we don't have any evidence that that's actually happening. The ACLU of Southern California put forth a report that surveyed seven state licensed programs and 45 out of 55 programs have found that they violate state law by limiting access based on ability to pay. In addition, the state statewide pilot that was advanced, AB 91, found that there was no impact on recidivism different than non-participant counties.

The analysis that is provided also demonstrates that fatalities are actually increased. That is on page four of the analysis, that, in fact, it neither limits more unsafe driving, but it actually is a contributor to unsafe driving. And because traffic enforcement and economic gaps are racialized, the significant fines and fees and the consequences of not paying for low income black and brown Californians, including indefinite license suspensions, is a real risk under this Bill. It's questionable whether or not mandatory IIDs impact either recidivism or fatalities.

The current amendments to the Bill that sought to have the ability-to-pay provisions in the Bill don't go far enough. As an example, the ability-to-pay process under AB 2544 and AB 503, which were the parking payment plan, ability-to-pay bills, utilize government code. Sorry, utilize government code 68632, which would widen the amount of people who are able to get ability-to-pay provisions.

And as I said, there is no studies that have been done about how the manufacturers are being fined for not offering these programs and we know that most of them are out of compliance with state law already. So while we agree that making the road safer for everybody should be the goal of everyone, this Bill would not actually accomplish that task. And that is very clear from the analysis in the report.

Thank you. You have about a minute left.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Ignacio Hernandez on behalf of the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, a statewide association of criminal defense lawyers, we are in opposition. We are reviewing the amendments. I think they do make some improvements to the Bill. Let me just say this. I've negotiated in IID bills here in this capital for a number of years. We were the ones that struck the deal to allow for a pilot originally.

What we have found and that the DMV studies show again and again is that one recidivism rates among DUI offenders is very small. Less about 4% of first time offenders will reoffend within the first year. And yet imposition of IIDs on everyone runs counter to those statistics. DUIs are one of the only offenses that can be the most tragic incident, but also could capture somebody who a one-time misjudgment on how much they drank and that is what we've been concerned about.

As was stated, about 53%, pursuant to the last DMV numbers, 53% of DUI arrests are Latinos in California. So we have to look at, because of the lower income, the cost implications, multiple family members, multi-generational living together. It just creates a whole lot of problems when really 95% of offenders will not reoffend within the first year. That's why we think that discretion is important. We understand a pilot is shorter. We're happy to suggest any amendments going forward.

As we go through these amendments, if the Bill moves forward, we'll always be in communication with the author on some suggestions that we're already looking at. So for those reasons, we're in opposition right now.

Thank you. Others in opposition?

Margo George on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association. We appreciate the amendments, but remain in opposition at this time. Thank you.

Thank you.

Melanie Kim, San Francisco Public Defender's Office. Will review the amendments but remain in opposition at this time.

Duke Cooney with ACLU California Action in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Gail Yen with Root and Rebound. We have an opposing last amendment. We'll review the amendments and we look forward to working with the author's office. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello, so based on all the reports I'm getting from the community of South Sacramento, hypercriminalizing people with DUIs, we oppose.

Good morning. Kellie Walters, Staff Attorney with Legal Services for Prisoners with Children. We'll review the amendments as well, but stand in opposition at this time.

Thank you. No more opposition? Questions or comments from Committee Members? Assemblymember Zbur and Ms. Wilson.

So, thank you for bringing this Bill. I've heard quite a bit of support brought from Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Streets for All, hosts of people in my district. And so I think it's a good Bill. Appreciate that you've taken some amendments. I just had a couple questions about some things you might look at as it moves forward.

So the first one is, and I think the thing that, you know, is the most valid claim, is really the impact on indigent and poor folks that are in the program. And I'm just wondering, I didn't have a chance to study this as much as I wanted to last night, but I'm wondering what's in the Bill or if you can do more to require the vendors to provide. Is it already in the Bill that the vendors are required to provide this to low income people?

Yes, it is. Just so we're clear about how much this actually costs. So there is a sliding scale where the vendor will pay up to 90% of the cost. So the cost is anywhere from $3 a day at the top end to $0.30 a day on this sliding scale, $0.30. In the pilot counties, we've actually raised that subsidy further. Happy to walk through the specifics of that if you want me to right now.

And we've also have enhanced the requirements that service providers ensure that people know about subsidy options and how to apply for them. But I just want to put this in context. The opposition is sitting here arguing about $0.30 a day when we have an opportunity to save people's lives and prevent tragedies from happening.

So the Bill does, though currently require the subsidies to accrue?

Yes, it does.

That is in the Bill.

Yes, it is.

And then I think the second thing is just a comment. Were there any amendments taken to the length for the first time offenders? Because I am, you know, obviously when you're talking about second and third time offenders, that the device is actually protective of the public. And so I'm wondering whether or not for the first time offenders, whether the 12 months is a necessary period. And for me it sort of just goes to really the impact of the cost on lower income communities.

And I guess in terms of the question of, is that a necessary period? I guess that depends on whether or not you believe the spurious statistics that the opposition just offered or if you believe the statistics as reported by the California DMV. So the California DMV's analysis is that these devices lower recidivism by 74%. And traffic data supports the fact that one third, one third of DUI-related arrests are people who are repeat offenders.

So the opposition, I actually, I find the arguments appalling and the opposition's assertion that this is not necessary, I find incredibly offensive and really kind of horrifying.

Yeah. So I guess what I would sort of say is I sort of agree that if this is sort of a second time, you know, a second time offense or third time offense, obviously I think the length of time is justified because it is actually protecting the public. You know, I'm going to vote for this today anyway, but I guess I would look at for the first time offenders, I would look at what's an appropriate period of time. Is that long? And just would ask you to look at that as we move through the process.

Okay, thank you. Point taken and appreciate that.

Thank you. Assemblymember Wilson.

Thank you. I have a follow-up question to the exchange previously and then one of my own. In terms of, and I get the statistics, but there was a statistic given the number of people that reoffend. And so you disagreed with the number that reoffend after the first time? Cause yours were around recidivism.

I think they're perhaps.

So I'm talking about the first. So how many people who the first time get a DUI actually?

One third of DUI-related arrests are previous offenders.

Okay, I understand that, but I don't think that still answers the question of how many people who committed DUI offense actually commit a second time.

One third. That's what I mean. Like a previous. So one third.

And to make sure I'm understanding the statistics as I understand that you're saying, if I take a year's worth of DUI arrests, one third of those arrests are repeat offenders.

I don't know. I see the distinction. I'm not sure if it's within the first 12 months or beyond.

Right. So I'm asking.

How many people reoffend within a 12 month window. That's your question?

I'm just asking how many people reoffend. So if I had a DUI offense, how often am I likely to have a second offense?

One third. Okay, so one third of arrests. Thank you.

Yes.

Different math.

And it looks like maybe the opposition. You said it in your testimony. I'm just trying to find out if that's accurate. Cause you had said it and I thought she took exception with your statement. So I was trying to find out what the accurate. If I'm a first time offender, the statistics say I'm likely to reoffend. What is the percent of that? Does anybody know?

If I may, if I may respond through the Chair. Thank you for the question, Assemblymember I was referencing, and I pulled it up here best I can. The annual report from the DMV. The 2022 annual report of the California DUI Management Information System. Unfortunately, I read this every year. The statistics for a first time offender who re offends within 12 months is right around 4%. And that has been fairly steady for a number of years, for at least the last decade that I've been working.

So not lifetime, but just within the next 12 months.

Within the next 12 months is about 4%. And I reconfirmed that before I testified because I don't like putting out inaccurate information. I can tell you, off of memory. I believe lifetime, if I'm not mistaken, is closer to 20%. But I could be missed that I'm just pulling out off of memory over a lifetime. First 12 months is about 4%.

So your testimony is when then the time period for this Bill says you would get an IID within 12 months. That period. Only 4% of first time offenders. According to the lifetime, it's somewhere over 20%. And maybe there's some other statistics,

If I may? So everything that I quoted or that I stated in my testimony is both in the analysis, but also, several weeks ago, I testified before the Pinoco Revision Committee, and that report itself says, and I quote, the first year DUI reoffense rate for people arrested, this is from 2019, and convicted of the first DUI was 3.7%, compared to 7.6% in 1990. The first year reoffense rate for people convicted of their second DUI was 5.4%. Again, this is from the staff memorandum.

Thank you. So, yeah, thank you. I appreciate.

And of course, we have no way of knowing how many times a breathalyzer would stop someone's car from starting because this is just the offenders who have been arrested twice. Right.

I mean, yes, to be honest, though, that's all we deal with in the Legislature. Right. Is data and all that. I have strong feelings about different crimes and, you know, and DUI is one of them. You know, had a very dear friend, lost her brother to DUI, who I grew up with, you know, and so I get it. Strong feelings about it. But we deal with, you know, the facts.

And so I think given the fact that within, it's been pretty consistent, as it shows from some of the data and what was shown in the analysis about that a first-time offender is within that 12-month period which you're requiring. This is 4%. Seems to be that. I agree with my colleague that I think you need to, that number needs to be adjusted.

There needs to be a distinction between someone who's a first-time offender and all of the rest, because I do think there does need to be a level of accountability to show the gravity of what you're doing when you, because to me, DUI is a very selfish crime because there, especially in today's age, because there are so many options to get to where you need to go at all different hours of the day. So it's very selfish.

And so I do think there has to be accountability. So just in that follow-up. So the question I did have though is coming into here was the inconsistency in the pilots on whether it was effective or not. And so that was brought up by opposition. And so I wanted to hear from you, and it was put in analysis. So I wanted to hear from you. I don't think you addressed it in your testimony, the inconsistencies in the pilot programs, because this is once again another pilot program.

And I guess on, I would just say at a 30,000 foot level. And while we certainly do our best to dig into the granularity of the data, and I appreciate that you and I are always on the same page on that front. At a 30,000 foot level in the State of California over the last five years, we have seen DUI-related deaths go up in the 35 states in the country where they have implemented programs requiring IIDs for all offenders.

They've seen fatalities and accidents go down. And that to me, is the most compelling reason that this Bill is a common sense solution. And, you know, at the direction of the Chair, we have narrowed it to be a five-county pilot program. So we can continue to track that data and collect that data within the State of California. But I find the evidence across the nation very, very compelling.

Sounds good. Well, I'll support your Bill today, and I think that you should definitely, in line with the comments made by my colleague, work on that first-time offenders. I think there should be that distinction from first to second, but also realizing the gravity of the, you know, crime.

Yeah, thank you.

Assemblymember Lackey.

Yeah, I just have a suggestion for technical circumstance that exists currently. You have the sunset that needs to be extended because you have the sunset date, July 1st 2030 and you have the report that needs to be completed by January 1st 2031. So that needs to be aligned properly.

Thank you.

Thank you. I will be completely supporting this.

Thank you, assemblymember.

A motion, Mr. Lackey? A motion and a second. Any further questions? Assemblymember Reyes.

I want to acknowledge Angel and her mother. Thank you for coming to testify, because often times we're talking about something that's happening, we forget that there are people who are affected. Also, Miss Campbell, thank you for sharing your story as well. This is always important. And I think trying to find, as my colleagues have stated, trying to find a way to stop. It is selfish. I had not heard that phrase on this, but it is absolutely selfish.

In trying to find the best way in evaluating it, I looked at the DMV review after the pilots, and it was a mixed review. If the data were absolutely certain, it would be so easy to just say, it's worked. We've got to continue with it, but we have mixed reviews.

I appreciate my colleague for authoring this, trying to move in the right direction and trying to find a way to stop the selfish behavior, but also as legislators, making sure that we're basing it on data, making sure that as we move forward, it's not just what we feel because of one case or two cases, it is because the data calls for it. I will be supporting it today.

I'm not going to repeat what my colleagues have said, but I think their comments are comments that are well taken. I appreciate the negotiations with our Chair on trying to narrow it so that we can move forward, at least as opposed to stopping it. So I appreciate that tremendously. And again, Angel, I want to thank you for coming to testify, being here with your mother.

Thank you. We have a motion and a second. I too support this Bill, and you mentioned in your opening statement, Assemblymember, that you did work with the Committee and a few things. One, we made it a pilot to five counties and some big counties. And so we're going to get a big swath of California to work this out and test it out, have a report back with the appropriate timeline. But also we do look at how this impacts individuals without resources.

So we do continue that and extend and deepen the subsidy for individuals. I know we're still working on that, and that is in motion. And I did also want to thank the families that testified and the mad debt representatives who I believe are from my district here. So thank you for participating today and for your testimony. And with that, we'll be supporting this Bill. I will be supporting. You may close.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I too just want to offer my heartfelt thanks to Kelly, to Angel, to Rhonda, to all of the advocates who joined us today and who are willing to share their stories to keep our kids and our families safe. Appreciate all of the conversation with my colleagues, and appreciate your focus on data driven policy. AB 2210 is common sense. This measure will make our roads safer. This measure will save lives. So thank you for your support and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Please call the roll.

On AB 2210 by Assemblymember Petrie-Norris. The motion is due pass as amended. [Roll Call]

Measure passes. Our next author is.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Hold on one second. Wait one quick sec.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Gipson. AB 2984.

Thank you. Mr. Chairman and Members. As I came to the office, was up at 04:00 this morning, doing something that was most difficult and personal to me and my family. And I sit here, certainly on pins and needles, opening up some, removing a scab that has been so painful for not only me, but also my family. I want to say thank you very much for allowing me to present Assembly Bill 2984. It's known as Dionce's law.

This Bill aims to remove the statute of limitation charging someone in a vehicle hit and run. This Bill would provide law enforcement additional times to hold those who commit these crimes and flee the scene of the accident accountable. Current law prohibits a crime, a criminal complaint, from being filed after six years for the commission of a crime of hit and run. In 2021, there was 2,872 fatalities from hit-and-run drivers, according to the United States Department of Transportation.

That is an increase of 11% from 2020, which was 2,596 fatalities. Members, in Los Angeles alone, data shows that only one in five hit-and-run cases are solved. There are an average of 40,000 hit-and-run collisions in Los Angeles yearly. And those 40,000 hit-and-runs, 8,000 results in injuries or death. These are 8,000 babies, someone's babies, family members, friends who have died. Years with most of these cases being unsolved. We can do better. Back in 2015, I carried Assembly Bill 835. That tolls.

That tolls was. The total at that time was 2,049 fatalities a year. AB 835 is now what is in law currently today, which the statute of limitation is at six years for a hit-and-run murder. This issue before you today is absolutely the reason why I'm here. This is the reason why I ran for public office to the California State Assembly. Yes, there's other things, but those other things are two, three, four, and five and so on.

The number one reason why I ran for the State Assembly is because when I found out that we had a statute of limitation for three years, that someone could kill someone and flee for three years and then emerge, and we couldn't do a damn thing about it. We couldn't prosecute them for murder. A hit-and-run. I ran to make a difference.

I sought to change the law because 35 years ago, on March 18th 1989 where were you on March 18st 1989 in the evening our son was killed. And I wear his shirt today in honor and memory of Dionce, who was at home with a godmother. My wife then was the girlfriend. She went because she had a flat tire, and the trip away was outside the front door, across the street, fixing the flat tire. How many of your children, every time they see you, they get joy?

Mommy, mommy, daddy, daddy. Well, he broke out the house. But before he broke out the house, he always had a bear. It was called Fievel. It's a cartoon character. It's a mouse. He dropped that ran outside the door, and he saw his mommy across the street, and he ran, mommy, mommy. That was the last words she heard. He ran out in the middle of the street and was struck by a Cadillac.

A woman, about 5'6, African American, driving somewhere, a late model Cadillac between 1974 and 1985, white or light brown in color. She got out of the car. She went to where his body lay lifeless. She got back in her car and took off. The tow truck driver tried to catch her, but was unable. That's the narrative that we deal with each and every day. She went northbound on Venice Avenue towards Gage in Los Angeles.

In the United States, there are hit-and-run crashes every 43 seconds. While we're here today, someone is losing their life due to a hit-and-run. In this country, between four to five to six people are dying right now. It is important that the law, that law enforcement is given the ability to prosecute these cases and provide legal recourse for the families who these individuals have shattered their lives. Let me say this, Members. Every Christmas we buy two Christmas trees.

One for the cemetery where he will forever rest, and one for our home. Every birthday, every celebration, it is never the same. I actually wonder, would he have grown up to fall in love, to have children, to go into sports like the other two sons I have? It shattered and changed our entire lives as a result. Why should we put a statue of limitations on murder, when the Golden State rapists who murdered many women and killed many women, it took us 35 years to catch him and to bring him to justice.

But we will put a statute of limitation on someone being killed in the streets and that person fleeing to another state and waiting and coming back and resuming life as normal. That should not be. California is better than that. And I'm asking you to please help me make a difference. With me is Rhonda Campbell from Mothers Against Drunk Driving to testify.

Thank you. Four minutes.

Thank you very much. Good morning. Thank you for allowing me this time to speak to you regarding this very important measure that has affected so many lives. As in Mr, Gipson's. MADD believes that all impaired driving violations resulting in death or seriously bodily injury, as well as leaving the scene of a crash, should be felonies. The penalties for these offenses should be equal. MADD supports AB 2984 as the measure closes loopholes in the hit-and-run law.

AB 2984 allows for changes in hit-and-run cases to be charged against the person after the current six-year statute of limitations. On a personal note, you all just met Angel Renteria. Angel Renteria was not only hit by an impaired driver, that driver also fled the scene. This is how Angel was left after that crash. If it had not been for the great detective work and the progress and analysis of DNA in our society today, Angel's killer would also still be free.

I urge you to take this into consideration and pass and close this loophole. Thank you.

Thank you. Others in support?

Chair and Members. Jonathan Feldman, California Police Chiefs Association. Apologies. Our letter was not in for the analysis, but we are in support. Ask for an aye vote.

Thank you.

Hi. My name is Brenda Lopez, and I'm here in support of this Bill as well. There are many other of my colleagues that have experienced a hit and run, and so I strongly support this Bill.

Thank you. Anyone in opposition?

Margo George. I'm here in respectful opposition for California Public Defenders Association. Opposed unless amended. My heart goes out to you, Assemblymember Gipson. I don't think anything we do here can ever bring your child back, and I want to acknowledge that pain. As you noted, in 2015, you came and asked that the statute of limitations be extended.

And at that time, we agreed that it would be extended for six years, consistent with the statute of limitations for vehicular manslaughter and which case law has said is a sufficient time limitation given that a person can be guilty of the crime of hit and run even though the person was not at fault for the underlying accident in this case.

I understand that our coalition also offers you amendments of tolling for the time that the person was out of state and would have worked with you and are still eager to work with you to try to reach some amendments that are consistent with this kind of amendments that were accepted by Member Addis on 2295. There's a policy purpose to the statute of limitations, and it's an important function.

It's the avoidance of prejudice to both the people and the defendant resulting from the loss of evidence with the passage of time, as well as the respect for the right for a speedy trial. Statute of limitations is signed to protect all of us from having to defend ourselves against charges when the basic facts may have become obscured by the passage of time and to minimize the danger of official punishment because of acts in the far distant past. And such a time limit.

Having a statue of limitations also has a solitary effect on the police and the investigators, because instead of just letting a case lie fallow, they must investigate it. They can't just put it on the back burner. So, again, we respectfully ask for a no vote unless it's amended.

We're more than happy to try to work out something with you to, you know, address the issues where you talk about someone being out of the state, potential corroborating evidence, those kind of things that are in the other extensions, the statute of limitations. So thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you Mister Chair, Members. I'm sorry, about 30 seconds. Okay.

Ignacio Hernandez, on behalf of the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, I just have the same similar remarks as a prior witness. Since I have 30 seconds, let me say, point of personal privilege. I'm a lobbyist, but I'm a father. I'm also former criminal defense lawyer. These are tragedies that we deal with. These are really tough policy decisions. And when I was a criminal defense lawyer, it was really tough on all sides. And so I understand that.

I think there are some amendments that could be taken to this Bill, but there are critical legal principles that we have to ensure and protect even in the face of tragedies. And that's what makes our legal system so great, but also so very difficult when there are tragedies that happen. So we support CPDA's comments about some potential amendments going forward and would be happy to be part of the conversation.

Thank you. Are those in opposition please come forward.

Natasha Minsker, Smart Justice California. Our deepest sympathies to Assemblymember Gipson and his family. Respectfully opposed, unless amended.

Alicia with Curb, respectfully opposed.

Kelly Walters, with Legal Services for Prisoners with Children. Respectfully opposed, unless amended.

Andy Ortiz with Legal Services of Prisoners with Children. Respectfully opposed, unless amended. Thank you. Thank you.

Melanie Kim, San Francisco Public Defender's Office. Respectfully oppose, unless amended. Thank you.

Julian Scheer, Felony Murder Elimination Project. Respectfully opposed, unless amended.

Thank you, thank you. Questions or comments from Committee Members? Mister Alanis?

Thank you, Mister chair. Obviously, gratitude towards the author and our condolences. I just don't want there to be any issues or thoughts that if there is no statute of limitation, that law enforcement is not going to work as hard to. To find justice. We have murders all the time that do not have statute limitations. Yet there's still detectives out there still working the cases. So just because there's no statute put on this does not mean that it would be put on the back burner. I'll make that clear. Thank you.

Thank you, Assemblymember Reyes.

It's always more difficult when we know that we have come here for a particular reason and trying to find justice. And as the years go by, the justice seems to just move away further and further away from us. I appreciated the comments from the opposition about tolling the statute of limitations when someone has willfully left the State of California to avoid being prosecuted. And in our discussions you made a great point.

If the statute of limitations is three years, you've caused a crime and you know you can come back to the rest of your family after three years, stay away for three years, come back and resume your life, even though you've devastated the life of somebody else. I think a, the offer, that particular offer is one that I hope that you will seriously consider should the Bill move forward. I do have serious issues, and I've shared with you about having no statute of limitations on this.

And I think that for the reasons discussed in the analysis as to why we do need statute limitations on these, why we need statute limitations. But for today, in light of your testimony, I'm going to support the Bill and ask that you look to the conversations that are at least the offers that have been made here to try to actually bring the Bill Language to something that is going to be supported by everyone. It's a tough one to support in general. It's an easy one to support because I know this is very personal to you, and with that, I would move the Bill.

Thank you. Assemblymember Wilson and Zbur.

Thank you to the author for bringing this forward. You know, I understand I wasn't here for the testimony, my apologies. I had to step out. But just from previous conversations on this issue and having heard you testify and other aspects in bringing it up on the floor, as well as private conversations, I know this is a painful experience. This was and still continues to be a painful experience for your family. And I'm very sympathetic to that.

And I know this approach comes from wanting to see change through our conversations allowed me to do some, my own education opportunities to really understand the statute of limitations and why it existed and how I feel about it. And so, so for me, the offer of allowing tolling for out of state when people flee the state, which allows, I guess, another, it gets to eight years, which is beyond the six years.

Because I do recognize that you've come before this body before and got the double the time for the statute of limitations, I think is a reasonable offer and allows us to uphold the fact that statute of limitations exist for a reason, but at the same time balances that when people are intentionally trying to evade statute of limitations, it allows for that accountability. And so with that, you know, I support that amendment.

I know it's one that you have not taken previously and not asking you to take it here today, because that would be inappropriate. But recognizing my ultimate support, if it makes out this Committee is contingent upon that. Thank you.

Thank you. Mister Zbur.

So I just want to, so first of all, you know, I can't, you know, imagine what you have gone through all these years. You know, what you're trying to do is a righteous cause and appreciated the time you took with me in my office this week. But when I look at the issue of extending the statute of limitation indefinitely, I think about the reasons for the statute of limitations. And that is that you have trials in a relatively speedy time.

The longer the period of time extends, the more likely the evidence is fresh and the higher the likelihood is that you end up convicting people that are not guilty. And so I balance that against the case where we know someone is out doing something to evade arrest and just leaves the state, which is, I think, the example that is just one of the ones that you raised.

And so, you know, I think, you know, I'm going to smoke this today because, you know, I want you to continue working on the Bill and I'd like you to sort of think about, I think the comments here. I think we have to look at sort of having a legal system where the statute of limitations, where we're looking at sort of what's comparable to other things that are also similar.

And so, you know, when I think about this and having no statute of limitations for this, then I start asking, okay, well, what are all these other things where we have no statute, statute of limitations? And then you get to a point where you start thinking about, okay, well, what's the impact of having no statute of limitations on so many crimes where we're actually having trials that are far distant from the time that they took place?

So I would, you know, encourage you to think about working with the opposition about, you know, tolling for periods when state and, you know, some of the other concerns, concerns that you've raised. I'm going to support this today, but encourage you to continue working with the opposition.

Okay. Seeing no further questions, I support this measure today. Mister Gipson, thank you. I know it's a tough issue for you. You thought about it and you're stretching on your proposal, and I think it is a stretch, but it's a righteous one and I support it. I know you're going to keep engaging on this as we go through the process. So with that, you may close.

I want to say thank you very much for the discussion, to my colleagues for your input and for the opposition. I certainly meant no disrespect, not looking at you or those who testified in opposition. There's a, you know, I think about how to get away with murder, and this is a way to get away with murder, no matter if you told it or not. We'll certainly look at what the opposition and what was indicated by my colleagues already.

If we would have told murder, then this guy would not be in jail today, would not be in prison. The Golden Gate, you know, rapists, 40 people, 10 people, women, raped and killed. When you talk about the statute of limitation, you know, there's no statute of limitation in terms of how I feel with the, you know, we release our, I mean, our children and these children, you know, he died prematurely.

Had she stayed, had she stayed, she would have been found not responsible because he ran out in the middle of the street. No charges would have been leveled. But the people who hit someone, unless she was drunk and run and run to evade being made accountable for what they've done, letting someone lie in the street like an animal. And I don't know if you can envision that, but she went, got out of her car, and she saw his body, lifeless.

And then she jumped back in a car, she took off. And I don't know if she's still alive or she could still be hiding out. But I know that if she was to emerge today, we couldn't do anything about what she did 35 years ago. And this Bill is not for me, but it's about those who will encounter someone losing their lives and their family due to a hit and run. We want closure. We want closure.

And I'm asking for closure for all of us in this space by removing this. And I will certainly. Again, it didn't fall on deaf ears with the opposition to my colleagues sharing with me about, you know, the potential amendment. We'll look at that. But it doesn't do a damn thing to bring him back to us or anything like that.

Thank you. Please call the roll.

On AB 2984 by Assemblymember Gipson. The motion is do passed to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

Thank you very much, Mister Chair and Members of the Committee. And first of all, I want to thank Mister Haney for being such a gentleman and letting me going ahead of him in the sign and order. I am here to present Assembly Bill 2309 to provide parity between charter law cities and general law cities to allow general law cities to do what charter cities already are able to do, which is to prosecute state law misdemeanor crimes.

This is a local control public safety measure, which is why the League of California cities just recently came out in support of this measure. Again, we just want to give general law cities what charters law cities already are able to do, to have that option, to have that tool to hire city prosecutors to be able to prosecute their own state law misdemeanors.

With me to support this measure is the mayor of Manhattan Beach, which the City of Manhattan Beach is the sponsor of this Bill, as well as the Police Chief of the Mayor of Manhattan Beach, Mayor Joe Franklin and Chief Rachel Johnson. Thank you.

Thank you. You both have five minutes.

Good afternoon, Chair, Members. My name is Joe Franklin. Excuse me. I am the Mayor of Manhattan Beach and we're sponsors of AB 2309.Thank you for the opportunity to share a local perspective of this critical safety issue. As mayor, it is one of my primary responsibilities to ensure our community has provided adequate public safety services.

At a local level we are directly charged with managing and overseeing our Police Department and the public safety teams our constituents depend upon. Our constituents expect these safety services to provide for their protection from not only violent and serious crimes, but from harassment, abuse, and quality of life crimes. Unfortunately, in our city and many others across our region, we are unable to meet the public safety expectations of our community because of our limited power.

While we set priorities for city police, we have zero control over what crimes are ultimately over, ultimately prosecuted, and which ones are not. And key to public safety is ensuring that there are sufficient consequences to deter illegal behavior. In Los Angeles County, the District Attorney has unilaterally directed his deputy attorneys not to prosecute many offenses criminalized by the state. These include, among others, trespass, disturbing the peace, criminal threats, drug possession, resisting arrest, and public intoxication.

And while charter cities have an ability to allow their city attorney to prosecute any misdemeanor, a general law city does not have that authority without the consent of the District Attorney who has routinely denied our requests. There are reasons why. These are the reasons why we are sponsoring AB 2309, to provide the ability for local governments to fulfill their responsibility on behalf of the people depending upon us. For those reasons, I respectfully am asking for your aye vote. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. My name is Rachel Johnson, and I have the great honor of being the Chief of Police for the Manhattan Beach Police Department. I'm also a member of the Los Angeles County Police Chiefs Association who fully supports Assembly Bill 2309. I'm grateful to be before you and have the chance to explain the need for AB 2300 and nine and the impacts being felt in cities throughout Los Angeles County. As the Police Chief, it's my primary duty to protect the people in my community.

It is also my responsibility to ensure our officers are judicious in situations that require their intervention. There always must be a balance between enforcement and consequences that match the crimes being committed. But when there are zero consequences to illegal behavior, it can create an imbalance that jeopardizes our ability to protect people. This is what Assembly Bill 2309 is really about. From my standpoint, protecting people in Manhattan Beach. About 20% of our cases last year were rejected are not filed because they were.

20% of our misdemeanor cases were rejected. Over half of those cases were for public intoxication. And this is significant to us in Manhattan Beach as because 20% of those arrests were attributed to one person in our community. As we weren't able to get any filings on the early arrests, this person went on to engage in a variety of bizarre behavior, often due to his intoxication level.

That caused one of our local restaurant servers to have to obtain a civil restraining order as she felt unsafe because of the unwanted attention and bizarre behavior, and as she was often at the restaurant at night after closing, she felt unsafe walking to her car because this person's behavior and we weren't able to help. And as a Police Chief, that's not a situation I am comfortable being in where I feel powerless to help someone who clearly needs our assistance.

Assembly Bill 2309 will help ensure that we can meet the needs of our communities by addressing the illegal behavior that's causing significant harm. To be clear, our goal is not to incarcerate individuals for minor crimes. Our city uses diversion and rehabilitative programs to provide opportunities to correct behavior without relying on penalties alone. But these alternative programs are only effective when there are set consequences in place. Otherwise, there is little to no incentive for a habitual offender to commit to change. For these reasons, I also respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Chief. Anyone else in support, please step up to the mic name organization.

Yes. Julianne Duvors on behalf of the League of California Cities in support. We did send in a late letter of support. Our board just adopted the support position on Friday. So thank you.

Eric Thornson on behalf of the Cities of Avalon and Stanton in support.

Thank you Vice Chair and Members Duke Cooney with ACLU California Action. First, existing law permits a city attorney to prosecute misdemeanor offenses arising out of a violation of state law, but only with the consent of the county District Attorney.

Thank you. Anyone else in support? No others? Any opposition? Please come up to the table. You will have five minutes to share.

We believe the current arrangement strikes the correct balance, leaving decisions about whether and how to prosecute state misdemeanors carrying county jail time to one county agency. This avoids inconsistent charging practices and policies between agencies and limits charging disparities based on the location of an alleged crime.

Second, given racial and economic disparities that exist across counties, particularly between urban, suburban and rural areas within the same county, we fear divergent charging practices between district attorneys and city's attorneys could have discriminatory results, with lower income black and brown defendants who live in inner cities being prosecuted differently than their wealthier white counterparts who live in other parts of the county.