Assembly Standing Committee on Public Safety

Good morning. We will start this Committee today. The Public Safety Committee of the state Assembly will begin as a Subcommitee. We don't have a quorum yet. First author, Mister Kalra, please proceed.

Thank you so much. Mister chair and Members AB 2065 would improve access to critical criminal justice data and require law enforcement agencies to share probation and police reports with attorneys investigating a California Racial Justice act claim. Under existing law, the RJA allows petitioners to seek relief by demonstrating statistical showing of disparate treatment between similarly situated people from different racial groups, but in the same county where the individual was sentenced. Unfortunately, the information needed to establish an RJA violation can be challenging to obtain.

This is partly due to data collection practices varying by county and agency, with reports only containing aggregate information or breaking down offenses into broad categories that do not provide the required details for an RJA claim. For example, while the Judicial Council is required to report data on criminal case dispositions according to the race and ethnicity of the defendant, they only report statewide information which does not meet the county by county criteria specified in statute.

Additionally, while the RJA provides for discovery from law enforcement agencies after a showing of good cause, this process can be time consuming and the results inconsistent due to a lack of clarity in existing law. For example, courts have held that access is limited to only recent reports, and in one case, and in one case, a county denied a request to provide law enforcement records because the information a petitioner sought was 11 months old at the time.

AB 2065 addresses these issues by firstly requiring CDCR judicial counsel and the DOJ to report disaggregated data by county annually. Secondly, the Bill would require law enforcement agencies to release requested arrest records and probation reports regardless of the date they were prepared to a licensed attorney investigating a claim under the RJA. By improving meaningful data access and removing institutional barriers, AB 2065 will ensure legitimate statistics based RJA claims can be brought in court and reduce the burden on agencies.

With me to testify and support is Rick Owens with the Committee on Revision of the Penal Code.

Thank you. Good morning chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Rick Owen and I'm senior staff counsel for the Committee on Revision of the Penal code. The Penal Code Committee is a state entity that was created by the Legislature to make recommendations about all aspects of criminal law in California. AB 2065 is based on a recommendation from the Penal Code Committee to expand access to data that will assist defense attorneys, prosecutors and courts in investigating and ruling on claims under the Racial Justice act.

The Racial Justice act is a historic and important effort to address racial bias in the criminal legal system. It allows a conviction or sentence to be modified or even vacated if it was tainted by racial bias. The Penal Code Committee spoke to practitioners across the state last year and learned that they have significant difficulty obtaining data to even begin to bring those claims.

For example, the Racial Justice act requires information on similarly situated people at the county level who are charged with, convicted of, or sentenced for similar conduct. But even though a lot of this data is collected by various agencies, it is not reported out at the needed level of detail.

AB 2065 would begin to fix this problem by taking data and information that is already collected by law enforcement and other state agencies and making it available at the level of detail and in a format that could be more easily used for racial justice act claims. We have spoken with the Judicial Council, the Department of Justice, CDCR, and are continuing to work with them to refine the requirements of this Bill and to make it workable for them while also protecting privacy interests.

We expect the data this Bill requires this agency to release would ultimately lessen the huge number of requests that they are currently getting for similar information. In addition, the police and probation reports addressed in this Bill are already largely available under current law, but for a limited amount of time. This Bill makes these records available to attorneys who submit sworn statements saying that they are investigating an RJA case, which is a narrow circumstance.

In short, AB 2065 will create a baseline of agreed upon data that practitioners, including not just defense attorneys but also prosecutors and judges, can use to begin to hear these claims and determine whether they have merit. Thank you. I'd be happy to answer your questions.

Thank you. Others in support.

Natasha Minsker, Smart Justice California and strong support.

Good morning, Mister chair Members. Mica Doctoroff, senior Staff Attorney at the ACLU of Northern California on behalf of ACLU California action in strong support.

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

Good morning. Kellie Walters from Legal Services for Prisoners with Children and All of Us or None in strong support.

Good morning. Glen Backus for the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights Proud co sponsor and on behalf of the Prosecutors Alliance of California, in support. Thank you.

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

Danica Rodarmel, on behalf of Initiate Justice proud co sponsor in strong support.

Melanie Kim, San Francisco Public Defender's Office in support and on behalf of initiate justice action in support.

Good morning. Alicia Montero with Just Advocate in strong support.

Good morning. Tannah Oppliger with Californians United for a Responsible Budget or CURB in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you. Witnesses in opposition saying no opposition. Questions or comments from Committee Members seeing none. Well, you had opposition. They didn't testify, so maybe you're on the right track here, working to iron this out.

I'm pretty intimidating. So, you know, I know this is, you know, Mister chair, I appreciate you. This is my fourth RJA Bill. Every year we're learning what needs to be done to make it more efficient, more cost effective, and allow for the intention of it to be followed through on in everyday practice. And so with that, I respect the aspirin. I vote.

Okay. We don't have a quorum yet, but we will take note of the testimony in the presentation and proceed a bit later. Thank you.

Okay. Assemblymember, please proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members, I'm here today to present AB 2576 which simply adds attempted murder to the list of crimes ineligible for mental health diversion. The Committee brought up legitimate concerns which we appreciate, and I want to say, Mr. chair, I really appreciate the Committee staff in working with my office on this.

We've had such fruitful conversations that continue and have been really, really helpful. And we will absolutely continue those conversations and ensure that we find a workable solution.

And we'll keep working with Committee staff to address some of the concerns that were brought up not only by the Committee staff, but also by some of the Members as well. Currently, someone who attempts, but does not actually kill someone, another person can be granted diversion for mental health and mental health treatment if eligible.

Upon completing a mental health treatment program, they're released back into the community with minimal court supervision, which can lead to the expungement of their criminal records.

The victims receive no protection or assurance they will be free from further victimization. Current laws have rightfully identified certain crimes as too dangerous to receive mental health versions such as murder, voluntary manslaughter, and specific sex offenses.

The only difference between murder and attempted murder is whether or not the victim survives. AB 2576 ensures that individuals committing attempted murder are held accountable for their action. Here to testify in support and the sponsor of this bill is Sacramento County Attorney Thien Ho and Ms. Roberta Sanchez.

Thank you. Good morning. Go ahead.

Good morning. First of all, thank you, Mr. Chair and Committee Members, I would like to recognize and thank Assemblymember Stephanie Nguyen for authoring this bill.

I also want to extend my appreciation to the staff for the Committee. I know that there's a lot of hard work and conversations that go back and forth to address the concerns.

And I want to also acknowledge that we will continue to make sure that we work with the Committee, the staff, and even the opposition as well, and most definitely the opposition, to bring forward a bill that is very precise in what we are trying to do.

First and foremost, I do believe that those that are suffering from mental health should be treated differently under the law, that we should recognize those concerns and make sure that our system of justice is equitable to all.

But at the same time, that must be balanced with public safety. And we are asking, and we are in support of AB 2576 to carve out a very narrow and specific exception as it relates to attempted murder.

An attempted murder is a unique crime in the law in the sense that it does require an intent to kill, unlike second degree murder, which does not require an intent to kill and an attempted murder does. So there are certain protections afforded there.

And I will tell you that we recently had an individual that went through and was granted mental health diversion for attempting to kill someone, a neighbor. And lo and behold, that individual then went and committed a murder in another county and dismembered the victim in that case.

So we are concerned that attempted murder is one of those crimes that is so inherently dangerous and involves such violence that we are asking for a very specific exception.

Additionally, there are concerns in regards to whether or not we would over apply or have so many cases that there would be exemption after exemption. So last year, my office, Sacramento District Attorney's office, we received about 36,000 cases where a request was made to file charges. Of those 36,000 cases, we only filed less than 9000 felony cases.

Of those 9000 felony cases, there are only 44 attempted murder charges that were filed. 44. So we are talking about a very specific and low number here.

But those individuals present the most danger to public safety. And I would today like to present you and introduce you to Roberta, who is a survivor, and she can tell her story in her support of this legislation.

Thank you.

Good morning. On December 23, 2013 my husband tried to kill me. He stabbed me six times with a butcher knife and struck strangled me. He described in detail how much he was enjoying watching me die. I'm here today speaking to you, not because he changed his mind about killing me.

He did his very best to follow through with his intent. One of the knife wounds severed my left radial artery. He did not stop trying to stab me.

I stopped him from trying to stab me by grabbing his arm and pushing him down. I know first aid. So I shoved my wrist into my body to try and slow the bleeding as much as I could. I threw myself at him and struggled to stay alive. He never stopped trying to stab me.

When I managed to wrestle the knife away, he started to try to strangle me. He dragged me into the hallway, and I managed to grab the big Maglite flashlight in the entryway.

I defended myself, striking him in the head. He lost consciousness, and I stumbled outside into the neighbor next door, who called the police. When police and paramedics arrived, I was immediately taken to the UC Davis Med Center, a Level 1 Trauma Center. It's 3 miles from my home, and it's a good thing, too.

I'd lost about two liters of blood and blacked out twice on the way to the hospital. I'm alive because I fought back. I knew how to administer first aid to myself.

I was lucky there was a flashlight in the hallway and I was fortunate enough to live 3 miles from a Level 1 Trauma Center. I wouldn't be alive if any one of those things wasn't true.

And it makes me sad to think that someone like my husband could benefit from the current law simply because someone like me refused to give up or they were knowledgeable or lucky or lived in the right neighborhood. The difference between attempted murder and murder is a fine line.

The offender truly intends to kill their victim. They are murderers in their minds, but thwarted by circumstance. Please recognize that AB 2576 will prioritize public safety and appropriately categorize attempted murder in terms of ineligibility for mental health version.

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

Good morning, Chair Members Jared Moss, on behalf of the California police chiefs, in support.

Good morning. Rochelle Beardsley on behalf of CDAA, in support.

Good morning, Mr. Chair Members Ryan Sherman with Riverside Sheriff's Association and the other POs and DSAs listed in the analysis and support thank you.

Thank you. We have opposition. Please come forward. We may need one of those chairs. Just one. Good morning.

Good morning, everyone. My name is Matt Sotorosen. I'm with the San Francisco Public Defender's office. I've been a public defender in California for over 25 years. We're in respectful opposition to your bill, Assemblymember Nguyen.

Doctor George woods of the University of California at Berkeley has said the three largest mental health facilities in the United States are Rikers island in New York, the Cook County Jail, and the Los Angeles County Jail.

The reality is that public safety demands that we treat mental health as a public health issue and not continue to over criminalize those who are suffering from mental illness. We should be expanding programs like mental health diversion and other programs outside the criminal court system.

As a trial attorney, I can tell you that the legal line between assault of crimes and attempted murder is actually very blurry. It should be noted at the outset that attempted murder that is not premeditated carries a determinate sentence of five, seven or nine years, and this proposed amendment does not distinguish between those two crimes.

Under this proposed amendment, if an 18-year-old experiencing their first mental health episode were to be involved in an assault, they could be charged with attempted murder and a judge would be unable to use their discretion to order treatment.

Moreover, the amendment would create an incentive for prosecutors to overcharge attempted murder in order to deny folks a chance at mental health treatment.

In fact, if a person were charged with attempted murder were to qualify for mental health diversion under all of the guidelines that are in the statute, there is a bona fide question as to whether they would even be guilty under the law because they were likely unaware of what they were doing.

Moreover, it is not uncommon for such clients to suffer post traumatic stress disorder due to the histories of severe domestic violence and other abuses.

Instead of having long, expensive jury trials, we should simply get the person the mental health services that they need. Often when families of those who are suffering from mental illness are not even aware of the extent of the illness, nor do they have adequate access to mental health services until things reach a crisis point, such as a violent incident.

Imagine a mother coming to court begging for her 18-year-old to get the treatment he needs, only to be told that he is statutorily ineligible for treatment based on the state's decision to charge him with attempted murder. Ultimately, the question is, do we want to strip judges of discretion to grant mental health treatment?

As a practitioner in court, I can tell you that judges carefully and thoughtfully examine which persons get accepted into the program, and there are many guardrails that could render somebody unsuitable for mental health diversion.

Personally, I've had judges both accept and deny my petitions for clients who are accused of violent acts because mental health diversion provides an incentive to seek treatment. I've had many clients successfully complete mental health diversion.

Identifying mental health as a public health issue and providing individuals and their families with treatment and resources are an imperative to building healthier and more productive communities. We ask you, please, not to take judge's discretion away in this context. For these reasons, we respectfully ask for no vote. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Claire Simonich from the Vera Institute of Justice and respectful opposition as well. I want to begin by thanking the witness for her brave testimony today. And I also want to say that Vera takes very seriously safety and accountability in our communities, and that is precisely why we oppose this bill.

It's been our experience in working on mental health diversion programs across the country. That diversion protects community safety and provides for justice and accountability for individuals in our communities.

Diversion may not be suitable in many cases charged as an attempted murder. The exclusion at issue in this bill. But removing the discretion for judges is a step backwards for California, it's a step backwards for safety and accountability. And as Committee staff notes, it eliminates much needed flexibility and discretion.

The bill is not necessary because the statute already has rigorous screen factors under penal code 1000.36 to protect public safety, the judge must find that the person diverted does not present and unreasonable risk to public safety.

That's a statutory factor in this diversion statute already. And second, judges must consider the position of the District Attorney. We know that judges are doing that very carefully with respect to mental health diversion.

In Los Angeles, where my office is based, only 5% of cases that are statutorily eligible for mental health diversion are accepted into this program that promotes community safety. Research shows that diversion reduces recidivism, which keeps us all safer.

For example, in Los Angeles, 95% of diversion participants through 2023 have avoided any form of future contact with the criminal system, and the rearrest rate for the same population in ordinary non diversion court is double.

It's for these reasons that the research makes clear that mental health diversion promotes safety, and it is the right and just thing to do. For those reasons, we oppose this bill.

Thank you others in opposition.

Natasha Minsker, Smart Justice California in opposition.

Kelly Walters, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children and All of Us or None in strong opposition.

Danica Rodarmel, on behalf of Initiate Justice and Law Defense in respectable opposition.

Mica Doctoroff, senior Staff Attorney with the ACLU of Northern California, on behalf of ACLU California Action in respectful opposition.

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

Melanie Kim, San Francisco Public Defenders office and on behalf of Initiate Justice Action in respectful opposition.

Alicia with California United for Responsible Budget and in opposition.

Thank you. Questions or comments from Committee Members? Mr. Alanis.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to thank the author for the bill and also the DA for coming and also your victim. Thank you for, for being here. Very courageous of you to be here and to relive that, in a sense. So thank you for the DA. If you could maybe respond to some of the opposition, what is your point on that?

So one of the issues that we're facing in terms of boots on the ground, in terms of the mental health diversion, what we're finding is that the appellate court decisions and our judges, because of the standard in which they're reviewing the mental health diversion, that a lot of judges, at least in our county, are granting it, and they feel as if that they really don't have as much discretion, I think that some of the other counties may feel, and so this is a particular case, and we use our discretion in terms of our filing.

It's a very limited number of cases where we do file with attempted murder. And when we look at it, attempted murder is we have an obligation, an ethical obligation, to only file cases in which the evidence is there.

One of the unique things about it is, and as a former trial lawyer, because I don't get in the courtroom anymore is that you have to have the intent to kill. Just assaulting somebody isn't going to suffice. You have to have the intent to kill.

And that's what separates attempted murder from second degree murder. And so there are, within the law, certain safeguards and guard rules that we have there. But this is to prevent individuals who have committed attempted murder from getting mental health diversion.

If you go back, even when the law was originally proposed, mental health diversion, there was a provision, I believe, in the previous law that was more expansive, had even more cases that were excluded than they are now. And so this is just, I think, a common sense approach at a very narrow area.

I agree. Thank you for the explanation. I'll be supporting this.

Thank you. We don't have a quorum yet to take a vote, and I guess you can close in a second. But let me just go back and talk about overall issue. So I do support this. I will vote for it when we do have a quorum. And I think, like we're doing in this Committee this year, we're trying to strike a balance, and we support diversion.

And I know we spent a lot of time talking with our staff on this, but having a blanket prohibition versus more a nuanced approach to make sure it's appropriate is what we're trying to accomplish. So maybe go back and try to answer this one more time for our DA.

How would you respond to having a blanket prohibition then? Doesn't give the opportunity to when it is appropriate to utilize it.

When you take a look at the law, what it does do is there are certain categories of crimes that there is a blanket prohibition, whether it's murder, whether it's the sex crimes, for example, whether it's crimes where you have weapons of mass destruction.

But really, the only difference between attempted murder and murder is the fact that you were close to a hospital of treatment. And so the law does recognize that there are certain crimes where there is less discretion from the court, but we are open to exploring different possibilities and guardrails on it.

But I think that this is a type of crime that is so dangerous to public safety that it does warrant an exception. And there are many other crimes that don't warrant the exception. And we should look at it and the court should have discretion on it. But this is a very particular, narrow area.

And then the follow up is. So for you, is the issue more the actual crime and the facts of the crime, or that the individual may not be 100% a category for diversion and maybe not be qualified for their mental health evaluation, and maybe not necessarily a poor choice of words faking it, but you know, not properly evaluated, that meets the test of a diversion.

And when you're talking about in terms the crime itself is very dangerous and a threat to public safety. But when you talk about other guardrails, you do have defenses, whether it's the competency, whether it's a mental defense as well, that can really do an assessment on it.

So there are within the law, guardrails for those who are committing these crimes that are afforded to them, that provides the court the discretion to look at it and a valid defense.

It looks like you wanted to respond to that. I'll give you a shot.

Thank you. The diversion statute that has sufficient guardrails that protect against community safety, there are clear statutory factors that judges must consider in terms of what promotes safety, including that the judge is not permitted to give diversion, mental health diversion if the person poses an unreasonable risk to public safety.

I was just going to add that if the question is, as Mr. Ho brought up, judges may not know where how to exercise their discretion. Like we amended penal Code Section 1385 regarding enhancements, extra guidance could be given to judges about how to exercise their discretion with certain crimes like attempted murder.

Thank you.

There could also be a distinction again between premeditated attempted murder, which carries a life sentence, and the non-premeditated type.

And Kara would be happy to work with Committee staff or others on crafting some of those guardrails based on other statutes in other states that we're familiar with.

Perfect. Well, that's a good way for me to finish before I let the Assemblymember close. Is your offer to keep engaging with us, with the Committee, and with the stakeholders to find an appropriate balance. So thank you for working with this. I will be supporting when we have a quorum. You may close.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think you heard earlier, I did mention that we've had some very fruitful conversations and it's ongoing with both my team and the Committee staff.

But you also heard the District Attorney say as well too, that we want to continue to work with not just the Committee staff, but also opposition in finding a really balanced approach to this and clarifying some areas that was mentioned earlier as well too. When the time is appropriate, I ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Thank you. Okay, Assemblymember Papan. What number is this? It'd be 26. 92. What number was it?

Thank you, Mister Chair and Members, I'd like to start by accepting the committee amendments and many thanks to the Chair and his team for working so closely with me to get to a resolution on this Bill. AB 2692 will ensure that criminal defendants who are deemed incompetent to stand trial receive the full benefits of their mental health treatment when they go into mental health diversion. How does this work?

Courts are authorized to find certain defendants who have been deemed incompetent to stand trial eligible for diversion. These participants are most often individuals diagnosed with schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, or bipolar disorder who have been found incompetent to stand trial for felony charges. The sole purpose of the program is to provide mental health treatment for the defendant, not to prepare them for future prosecution and bring them back to competency.

Currently, statute limits the available treatment period to two years, and a court may dismiss the charges when they are satisfied that a defendant has successfully completed treatment and has a plan in place for long-term mental health care. However, statute does not clearly address when the two-year treatment limit begins, which has led to the clock starting at the determination of incompetence and not the commencement of treatment. Again, the clock has been starting at the determination of incompetence and not the commencement of treatment.

Because it can take a few months for a defendant to enter diversion, this critical treatment is often much shorter than intended by law. AB 2692 would clarify that the two-year period of treatment afforded to these defendants begins at the time treatment actually commences. This clarification will guarantee that diverted defendants receive the benefit of a full two years of mental health treatment to ensure their long-term stability and improve public safety.

Here with me to testify today is Rochelle Beardsley, on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association. And Assistant Deputy DA or Assistant DA? Assistant Chief in the Sacramento DA's Office, and Miss Kaino Hopper.

Please proceed.

Good morning, honorable Chair and Committee Members. My name is Rochelle Beardsley. I'm an assistant chief deputy district attorney in Sacramento County and I'm here representing CDAA. Like many counties, our county has a mental health and collaborative court unit which include folks that are incompetent to stay on trial or IST. I see such promise in this collaborative programs we have mental health court, veterans court, drug courts, and the diversion courts to break the cycle of criminalization and incarceration.

On the other hand, I see so much more that can be done and so many lost opportunities for the severely mentally ill and homeless population. Honestly, it's not easy to see these missed opportunities day in and day out, and this was the impetus for this Bill. IST diversion is a necessary and important intervention for this vulnerable population.

But I also wholeheartedly believe that we need to implement the legislative changes envisioned by AB 2692 in order to actually effectuate the very intent of this program, that is, to provide long-term mental health stability for all IST diversion participants. It's important to know that the purpose of IST diversion is not the restoration of competency for future prosecution. Rather, the purpose is long-term psychiatric stabilization.

When someone is accepted into diversion, we all agree that these diversion participants will never be prosecuted for the charged crimes so long as they continue to progress. The criminal case is ultimately dismissed, the arrest is deemed never to have occurred, and the records are sealed. The diversion program does not include competency curriculum and has no commitment or custody time as part of the treatment plan.

Rather, participants are diverted from Department of State Hospital commitments and are instead treated in a variety of community-based programs and provided supportive wrap-around services such as appropriate housing, intensive case management, and treatment. The purpose of IST diversion is to help the severely mentally ill, to get them off the streets where they face becoming victims themselves, and to avoid further involvement in the criminal justice system.

We ought to be giving them every shot to reach this point, and that includes the full two years of mental health treatment as provided by law. It's also important to know that under AB 2692 the court will retain its discretion regarding which participants are best suited for diversion, the treatment plan length, and whether or not to grant credit for treatment performed prior to entering diversion.

Nothing in this Bill disturbs the discretion afforded to our judiciary, but it does afford our collaborative court teams the greatest extent of time. In order to provide this treatment to our participants, we need two years, two years from the date the diversion treatment begins to give ourselves and these participants a fighting chance. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. My name is Elizabeth Kaino Hopper. I reside in Carmichael, California. Thank you, honorable Chair and Members. I'm here today to support measure AB 2692.

I'm speaking not only for myself, but on behalf of FAISMI, which is a Sacramento Family Advocates of Individuals with Serious Mental Illness, as well as many members of the following groups, the Coalition for Care Tracking the Tragedies, the Grave Disability Workgroup of Greater Los Angeles County and the Alameda Family Advocates of Serious Mental Illness, and over 20 individual advocates throughout the state. And I'm happy to provide a list of those names to the Committee. For me, AB 2692 has personal and urgent relevance.

I speak from the perspective of a family supporter for our daughter who is still incompetent to stand trial after 22 of 24 allowed months. She is too ill from unmanaged psychosis, symptoms stemming from schizoaffective disorder co-occurring with epilepsy, and substance use disorder to speak for herself. She is 35 years old this month and tried diligently for 15 years to gain and sustain recovery, remission, and rejuvenation. My daughter's brain is interrupted by paranoia, delusions, depression, cycling with mania, and looping thoughts with no ability to concentrate or believe information from competency training.

She is a perfect candidate for diversion where the goal is treatment and stability, not restoration and competency in fact she was offered and accepted into Felony Incompetent to Stand Trial, or FIST Community Restoration Diversion Program and treatment began. This program unfortunately did not provide enough treatment and safe housing with adequate supports for her to succeed.

She could not follow problems program directives and even after the minimal jail, mental health, and epilepsy medications were beginning to help her brain to stabilize, she still faltered. She limped along for 12 more months in the community diversion program, whose psychiatrist lowered her antipsychotic medications at her request.

Within several weeks, her mental health deteriorated and though the diversion program psychiatrists and caseworkers observed this, the psychiatrist had no authority to increase to the more effective and brain-saving dose of the medication because she was not yet well enough to consent to more medication. This scenario is unfortunately not uncommon for people striving for the life they want, yet it creates relapses and thus extends treatment times.

My daughter deserves intensive and effective treatment to return her brain to its ability to think, to focus and to process information and regain the ability to make healthy choices. This is why I believe the focus for inmates who are deemed incompetent to stand trial or IST need to be engaged in effective, sustained treatment for up to the two-year legal duration that begins counting on the first day the treatment is actually delivered.

Gaining and retaining remission of brain illnesses that include psychosis symptoms is not always easy for people with these treatable conditions. The correct place to get well is not in a cell. Diversion in communities can work when programs are designed to be two-way responsive to symptoms that respond well to medications and nonmedication supports. This Bill will ensure the legal maximum time limit starts on the day treatment begins.

Families like mine advocate for a robust mental health treatment system with an unbroken continuum of care, even when it includes a temporary and local involuntary stay in a hospital followed by local supports to stabilize in the community in the model known as Housing that Heals. Now, the time limit of two years to bring my daughter to competency ends in less than eight weeks, at which point highly impaired by her unmanaged symptoms, she will likely be exited to the streets with no resources.

If we are serious about reducing recidivism, ensuring the safety of communities, and making a difference in the lives of people with serious mental illness and co-occurring illnesses who are found to be incompetent to stand trial, we need to provide for the full amount of treatment within that duration, beginning once actual treatment starts. For my daughter and thousands of others like her, I support measure AB 2692. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Others in support, please come forward.

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

Thank you. Opposition? Oh, one more support, please come forward.

Thank you, Mister Chair. Ryan Sherman with the Riverside Sheriff;s Association in support.

Thank you. Opposition, please come forward. I think we need to have one of those seats. Either you, Rochelle, or someone needs to step up.

Yeah, we need one of the seats. We need two. Done.

Am I moving?

Thank you so much.

Good morning, Mister Chair and Members. Or just Mister Chair at this point. Mica Doctoroff, Senior Staff Attorney at the ACLU of Northern California here on behalf of ACLU California action as well. Before I start, I wanted to just ask for some clarification. I know the author said that there were committee amendments, but I don't know that we have seen those. So, I was wondering.

We'll pass them, but maybe I can ask the author to summarize the not more than 30 months.

Yeah, as a matter of fact, it's only three sentences if you want me to read it.

Yes, go ahead.

That might be the most help. This is in subpart three. And it says as far as in no event shall the time spent waiting to enter treatment in combination with the period of diversion exceed 30 months or the maximum term of imprisonment provided by law for the most serious offense charged, whichever is shorter. So, there are guardrails such that you would never go beyond 30 months to include pre-time custody as well as treatment.

Thank you.

Yes.

Clock starts at the beginning. Go ahead.

So, thank you for that. And we will certainly review the amendments. But based on what's been described, we still remain in respectful opposition. We appreciate the conversations that we've had with the author's office and the sponsors and their efforts to narrow the Bill. But unfortunately, as I said, we remain opposed. The ACLU of Northern California has been engaged in litigation against the State of California on behalf of people who have been declared incompetent to stand trial and subjected to prolonged detention in county jails.

California courts have affirmed that California violates the constitutional rights of individuals by leaving them in jail without access to treatment and with their criminal proceedings stalled. The current mental health diversion program, the current mental health diversion process helps to alleviate the backlog of individuals awaiting treatment, ensuring that this vulnerable population is connected with comprehensive services as quickly as possible.

Unfortunately, however, AB 2692 goes in the opposite direction, instead increasing the likelihood of undue confinement for those suffering from mental illness by requiring that the term of diversion begin on the date the person enters trial treatment, as opposed to the date the court finds the person eligible for treatment. In many counties, the period between these two dates can be quite lengthy, leaving individuals with severe mental illness to languish in jail without meaningful treatment for months on end.

This delay is not the fault of those found incompetent to stand trial, and the lack of diversion resources should not fall on their backs. We have been litigating these issues since 2015. We have seen the impact of prolonged detention on people with serious mental illness. People with serious mental illness decompensate in jail. Many die, experience abuse, or otherwise deteriorate. It is not humane to keep these members of our communities in jail without meaningful treatment. It is not constitutional to do so.

Given the existing deficiencies with the IST system, we urge the Committee to decline to create another one. For these reasons, we ask you to vote no on this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Margo George for the California Public Defenders Association. In respectful opposition, I want to thank the author and the sponsors for the conversation in the Committee. I just want to start by saying that the ISTs is not to get people off the street. It's for seriously mentally ill people who are so mentally ill and are charged with a criminal offense that they're incompetent to stand trial, which is a very high standard.

And as Miss Doctoroff said, this whole concept is to alleviate the backlog for the state mental health system, the Department of State Hospitals. And if we still had capacity at the state hospitals, there are many people who probably would better benefit from treatment there. But it's a very expensive and limited resource.

So mental health diversion was created to get individuals out of the jail where they get no or limited treatment and get them into community-based programs if they were safe to be treated in the community. That's a big caveat. So, in terms of what this Bill does, unfortunately, is because of limited resources and resources that vary dramatically from county to county, people will be waiting in county jails without treatment for long periods of time all over the state.

And so, you might have better access in San Francisco County or Alameda County, limited access, or no access in any number of smaller or medium-sized counties. So, this is the sort of the opposite of what the mental health diversion component of incompetent to stand trial sought to do. So, thank you very much. And we ask you to reject 2962 as currently written. We're happy to continue working with the author and the Committee. We appreciate the progress so far.

Thank you. Others in opposition please come forward.

Melanie Kim, San Francisco Public Defender's Office. We remain opposed, but will review the new amendments.

Kellie Walters from Legal Services for Prisoners with Children and All of Us or None. We're also looking forward to reviewing the amendments, but at this point, opposition.

Alicia, Californians United for a Responsible Budget. Opposition.

Thank you. Questions or comments from Committee Members? That was a joke. That's just me. Yeah. So I do support this measure, and we worked for a few weeks with the author and tried to come up with a balance similar to the last policy. We want to make sure that this strikes an appropriate balance and serves its purpose and helps people. I like the quote earlier you said, you know, 'not sells when they get well.'

And so, you know, we can't have somebody waiting and waiting and waiting and never get their treatment and the time runs out and they go on the flip side, but conversely, we don't want people to have to, you know, double double their potential accountability in their sentence.

So we try to strike a balance here, and I support this, and I know you're continuing to engage, and I assume that you'll continue to talk to the opposition about their ideas, and we can't take a motion here, but you can certainly make your close right now.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I want to thank your Committee, especially those that had to pitch-hit at the last moment. So I appreciate that. Yeah, I think for me personally, I think that it's a little bit of a tragedy to keep focusing on what is minimal additional time, and we're really focused on quantity rather than quality.

And this bill is about quality, and it's about ensuring that what we know is the best way to help people who are suffering from mental health issues is to try to help them in mental health diversion. So the fact that we would be sacrificing full mental health treatment of 24 months in return for a small quantity of time in order to get people situated is really tragic to me. I think it's the best way to help those in need. I also think it's the best way of ensuring public safety in the Enron. So I really want to thank the Committee for moving this bill along. And I request an aye vote.

Yes. Okay, we'll take it up when we get others here. Thank you. Assembly Member McKinnor, please come forward. AB 2160.

Sorry. Good morning, Mr. Chair. Happy Denim Day. AB 2160 will require, upon notification to a court and District Attorney of their condition, pregnant people should, by default, avoid confinement unless the court specifically justifies otherwise on record. In 2023, the California Department of Justice highlighted ongoing problems in its report on reproductive health care access within the county jails, noting widespread noncompliance.

These conditions not only elevate the risk associated with pregnancy in the postpartum period, but also defy medical consensus on the critical nature of maternal and infant health during pregnancy in the 12 months following the birth. As emphasized by authorities like the Center for Disease and Control Prevention and the National Institute of Health, the immediate separation of newborns from their incarcerated mother within 24 to 48 hours of birth starkly contradicts research establishing the essential nature of an early bond between mother and child.

These conditions underscore a pressing need for a humane reevaluation of incarcerations' impact on maternal and infant well-being. A report by Human Impact Partners, Californians United for a Responsible Budget, California Coalition for Women Prisoners, and Transgender Gender-Variant and Intersex Justice Project from 2023 pointed that 25 percent of people in women's prison in California were pregnant or had recently delivered a baby, but only 54 percent of those people reported that they received any form of prenatal care.

AB 2160 allows pregnant and postpartum people to request a temporary delay of the court sentencing, requiring the court to hold a hearing to determine the matter. Moreover, the bill requires the court to apply the bill's presumption when considering bail, diversion, or a deferred entry of judgment. This measure would also require county jails and state prisons to offer pregnancy tests at the request of the detained individual and to keep the results of the pregnancy test confidential.

Also, Los Angeles County is already doing something similar to this bill. Part of the County Health Services Department is the Office of Diversion and Reentry, which has a maternal health division. In the past year and a half, 582 pregnant women have been afforded an alternative to incarceration. Only three have recidivated. This is less than one percent. Here to testify in support is Christopher Lodgson, Community Organizer and Policy Manager with the Anti-Recidivism Coalition and the co-sponsor of the bill. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Chris Lodgson, as mentioned with the Coalition for--excuse me--with the Anti-Recidivism Coalition, ARC. The testimony I'm going to read today is from Angela Zuniga. 'Good morning. My name is Angela Zuniga, and I stand before you today to share my journey of incarceration, pregnancy, and the desperate search for compassion within a system that often forgets our humanity. At the age of 18, I was incarcerated and pregnant.'

'As the days passed, signs of miscarriage emerged, and panic set in. I was young, scared, and didn't want to lose my baby. That night, I had a miscarriage. I stood, unable to lie down, screaming in pain. No one came to assist me. Instead, I was told to lower my voice, as if my pain, my tears, my cries were somehow a bother. I felt abandoned, not just by the system, but by humanity itself. My fear wasn't for my own life.'

'It was for the life of the tiny baby, child, infant within me. No one checked on me after that night. No one knew of my miscarriage. I carried the weight of loss silently, my grief hidden. I battled with postpartum depression. I didn't understand it then, the heaviness, the darkness that clung to my spirit. The law didn't recognize my emotional turmoil, and I became angry, lost, and continued down a negative path. Fast forward. I'm 22 years old. I'm incarcerated and four months pregnant. There was no compassion.'

'I was still shackled from my feet and hands, making it hard to walk. I would become filled with panic and anxiety with the thought of giving birth, knowing that I would see my daughter, and within a few moments, she would be gone. The day I gave birth to my daughter was a bittersweet moment. In that instant, I vowed to change my life. I yearned to be more for her sake.'

'But the reality was, no matter my effort, bonding and connecting with my daughter while incarcerated was unrealistic. I could not become the parent I aspired to be. My daughter was torn from my side. Once again, I experienced the loss of a child while incarcerated. I became depressed. I returned to my cell, and there I cried. Days blurred into weeks, and sadness consumed me. I couldn't eat, couldn't sleep. Racing thoughts haunted me. I was just another inmate, my emotional toil and turmoil invisible. I longed to connect with my daughter.'

'I requested visitations, but they were denied. Instead, an offer emerged. If I provided information about other crimes, I could have a brief 15 minute visit with my daughter. In that moment, my heart shattered. I understood at that point, I wouldn't get to hold my daughter again. I wanted compassion, understanding, and the chance to be a mother. Today, my nine-year-old daughter resents me. She expresses her anger when we talk, stating her fear of not knowing me enough.'

'If AB 2160 had been established during my first pregnancy, I believe the outcome of my life could have been different. AB 2160 is a beacon of hope. It is not merely legislation. It is investment in a brighter, more secure future. AB 2160 recognizes that incarcerated mothers deserve more. It ensures no woman faces the isolation I endured. It promises support and the chance to better parent and break generational curses of broken homes, even behind bars. Let this be more than words on paper.'

'Let it be the embodiment of empathy, justice, and redemption. AB 2160 rewrites the narrative for mothers, for daughters, and for a future where no one faces parenting in jail alone. May our collective empathy, by passing AB 2160 today, pave the way for change for mothers, for daughters, and for a more compassionate society. Thank you.'

Thank you. Others in support, please come forward.

Danica Rodarmel, on behalf of Initiate Justice, La Defensa, and Californians for Safety and Justice, in strong support.

Molly Sheahan with the California Catholic Conference, in strong support. Thank you.

Karen Stout, on behalf of Reproductive Freedom for All, California, in support.

Kellie Walters, on behalf of Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, All of Us or None, specifically the Los Angeles chapter, in strong support.

Natasha Minsker, Smart Justice California, in support. This bill is also a priority for the Building the California Dream Alliance.

Claire Simonich, Vera Institute of Justice, strong support. Thank you.

Alicia Montero, Californians United for a Responsible Budget, strong support.

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

Mica Doctoroff, on behalf of ACLU California Action, in strong support.

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

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

We have opposition. Please come forward.

Good morning. Cindy De Silva with the California District Attorneys Association, and my apologies. I didn't know I'd be standing in this morning, so--but I'm here. The California District Attorneys Association does not advocate for mass incarceration of pregnant or postpartum people. Our efforts on behalf of victims and survivors soundly demonstrate our commitment to the health and well-being of women and children, but believes that this bill is both unnecessarily and unduly one-sided.

First, we know that female defendants are a very small minority in the criminal justice system. Even more rare are female defendants whose crimes warrant extended jail or prison sentences. Pregnant or postpartum defendants facing extended incarceration are even less common by far. Next, our laws already provide judges with ample discretion to consider a defendant's pregnancy or postpartum status and to design terms of release or penalties that serve both the defendant and her child, as well as the ends of justice.

For example, convicted defendants may be placed on probation or require to serve time in home detention. See, for example, Penal Code Section 1170, Subdivision H. In our experience, judges use these alternatives routinely, especially in the exceedingly rare case of a non-dangerous pregnant or postpartum defendant. Thank you.

Thank you. Others in opposition? Seeing none, questions or comments from Committee Members? Yeah, I just have a question. I know you're pinch-hitting, but if you look in the analysis, the argument is this: you can already do this, it's unnecessary, so if it's unnecessary, you can already do it. What's the problem with what the bill proposes then? What more would it do?

Well, I do agree with the proposition that judges routinely take these type of things into consideration for bail status and for all kinds of other things. And it is true, just as a numerical, as a numerical issue that pregnant people are in this position far less frequently than people in other statuses. So I would just point that out.

Thank you.

Yes.

Question? Ms. Reyes.

Thank you, Assembly Member for bringing this bill. I think sometimes we forget the care that's needed. We say you give up so many of your rights. No, you're pregnant and your child has not given up any rights and you need to be taken care of. And I think having this women's care act signed by the Governor is going to be a good thing, a good day. So thank you for bringing this.

Thank you.

Thank you. Let's take the roll real quick. We have a quorum.

[Roll Call].

Here. You're rolling. Roll call. You're here. Quorum. Yes.

Thank you.

Okay. We have a quorum. No further questions. Do we have a motion on the bill? Ms. Reyes. Second by Assembly Member Nguyen. Would you like to close, Assembly Member?

Yes. I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Please call the roll.

On AB 2160 by Assembly Member McKinnor, the motion is 'do pass to the Appropriations Committee.' [Roll Call]. That measure passes.

Okay, thank you. The measure passes. Next we have AB 2178. Mr. Ting, floor is yours.

Thank you very much. As you all are, as we are all aware, we have been very significant budget crisis that we are facing. One area where I believe that we really haven't looked enough for budget solutions is our prison system. We have at this stage about 13,000 empty beds within our prison system. And just to give people an equivalent, roughly every prison has about 3000 to 4000 beds.

And so when you have a 13,000 empty beds, you have the roughly equivalent of anywhere between three to four empty prisons. The LAO estimates that by 2028 we'll have nearly 19,000 empty prison beds, which will be about equivalent of five to seven empty prisons. The LAO also estimates that if we were to consolidate and close five prisons, it would result in about $1 billion of savings annually, as well as potentially $2 billion of capital cost savings over the next 10 years.

Again, this is an area that I've been working on very, very closely during my tenure in the Legislature. And just to give you a sense of the CDCR budget, the CDCR budget since I've been here has gone from about $10 billion to $15 billion. At the same time that the budget has gone up by 50%, the population dropped about 50% during that same timeframe.

So again, if you looked at every single other program that we fund, whether it be education, CalWORKS, Medi-Cal, if we saw a 50% drop in usage, you would see a commensurate drop in the budget as well. So this is really the one area that not only has the budget not dropped, but it's increased. So again, during tough budget times, this seems like a very responsible way to look at it.

What the bill does is asked the Department to over a five year, I think it's a five year period. I'm just double checking my math over a five-year period to go from a 13,000-bed empty beds to go down to a 2500 empty bed buffer. And what that means is that you leave about 2500 empty beds so that you have room to move folks around, you have room for whatever programming, whatever you need the empty beds for.

So again, I think this is a very much a common sense fiscal solution to our very challenging budget situation. We have here Amber-Rose with Californians United for a Responsible Budget. And we also have Caitlin O'Neil from LAO, who's here to answer any technical questions. Caitlin's the author of the LAO report on this particular issue and covers this issue for the LAO.

Thank you Mr. Ting. Good morning. Thank you for coming. You both have five minutes together. Thank you.

Good morning, Members of the Committee. My name is Amber Rose Howard. I am the Executive Director of Californians United for a Responsible Budget. We are a coalition of over 80 organizations across the state who care a great deal about how the state spends taxpayers money, which is why we urge you to support AB 2178.

At a time when our state is facing a significant budget deficit, we are counting on the Legislature to participate in decisions around prison bed capacity so that we are able to maintain a more responsible budget. The corrections budget has climbed to $19 billion this year. Overall and the current cost of incarceration per person is over $130,000 per year. By ensuring that the state prisons do not maintain excessive empty bed capacity, AB 2178 promotes a more efficient and cost-effective use of taxpayer money.

Eliminating surplus bed capacity would allow the state to begin to save billions of dollars per year. It is fiscally irresponsible to maintain empty bed capacity at a time when thousands of Californians are facing cuts to the very social programs that keep them alive and out of crises. While essential areas like transportation, environmental protection, housing and workforce development face cuts of 30% or more, the corrections budget is trimmed by only 8%, highlighting a disconcerting imbalance in state priorities.

We may better balance necessary budget cuts by taking this opportunity to begin eliminating surplus capacity at CDCR in a structured way, which is what AB 2178 proposes. Please vote yes. Thank you.

Caitlin O'Neil with the LAO here in a technical assistance capacity and available to address any questions.

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

Danica Rodarmel, on behalf of Initiate Justice, La Defensa, and Root and Rebound in strong support.

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

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

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

Natasha Minsker, Smart Justice California in strong support

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

Kellie Walters, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children and All of Us or None in strong support.

Claire Simonich, Vera Institute, strong support.

Good morning. Alicia Montero, Californians United for a Responsible Budget and strong support. I'll also be reading Metoos, also in support on behalf of the following organizations who couldn't be here today.

Indivisible California, Stay Strong, Lavender Phoenix, California Coalition for Women Prisoners, Full Picture Justice, Universidad Popular, the Armina Ross foundation, sorry, A New Path, Empowering Women Impacted by Incarceration, Sister Warriors, San Francisco Pretrial Diversion, Flying Over Walls Prisoner Solidarity Project, Alianza Success Stories, Transitions Clinic Network, DROP LWOP Coalition, Dignity not Detention, Families United to End LWOP, Interfaith Movement for Human Integrity, Prison from the Inside Out and Just advocate. Thank you.

Hello. Tana Opliger with California United for responsible budget as well. In strong support. I am also reading metoos on behalf of 18 organizations who support AB 2178 and couldn't be here today. That's South Bay People Power, Riverside, All of Us or None.

SE Justice Group, Dignity and Power Now, Pride and Truth, Human Impact Partners, Prison Policy Initiative, the Place for Grace, Correctional Association of New York, Surge Bay Area, Southern California Library, Critical Resistance Los Angeles Chapter, Bend the Ark Jewish Action, California Felony Murder Elimination Project, Inland Coalition for Immigrant Justice, American Friends and Service Committee, Freedom to Thrive and Fair Chance Project. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else in opposition? Seeing none, I'm sorry. I meant in support.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members.

Actually, are you gonna testify in opposition? You can come up to the seat.

Oh, great.

You have five minutes.

I'll be brief. We just have a few basic concerns. Gavin McHugh, on behalf of the California Correctional Peace Officers Association, in respectful opposition to Mr. Ting's Bill. Our concerns are that the bill considers bed vacancies as the only metric for reducing capacity. It does not take into account how best to deliver meaningful rehabilitation reform in programs. The closures that will result from this bill will negatively impact the availability of already scarce programming space. Those are our concerns. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else in opposition? Seeing none, I'll move it to Committee. Any questions? Reyes?

Can I say that when our budget chair has a suggestion on how to take care of our budget, this is something that I absolutely will listen to. So with that, I would move the bill.

I have a motion and a second. Yeah, we cannot argue that Mr. Ting is the budget guy. Anyone else? Mr. Lackey? Okay, Mr. Ting, you may close.

Thank you Members, very much appreciate the discussion. With respect to oppositions, we are happy to also work with them to incorporate their concerns about ensuring there's proper rehabilitation space. Absolutely happy to address that. And again, during tough budget times, I know we have to make tough decisions, but this is an area that seems very glaring and very obvious. And with that respectfully ask for your aye vote on AB 2178.

Thank you. May you take the roll, please?

On AB 2178 by Assemblymember Ting. The motion is do pass to the Appropriations Committee. McCarty? Alanis? Alanis, no. Lackey? Lackey, not voting. Nguyen? Nguyen, aye. Reyes? Reyes, aye. Ting? Ting, aye. Wilson? Zbur? Zbur, aye. That measure's on call. It needs one.

Measure's on call.

Mister Lackey, if you'll step up, please. This will be on AB 2846. Mister Lackey has the floor.

All right. Well, thank you Mister Vice Chair and Members, for allowing me to present AB 2846. And to avoid triggering an annoying and distracting coughing spell. I'm going to introduce my witnesses and let them do the talking. I'd like to introduce Ryan Sherman, Legislative Advocate for the Narcotic Officers Association, Tiffany Devitt from CannaCraft and for any technical support, Cindy Ann DeSilva, San Joaquin District Attorney's Office. As she's here right now hanging out back there.

Thank you. Thank you. You guys have five minutes.

Thank you, Mister Chair Members Ryan Sherman with the California Narcotic Officers Association in support of AB 2846 and also briefly in support of the Bill. Hang on 1 second. On behalf of the Riverside Sheriff's Association, Reserve peace officers, deputy sheriffs of Placer and Monterey County, and Police Officer Associations of Arcadia, Burbank, Claremont, Corona, Culver City, Fullerton, Murrieta, Newport Beach, Nevada, Palos Verdes, Pomona, Riverside, Santa Ana and upland. We're all in support of the Bill, which seeks to clamp down on synthetic cannabinoid compounds or derivatives.

The Bill would add two more compounds to the current prohibited list that are not organic but are chemical compounds created in the lab. Synthetic cannabinoids are sold at small convenience stores, head shops, gas stations, and via the Internet. And the makers of these drugs adjust their compounds from time to time, adding sometimes a single atom or other minor alteration to keep the products from technically breaking the law.

AB 2846 seeks to close these loopholes by updating the definition of a synthetic cannabinoid compound by adding some recently developed substances and metabolite. For these reasons. Sounds like it just beeped. Oh, all right, I'll just finish this. This Bill will also capture future compounds intended to sidestep these prohibitions by including newly created synthetic cannabinoid substances that, when ingested, are intended to act as a cannabinoid cannabinoid receptor agonist. Sorry. For these reasons, we're proud to sponsor and support the Bill and ask for an aye vote.

Good morning, my name is Tiffany Devitt, and as the Assembly Member mentioned, I'm here on behalf of CannaCraft and March and Ash, which is a vertically integrated cannabis company. I'm also here on behalf of the San Diego Imperial County Joint Labor Management Cannabis Committee, which is a joint venture between our company and UFCW's Local 135. I'm also here as the author of the California Cannabis Industries 2022 white paper on intoxicating hemp and synthetic cannabinoids.

The reason why we're in strong support of AB 2846 is public safety. To give you a 45 2nd lesson in science of synthetic cannabinoids, there are basically three dangers. First, these compounds are typically manufactured using corrosive solvents and heavy metal catalysts, which often leave toxic residues in the end product. Second, that synthesis process commonly produces what are known as unnatural isomers, meaning molecular impurities that have unknown safety effects.

The third issue, and this is the most important as far as the new generation of synthetic cannabinoids that we are seeing everywhere is they are being designed to bind more strongly with the human receptors. So some of the more common synthetic cannabinoids, THCP, they're up to between 30 and 40 times stronger than the natural THC you get in cannabis. As such, they have serious side effects.

Unsurprisingly, synthetics have been linked to severe health problems, including respiratory failure, like we saw, vaping crisis, heart attack, stroke, seizures, kidney damage and risk of psychosis. For those reasons, we're in support. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in support, please step up to the mic. Name and organization, please.

Cindy DeSilva on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association, in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else in support? Seeing none. Anyone in opposition.

Thank you. You both have five minutes to share.

Thank you, Margot George, for the California Public Defenders Association. And we are respectfully opposed unless amended. We, of course, oppose further criminalization of drugs, but this feels like an effort by the marijuana industry to outlaw the competition. And it would be better, we would all be better served if they just we regulated this progress, taxed it and had quality control. But specifically, we're opposed to the expansive and catchall provision that gives no notice to innocent purchasers. And it adds a number of cannabinoids to the list.

But it has this catch all provision that says any synthetic substance that, when ingested by a human, binds to or is intended to act as a cannabinoid, cannabinoid receptor agonist to produce psychoactive effects, or that is intended to mimic the effects of delta nine tetrahydrocannabinol and obviously can't even pronounce it the average person. This makes it a crime to possess it, would have no notice, you know, or any idea that they had purchased such a product. So we ask that that provision be amended out.

And unless it's amended, we respectfully ask for your no vote and really would argue that it would better be served. We would all be better served if you just regulated this. Thank you.

Good morning. Mica Doctoroff, senior staff attorney with the ACLU of Northern California here on behalf of ACLU California Action. I would echo my colleague from CPDA's comments and just add on behalf of the ACLU, that we appreciate the author's efforts to address the dangers and to address, you know, what is really a public health crisis. But we do not believe, and continue not to believe that addressing a public health crisis with additional criminal penalties is the way forward. We have seen that that doesn't work. We have seen that that is ineffective, it is costly, it is harmful to our communities. And for that reason, we are opposed to this bill. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Anyone else in opposition, please step to the mic. Name and organization.

Melanie Kim, San Francisco Public Defender's Office. Opposed unless amended.

Kelly Walters, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children and All of Us or None. Opposed unless amended.

Lisa Montero, California Unions United for Responsible Budget, opposition.

Thank you. And before we moved to Committee, apparently we had someone else in support that did not make it in through the door. Sir, you may have your moment.

Thank you. My sprint from the swing space finally got me here. I'm in strong support, and I'm here in reference. Jared Kylo for the United Cannabis Business Association, the Coachella Valley Cannabis Alliance, San Francisco Retailers Alliance, Long Beach Collective Association, Angels Emerald and Social Equity LA in strong support.

Thank you very much. All right, Committee, questions? Mr. Zbur.

So when, sorry, getting closer to the mic. So when these substances are sold, what do they look like? I mean, how likely are they to be confused with a legal cannabis product that someone who is purchasing it thinks is absolutely legal?

So the answer to that question is, if you go up on a number of websites, these companies are marketing as, quote, legal cannabis. So it's quite easily and overtly confused. If you go up to, there's this one company called El Chapo Extracts, and I'm not making up that name. If you go visit online, they call it legal, super potent cannabis, and their tagline is shop the newest drug cartel in town. So easy to confuse.

Yes, Member Zbur, thank you for the question. There are two different types of synthetic cannabinoids, if you will, that this bill seeks to protect people from. And Ms. Devitt just addressed the semi synthetics, the delta eight, the delta 10, the THCH, the THCP. We're also addressing the MDMB four N Panaka and the ADB boutonnaka, which are pure synthetics being shipped much the way fentanyl is in precursor form from China, and coming in through whatever smuggling methods they come in through. Those are not being, to my knowledge, mistaken as legal weed.

Those are spice is what they are. But the reason that we call them both either synthetics or semi synthetics is that the spice are purely made in a lab. And the ones that Ms. Devitt is concerned about are, they do occur naturally in the plant in very minute trace amounts. But in order to extract them from the plant, you have to use dirty manufacturing methods, methods such as using butane or yucky, gross impure extraction methods.

And oftentimes they do take that from CBD or the hemp plant. So it's not even coming from a THC strain of marijuana. Those may or may not be, they're not going to be mistaken for marijuana, but they may be snuck into products that claim to be CBD, purely legal, etcetera.

So are they sold in like pens or what? How is, how is this sold?

You mean like vape cartridge pens?

Like a vape?

Probably are. And I know Mr. Sherman brought with him today some examples of stuff he was able to buy that are probably not legal, in my opinion. And where he was able to buy it from, I don't know, a drugstore or something. But yes, they are. They are being put in things that they shouldn't be smokeable anyway under California law. But yes, they're putting them in solutions and various things that people take.

So why would they not, why are you saying that they're not legal then, or they're not under California law?

Because. Well, and Ms. Devitt can answer that as well, but we've got, under Prop 64, the lawful cannabis industry, and then we have hemp on the other side. And hemp comes from a different strain of the plant that has less than 0.3% THC, delta nine tetrahydrocannabinol oil, delta nine. Whereas the other ones have more than the 0.3%. The ones that have more than 0.3% are subject to quite a few regulations under Prop 64. That was a 33 page voter pamphlet law, and quite well reasoned.

Whether you agreed with it or not, the hemp folks don't have the same consumer safety rigmaroles that they need to go through. And if you're combining, like in the thing that Mr. Sherman showed me, if you're combining delta eight with delta nine, the delta nine stuff is not complying with the same things that the lawful cannabis industry has to, such as the cancer causing labels, warnings.

So why wouldn't you just basically try to regulate this? I mean, the thing that makes me really concerned is the fact that, that a consumer is not going to know whether or not what they're doing is legal or not legal based on this law. And now we're basically putting a whole bunch of fairly innocent people, we're criminalizing a behavior that they didn't even have any idea was criminal. So why wouldn't we just regulate this? And where are the studies that sort of differentiate these substances from regular cannabis?

I hope that I can address that concern. As for people being on notice, 11.357.7 does not--I took another look at it does not criminalize mere possession--it's possession for sale. Yeah. So it's not like Mr. Sherman's gonna go get prosecuted after, you know, this law goes into effect. If you possess it, you're not in violation. And I share your--

But even possession for sale, I mean, you could actually have someone who has a gift shop that actually sells these kinds of things and basically has no idea that this has a--I mean, you talked about a fair number of fairly technical terms that characterize, you know, that describe all these various substances that are basically been putting into something that looks like it's pretty innocuous.

I just have really concerns about a lot of folks that are doing things that are fairly innocently being subject now to criminal penalties, when I think a better approach would be education and regulation.

My favorite spa, my favorite pet grooming place has things like this, too. And the way that will operate is at the FDA or the California version of it, the Sherman Food and Drug Act, and maybe even DCC, the Department of Cannabis Control, will go out and give warnings first so that my favorite spa will be told, you might want to take that off your shelf. They're not going to get raided by a SWAT team. They'll be told.

Yeah, but I guess the other thing is, it's, you know, I'm not convinced, based on the data that was at least presented in the staff report, that all these things actually have some kind of significant health impact. So what you're basically saying is you've got a chemical compound that automatically, if it's in a cream or in something that's going to be ingested, is now makes that person a criminal, whether they possess it or sell it. And they have no idea that that.

I mean, given what's happening with these other products, you're criminalizing a lot of people that I think are engaging in fairly innocent activity. And without, what I'm seeing is some regulatory agencies saying this level of, this kind of substance at this level is unhealthy.

So that 11357.5 existed since, and I believe even Mr. Lackey was one of the co-sponsors of one of the upgrades to that a number of years ago. So that your. I almost said, your honor, but your concern is already reflected, for better or for worse than the law. There's a laundry list of things people can't have, and evidence, as well as anecdotal evidence that I've seen from talking to people, is that particularly the spice, the synthetic cannabinoids, purely synthetic, are harming people.

People are using them and going, whoa, that was the worst trip I've ever had. I'm gonna keep using drugs, but not that drug. So I do want to draw a definite distinction between the spice, the ADB, the MDMB, et cetera, and then the semi synthetics, though I think both need to be reflected in the law.

And to answer your concern on people engaging in innocuous activities, that's harming the kids, because they're getting the gummies that are infused with delta eight and delta 10 that they buy from some random place that assures them this is legal, it's fine. So they leave it out on their kitchen countertop for their 10 year old to take, heck, you leave a gummy out, I'm gonna eat it, and the 10 year olds eat it. And the number of kids going to the emergency room is skyrocketing, particularly in San Diego County, from what I'm hearing. So it is a consumer safety issue especially.

I'm not going to belabor this. I'm just, you know, it looks like what we're doing with the bill. And I know that the, you know, I have great respect for the author. I know that, you know, that the intention is a good one. But what I fear is that you actually have, without a lot of data that distinguishes between substances that are relatively safe and those that aren't, basically criminalizing things that are basically going to be provided without people knowing that it's.

That the possession or the sale is a criminal activity sometimes. And also that I don't necessarily know that there's basically some kind of health impact, necessarily, that is positive. And then third, that it's not going to dissuade, it's not going to prevent the activity. I just sort of think a regulatory approach with education is a better one. And so I just want to thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Assembly Member Reyes.

Thank you. I do want to begin by saying that the author has been a leader when it comes to cannabis and has educated us on so many issues regarding the subject. I've been here for eight years, and he has been one of those leaders that is directed so much of what we have done here. I, too, am concerned that without data, and when I hear that the numbers are skyrocketing, and I want to know, I want to see that they're skyrocketing. Is it with children?

Is it with adults? We already have in the books, and that's because of Senator Galgiani from 2016, the penalties for possession of synthetic cannabinoids. And so we have things on the books that can already be used. So we're being asked to redefine what those are, to include more substances, and now to criminalize it.

And I would have to agree with my colleague that if we're going to cross the threshold and criminalize it, that adding a number of synthetic items, cannabinoids, I would like to know more about what it is we're doing. So for today, I won't be able to support this.

Okay. Further questions?

Also, that when we're going to have. I'm sorry.

Yeah, go ahead.

If we're going to have items that are going to be given, I think it really should be through the Chair to have that authorized before it's given to us.

Okay. Thank you. Assembly Member Alanis.

Yes, I think the sergeants had addressed that earlier also. So I just want to make it a point. In my 20 plus years in law enforcement, legislation has always been catching up to the chemical compounds that have been constantly changing in California and the United States and the whole world. There are smart people out there that are making drugs that will just change the compound of what the drug is.

So it does not fall under the law that was made at the time. And so things like right now we're dealing with Tranq. Right. Tranq's a thing that we know about that we should be working even harder on to address. But I see in this bill that is something that you're addressing is just helping us catch up to the new chemical compounds that these scientists, these drug makers have cheated the system to make it a little bit different to where it doesn't apply to them.

And if you want to address that, you probably don't, your closing or not. But that's what I see in this. It's unfortunate that we're going to be doing this every year because it is going to, this compound is going to change next year also, and we're going to have to change that one as well just to add it. I wish there was something that could make it easier, but it does the same thing. It's the same type of drug. They just change the makeup of the compound of the drug is what they're doing, is what we're trying to catch up to. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Further questions or comments from Committee Members? Do you have a question or is that a comment?

Yes. Thank you so much. We drafted this law so that you wouldn't have to readdress this every year because it harkens back to 11401 of the health and safety code, which is the analog statute. The way the current 11357.5 is written, you do have to come back all the time. That's why it's 14 pages long of JWH 087 type drugs. The problem is you're exactly right. People are tweaking those drugs to create new ones.

ADB, Boutonnaka and MDMB four, and Panaka are the ones we're seeing quite a bit. And I thought we had provided those statistics, apologize if they didn't get to you all. But if this bill gets passed, you won't have to come back every year because it gives that definition of if it produces the same or greater hallucinogenic depressant or stimulative effects on the person's central nervous system, it's an analog, and we can prosecute it as an analog, same way we can prosecute MDMA, which is ecstasy.

Okay, thank you. Do we have a motion? We have a motion and second. Would you like to close, sir?

I would just close by saying the public deserves protection and these substances are dangerous and misleading, and I would encourage your support on this measure.

Thank you. Motion and a second. Please call the roll.

On AB 2846 by Assembly Member Lackey, the motion is do pass to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

Okay, that measure passes. Mr. Zbur, final bill. Yep. Thank you.

Please begin, Mister Chair and Members, I'm proud today to present AB 2917 alongside our sponsor, Everytown for Gun Safety and co sponsor, the San Francisco City Attorney's Office. This Bill updates and refines California's nation leading gun violence restraining order, GVRO law, to draw the civil court's attention to a broader set of risk factors in the court's analysis of whether a temporary access to firearms should be restricted.

According to the California attorney general's most recent report on hate crimes in California, hate crime events involving racial bias, religious bias, sexual orientation bias, and gender bias all have increased between 2021 and 2022. We have to strengthen our tools to prevent hate based violence, especially the alarming rates of violence against LGBTQ communities, especially Trans women, religious minorities, including people of Jewish and Islamic faith, and minority racial and ethnic communities.

The Bill guides the court to consider threats of violence made against groups protected by hate crime laws and threats of violence to advance political objectives. It also updates various statutes to codify the ability of city and county attorneys pursuing GVROs to access criminal history information.

California's GVRO law created a civil legal process through which law enforcement could, concerned family Members and other designated individuals may request that a court grant an order temporarily restricting a person's access to firearms and ammunition when there's evidence that the person poses a significant risk of harm to self or others. In the decades since the law was first passed, GVRos have become one of the most effective tools available for preventing certain types of gun violence before it occurs.

By promptly and temporarily removing firearms from a person at risk of harming others or themselves, GVROs can be particularly useful for preventing mass shootings and suicide. Our most vulnerable communities deserve protection, including protection from gun violence. California courts must stay alert to the importance of considering threats of hate based violence and threats of political violence when temporarily restricting access to guns, thereby preventing needless deaths and potentially saving innocent lives.

When the warning signs are there and we see someone threaten violence because of hate or extremist ideology, we must use the tools necessary to prevent these tragedies. I ask for your aye vote at the appropriate time. And with me today are Krystal LoPilato senior policy counsel with Everytown for Gun Safety, and Rebekah Krell, Director of Policy and Legislative Affairs from the San Francisco Attorney's Office, the sponsor and co sponsor of this Bill. To provide additional information, please proceed.

Good morning, Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Krystal LoPilato and I serve as senior policy counsel with Everytown for Gun Safety. Together with moms demand action and students demand action. We are the largest gun violence prevention organization in the country, and we're very grateful to Assemblymember Zbur for bringing this Bill forward. We're here as sponsors of AB 2917 which will update California's law, landmark gun violence restraining order law.

This Bill seeks to shine a spotlight on types of gun violence that GVROs can be particularly useful for preventing, while also incorporating lessons learned from the last few years of implementation and from other states. One key update, as the Assembly Member mentioned, is to clarify and specify additional factors the court may consider in deciding whether to issue a GVRO. Under current law, the court is tasked with determining whether a person poses a significant danger of harming others or themselves if they have access to firearms.

Nothing about that overarching analysis will change here, but this Bill carefully draws the court's attention to more risk factors to consider, including threats of violence made against a person or a group protected by California's hate crimes law and threats of violence to advance a political objective or to interfere with another person's exercise of their constitutional rights. An everytown analysis of mass shootings from 2015 to 2022 revealed that in nearly a third of the incidents, the shooter exhibited warning signs before the shooting.

This is true of the hate-motivated shooters at the Mother Emanuel Ame Church in Charleston in 2015, the Pittsburgh Tree of Life Synagogue in 2018, the El Paso Walmart shooting in 2019, the top supermarket in Buffalo in 2022 and the Club Q nightclub in Colorado Springs in 2022. When someone sends out warning signs that they intend to commit those types of acts, we need to get guns out of those situations.

We need to make the toolkit of prevention options as strong as we can and we need to make sure that people, including the judges who evaluate gun violence restraining order petitions, know that GVROs are an option to keep communities safe. And in those situations, we ask for your I vote on AB 20917. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair McCarty and Members of the Assembly Public Safety Committee. I'm Rebekah Krell here representing San Francisco City Attorney David Chu. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on AB 20917 today. The San Francisco City Attorney's office appreciates Assemblymember Zbur's leadership on this important Bill and is grateful to partner with Everytown for Gun Safety on this legislation. As you all know, impactful laws require effective implementation and enforcement.

As legal counsel to their local law enforcement agencies, California City attorneys and county counsel are on the front lines of implementing gun violence restraining orders. Sections one to three of AB 20917 are a narrowly scoped update to the law to to facilitate GVRO implementation by streamlining the ability of city attorneys and county councils to access criminal history information as part of their work partnering with local law enforcement to file and process GVR petitions.

The San Francisco City Attorney's office first began seeking GVROs on behalf of the San Francisco Police Department in 2019 through our office's outreach with gun safety advocates and training of local law enforcement. The number of GvRos sought by our office and the number of firearms seized pursuant to GVRos have increased steadily in San Francisco. The city attorney's office is involved in every single GVRO sought by the SFPD, and coordinated partnership is critical to our success.

AB 2917 also has the unanimous support of the California Civil Prosecutors coalition. The coalition serves many of the largest city attorney and county council offices in California, representing millions of residents in our jurisdictions. Improving public safety laws geared towards preventing gun violence, such as gun violence restraining orders, is a top legislative priority for us this year. The coalition is chaired by San Diego City attorney Mara Elliott, who has been recognized as a national leader on Gvros. Thank you.

Thank you. Others in support.

Cindy DeSilva on behalf of the California District Attorney's Association, pleased to be in support.

Jillian King volunteer Moms Demand Action.

Sara Judal volunteer with Moms Demand Action in support

Sasha Horwitz, Los Angeles Unified School District in support.

Liz Durazo gun violence survivor Moms Demand Action volunteer in support.

Mary Duplaw gun violence survivor volunteer for Moms Demand Action in support.

Opposition please come forward.

Good morning, Mister Chair and Members. Mica Doctoroff on behalf of the ACLU of California Action, we have not taken a position on the Bill. We voiced some concerns to the author's office, and he's been very gracious in hearing our concerns. And we've been working with the sponsors and hope we'll be able to find some amendments. Thank you so much.

First of all, I'm happy to say that the ACLU is taking a look at this. We have actually partnered. I'm Sam Paredes representing Gun Owners of California. We have partnered with ACLU on several occasions with regards to First Amendment issues and privacy rights. I hope that you will take a very serious look at this situation. We have three points of opposition to this Bill.

Number one, it's very problematic when you try to define violent speech in statute and even through the courts, when somebody stands up and says, fight for the communist revolution in California, is that violent speech? I support the Second Amendment. We need to fight for our rights. Is that violent speech? Those are both promoting a political agenda. So we have concerns that, you know, violent speech, ugly, detestable, terrible, is still protected speech under the First Amendment. So we need to be very aware of that.

So we have, we think that this Bill oversteps that line. Secondly, and it's, I don't even know why it's here. People who are considered, you know, who do animal cruelty. That is a definition. That is what is that? Many, many, many time honored animal training techniques have been used for centuries and for a long time here in California by many professionals. Some animal rights activists are now declaring those things as cruelty. Well, we don't see the nexus there.

I've heard the testimony before and the arguments before that, you know, if somebody kicks their dog or kills their dog or kills their cat, that's a telltale sign that they are violent and they might commit some sort of an atrocity. To us, that's a significant stretch. And the third issue is that the entire issue of gun violence, restraining orders, commonly known as red flag laws in America, is now before the United States Supreme Court.

In the Rahimi case, United States versus Rahimi, it is not just domestic violence, but we know that GVR red flags are also gonna be considered. So there is a significant chance that the entire issue of GVROs may be declared unconstitutional. Why? Because they violate a person's 1st, 4th, 5th, and 14th amendment rights. The people who are issued a GVRO, they don't know who their accusers are. It's ex parte. They cannot immediately go before a court and defend themselves to say, hey, I'm in an ugly divorce.

My wife is accusing me of this, and they don't have that so their rights are infringed, rights delayed or rights denied. So we have great concerns now if the Supreme Court. Which will happen before June. If the Supreme Court declares that the gun violence, restraining orders and red flag laws of America are unconstitutional as they are presently constituted, we would be happy to talk with the people who want to look at ways of preventing gun violence. That offer has been out there forever.

Has it ever been taken up? Not a single time. You cannot violate someone's 1st, 4th, fifth and 14th amendment rights in order to deny them their second amendment rights. For these reasons, we are in strong opposition to this Bill. And we hope there will be a wait and see situation to see what the Supreme Court does to lead us in this direction. Thank you. Thank you. Any other than officers. This is on behalf of Gun Owners of California and the California rifle and pistol. Gotcha.

If there's an opposition, please come forward. Hearing none questions or comments from Committee Members. Second, we have. We have a motion and a second. Mister Ting?

Want to ask opposition some questions. Are there. Appreciate your position. Are there any people you believe shouldn't own guns or shouldn't?

Absolutely. Absolutely. There are people who shouldn't own guns. Those that have been convicted of crimes and have not yet served their term in society. Those that have been mentally adjudicated as mentally deficient. Usually those people are already. What's that?

Usually those people are in facilities. No. No, sir, they're not. People that have been adjudicated as mentally deficient are walking amongst us. Some of them here in this building. Excuse me, that was my attempt at levity. So absolutely, there are some people who should not own guns.

You mentioned that the offer's never been taken to try to address this issue. It's absolutely false. I know that I've carried numerous bills on this particular issue. Reached out to your organization. Try to work out again who may be appropriate to not have firearms. And you know, this is the first time I've heard that you've actually talked about people who shouldn't have firearms.

Then, Assemblyman Ting, you have not read a single one of our letters of opposition. Because that is the closing line in every letter that we write that we would be happy to speak talk with the opposition in order to come up with solutions that don't violate people's rights.

And we can sit down and talk about those things in every single letter of opposition that we have written and submitted to the Assembly and the Senate, that is included.

I mean, what about my right to live? Oh you. We all have a right to live. There's no question about it. Now, what if someone infringes that? What's that? What if someone infringes that? I'm sorry, my hearing. What if someone infringes your right to live? What are the infringements of my right to live? My hearing aids or hearing aids? No. What if someone infringes my right to live, my right for my children to go to school safely?

Yeah, but you're doing it by violating people's rights in order to achieve that goal. And gun violence, restraining orders, from our perspective, are the single most insincere method of doing that. Because a GVRO is issued, police show up and say, surprise, we're taking away your guns. Somebody has accused you of being a danger to yourself or others, and then what do they do? They say, go off and be nice.

We all have those rights. There's no question about it. We do not argue. We agree on that.

How you go about addressing the issue without violating people's constitutional rights is the task of this Legislature and the courts to figure out.

think we're trying to balance that right with the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

If somebody is truly in danger of great bodily harm or injury to somebody else, don't you think that we would want to find help for them? Don't you think that we would want to have them address counselors or medical professionals in order to try to figure out what the issue is? We don't do that. Everybody was in crisis. We just say, go off, be nice. That doesn't happen. Yeah.

Well, one situation we saw in Thousand Oaks, where you saw law enforcement, you saw social services visit the individual in question, had concerns about him, decided not to take the guns away. The guy shot up at nightclub a couple months later. So again, you look at the GVROs, the UC Davis. UC Davis has studied this issue. They've estimated number of lives saved through this. So again, you talk about your second rights. There's the ultimate, that's just a, that's one of the amendments to the constitution.

The ultimate constitution talks about life. It's a first line that we have a right to life right. And so I think we're trying to balance that. I wish that you would be more helpful in helping us balance that, especially when people who have guns end up killing people. It's the number one cause of death for, it's one of the major causes of death for children right now in our state, in our country. It's a very serious issue, and I understand your opposition but again, we're trying to balance both of those constitutional actions.

Completely understand that, Assemblyman. And number one, the comment that gun violence is the number one cause of death is absolutely not true. According to the Center for Disease Control. I corrected myself at densities. Number one cause of death. Okay. My hearing aids didn't pick up. It's okay. Forgive me. Yeah, well, it is the number one cause of death for young people.

It's not with that, I will allow you to have a motion. A second? Yeah, motion, a second. No more questions. I'll allow you to close. But one thing maybe you can address in your clothes is the issue versus animal cruelty. I don't think it's, you know, somebody used to work in the circus, work with elephants. It's documented cases in the Bill. Talk about that. Maybe you can just touch on that in your close.

So, first of all, in the animal cruelty issue, that's, that's an issue that is available for GVROs in a number of other states now. And so since we are updating the factors that a court is highlighted for consideration, we added that to sort of align it with what's happening in other states. But the basic focus of this Bill, one, it doesn't change the underlying standard for a court to consider threats of violence. This isn't about speech.

It's about whether or not there is a threat of violence that's based on hate or a threat of violence. And so the issues related to the constitutional issues that he raises are not, this is not about speech. It's about threats of violence, which is the standard that the court has to focus on in each case. And obviously, in those cases, those are fact based. Right? It depends.

There will be cases where primarily what's happening might fall within protected speech and others where there's a threat, an actual threat. And so we've narrowly crafted this Bill to focus really on the court considering threats of violence as opposed to just generalized, generalized speech or political speech. I don't know if I can ask my folks from every town from gun safety to sort of talk about the constitutional issues. Sure.

Certainly. Yeah, I do think it's, you know, important to note since the Rahimi case that's at the Supreme Court was mentioned, just to really clarify for everyone that that is not an extreme risk protection order law that's up at state. There's a lot of differences between that case and certainly California's gun violence restraining order law. The reason that that case is even at the Supreme Court right now, and it involves a federal law that's been on the books for 30 years.

It's at the Supreme Court because the Bruin case in 2022 changed the analysis for Second Amendment cases after Bruin courts have been upholding extreme risk protection order laws in other states. Just last month, the New York state appellate court actually issued a ruling finding their extreme risk protection order law constitutional. Under the Bruin test, we have no reason to anticipate that the 9th Circuit or California courts would find differently. Thank you.

So with this, I mean, you know, there are signs that, you know, in many cases that there is a heightened threat of violence that is out in the community. This is sort of of a simple law that really brings to the court's attention the fact that under the underlying standard that they are charged to consider in issuing a gun violence restraining order, that among the kinds of threats of violence that this is available for would be hate motivated threats and violence extremism based on political advocacy.

So with that, I think this is a narrow case. This is one that in the times that we're living with, the kinds of threats that are occurring to the LGBTQ community, to folks from communities of faith, race based threats of violence, I think this is an important tool and will save lives.

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

On 2917 by Assemblymember Zbur. The motion is do pass to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call].

Thank you. That measure passes. We'll go back up to the top and looking for a motion on some of the early items. We have everybody? Yep.

On AB 2065 by Assembly Member Kalra, this measure was only for testimony. Is there a motion? On AB 2065 by Assembly Member Kalra, the motion is 'do pass to the Appropriations Committee.' [Roll Call]. That measure passes.

Thank you. Measure passes.

Item Number Two. We are still waiting for Ms. Wilson. Item--excuse me. AB 2178 by Mr. Ting. This measure was on call. [Roll Call]. That measure now passes. AB 2576 by Assembly Member Nguyen. This measure was only for testimony this morning. Is there a motion? On AB 2576 by Assembly Member Nguyen, the motion is 'do pass to the Appropriations Committee.' [Roll Call]. That measure now passes. AB 2692 by Assembly Member Papan. This measure was doing--was testimony only this morning. Is there a motion?

Motion.

On AB 2692 by Assembly Member Papan, the motion is 'do pass as amended to the Appropriations Committee.' [Roll Call]. That measure passes. AB 2846, still waiting for Ms. Wilson. And AB 2917, still waiting for Ms. Wilson.

Okay, that concludes for you all. We're going to wait here for Assembly Member Wilson.

Tanya, we're not done. I'm sorry. He's not adjourned.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. That concludes this hearing. Will adjourn it. It.