Senate Standing Committee on Public Safety

As of now, we already have authors lined up and we have eight bills on the calendar today. I do have a couple of announcements. Announcement number one is AB 667 by Assemblymember Maienschein has been pulled by the author from today's calendar, and we have three bills: AB 2018 by Assemblymember Rodriguez, AB 1788 by Assemblymember Quirk-Silva,

And AB 2759 Petrie-Norris are on consent. Looking like we have a quorum.

I got the numbers wrong. That was mine. Why did I have that? Was there a different mark? Sorry, 1788 is not. It's AB 2621. That was my

All right, we are going to restate this for clarification. Again, we have three bills on consent. AB 2018 by Assemblymember Rodriguez, AB 2621 by Assemblymember Gabriel, and AB 2759 by Assemblymember Petrie-Norris are all on consent. I'm gonna actually ask for a roll call vote. I'm gonna roll call to see if we have quorum.

Wahab?

Here.

Wahab here. Seyarto?

Here.

Seyarto here. Bradford?

Here.

Bradford here. Skinner. Wiener.

Alright, we have quorum and we are gonna start with our very first Bill. We're actually going to skip over to AB 2120 by Assemblymember Chen. We're actually going to start with AB 2018 by Assemblymember Rodriguez. 977. Okay, can we. We do have a quorum. Yeah.

Let's have a motion for consent. Thank you. Let's call a roll call vote.

Aye.

Wehab Aye. Seyarto

Aye.

Seyarto Aye. Bradford.

Aye.

Bradford Aye. Skinner. Wiener.

And I apologize completely, Assemblymember. We don't do this the way the Assembly does it. We're going to have you speak from here and our witnesses, you're going to come to the lectern. Thank you. And again, just for announcements, we're going to ensure that each lead witness has roughly two minutes to speak, both in opposition and in support.

And all of the "Me too"s, we just ask that you state your name, your organization, whether you support or oppose. We like to go through this pretty quickly. So thank you, Assemblymember. I apologize for that. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. Thank you for allowing me to present AB 977, which would increase the penalty for committing assault and battery against healthcare workers inside the Emergency Department. This Bill would make those penalties equal to the penalties for assault and battery committed outside the Emergency Department.

As many of you know, California experienced a healthcare workforce shortage. These workforce challenges contributes to the lack of access, high cost of care, and healthcare quality and patient outcomes. While the state has made significant investments to address these problems, addressing workplace violence must be part of the solution to maintain and recruit healthcare workers.

Despite years of hospitals adopting plans to prevent workplace violence, reported incidents have not decreased. According to the American College of Emergency Physicians, 85% of emergency physicians believe workplace violence in the Emergency Departments has increased over the past five years, with over two thirds of the emergency physicians reportedly being assaulted in the past year alone.

One study estimated that a healthcare worker can expect to be threatened at least four times and assaulted at least once per year. Studies have shown that Emergency Department staff who are exposed to workplace violence can suffer from burnout, traumatic stress, and compassion fatigue. For example, one third of emergency nurses have considered leaving due to workplace violence.

Again, these issues also affect healthcare access and treatment outcome since many healthcare workers become less productive, have increased absenteeism, and have been even leave the profession, or even leave the profession. Before I pass it to my witness, I would like to just share that as a first responder for over 30 years, I have personally witnessed assaults on staff and even been physically restrained by assaulters.

And also my daughter Desra is a health coworker, a respiratory technician, and she has also been a victim of workplace violence in the past two months. This violence is unacceptable, but for many of the healthcare heroes, they view workplace violence as just part of the job. As a result, only 3% of assaults result in press charges, according to American College of Emergency Physicians. This Bill would change the notion that workplace violence is an inherent part of working on the job in a hospital setting and encourage them to report incidents. We already have laws on the books protecting our public servants, such as firefighters, police officers, EMTs, and paramedics. Our workers in the hospital deserve the same protection.

By establishing parity between the penalties for assault and battery against an emergency worker both inside and outside a hospital. This will provide workers with the respect they deserve while protecting them from workplace violence. With me to provide testimony are Jonathan Judy-del Rosario, Chief Nurse Executive of the Eden Medical Center, and Doctor Anna Yap, an emergency physician at the UC Davis Medical Center. With me to also provide and answer any technical questions is Christian Schentzel from the Sacramento District Attorney's Office. Thank you.

Thank you. You can present. And you have roughly two minutes.

Great. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. My name is Jonathan Judy-del Rosario. I'm the hero on behalf of Sutter Health to support AB 977. I'm the Chief Nurse Executive at Sutter Eden Medical Center in Castor Valley, and I've been a nurse for 26 years, 17 of those here in California.

Despite staffing with increased security personnel, implementing our care covenant, outlining behavioral expectations, and providing both didactic and hands on training to our employees, we continue to struggle with acts of violence against our staff. I would like to share a few examples of those that have occurred that supports the need for this Bill.

During a busy day, a waiting patient in the hallway stuck his foot out and kicked a staff Member in the leg, causing the staff Member to stumble. The patient complained that he was tired of waiting and he had no underlying condition or reason that would have caused him to behave in this manner. A patient's sister was annoyed that their ED visit for a non critical issue was taking too long. As the registration Clerk was trying to complete her duties, the sister began yelling at the Clerk, spat in her face, and attempted to get physical with the Clerk before other staff had to intervene.

A patient arrived in triage and did not screen positive for violence risk. Coming out of the bathroom, he announced to the entire Department that he had obtained the urine sample as requested and then proceeded to toss his urinal into the nurse's station, hitting a staff Member and splashing other staff and equipment with urine. There was no underlying reason that we could ascertain for him to do this, and he laughed on his way back to his room.

To make matters worse, it has been my experience, both in San Francisco and Alameda counties, staff are often discouraged from pressing charges against patients, even when they've been physically harmed, and the reason often centers about there's too much effort for minimal results, even if they're found guilty of the crime. I ask you to pass AB 977 to ensure that our Emergency Department staff have the same protection and peace of mind that someone who commits assault or battery will face the same penalties that already exist for those outside of the hospital. Thank you.

Good morning, and thank you for allowing me to present my testimony today. I'm Doctor Anna Yap, a board certified emergency physician serving the Sacramento community at the UC Davis Medical Center and at the Veterans Medical Center. I'm here today representing the California Medical Association, who's co sponsoring Assembly Bill 977.

I've been punched, slapped, kicked, spit on, and verbally harassed at work and that's not a unique experience. While training in Los Angeles, I had co residents who had guns and knives pulled on them by patients. My colleague here in Sacramento, while 37 weeks pregnant, was tackled to the ground by a patient's family Member.

Another physician in San Diego told me about her ER nurses where one of them was knocked to the ground and bitten so hard on the chest that they had to have surgery. And another nurse was slammed into so hard by a patient in their wheelchair that her finger was amputated. During the pandemic, when a patient realized I was Asian, he yelled racial slurs and insults at me and threw a used urinal at me. And as he had an abscess, I needed to drain.

I actually needed a security guard with me the whole time while I was doing the procedure, scared that he would grab the scalpel from me and stab me. Despite it all, we healthcare professionals rarely, if ever, report attempted or successful attempts by patients or their families. We are particularly sensitive to wanting to care for our vulnerable patients and view workplace violence as a part of our job.

However, there's also the belief that nothing will be done if we try to report, and we're oftentimes discouraged from reporting because it's too much work or it's not worth it, which is perpetuated by laws and policies, some of which this Bill is trying to correct. At the end of the day, it is unfair that in the especially unsafe environment of the Emergency Department, we get less protections than if we were assaulted by somebody while on the streets.

Emergency professionals are incredibly burnt out. Promoting a safe environment for healthcare workers to treat our communities will ensure the well being of both physicians and patients. Protect healthcare professionals by voting yes on Assembly Bill 977. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any lead opposition? Let's go with lead opposition. Two minutes. Lead opposition.

Good morning, Chair and Members Alicia Benavidez here. On behalf of ACLU California Action in respectful opposition to AB 977. We agree that doctors, nurses and other hospital employees have a right to do their jobs without being harmed. We also recognize the risk of harm and specific challenges posed to healthcare workers. Unfortunately, AB 977 would not prevent or even reduce harmful conduct.

Instead, the Bill increases the possibility of punishment for offenses that are committed primarily by individuals brought into hospitals while in crisis. Existing law already covers the situations targeted in the Bill, and criminal penalties for assault of conduct range from misdemeanor to felony convictions. We don't believe there is current adequate evidence to indicate that the current laws and sentencing structure are insufficient, and for these reasons, we remain opposed.

Thank you.

Good morning. Leslie Caldwell-Houston for the California Public Defenders Association. Like emergency room staff, the public defender staff works with distraught individuals who are often mentally unstable and their families are worried and scared. We have great respect for those who work in emergency departments. My own niece is an emergency room doc.

However, CPDA is opposed to this Bill. We and you know that enhanced sentencing does not deter bad behavior or ensure safety. I'm very concerned at the testimony that staff is discouraged from testifying or filing complaints. This law isn't going to fix that. That's a whole different problem. There is existing law, as my compatriot just talked about.

We have to understand the problem and address them directly, not after the fact with jail sentences. This problem has been studied by many researchers. The problem is structural. ERs are a faulty safety net for holes in the rest of the safety nets. More individuals who are suffering in pain, devastating prognosis, unfamiliar crowded surroundings and mind and mood altering medications and drugs. They are more often dealing with extremely loud, loud areas and loud cries of people in pain or fear.

The examples that you heard are people where it is reported that for no reason this person slammed in a wheelchair or kicked someone. We don't know what's going on in that person's head and likely there is a mental concern. At the same time, physician and nurse hours are being cut as private equity takes over many hospitals and tries to wring out profits. The researchers to include the federal OSHA - include federal OSHA has comprehensive violence prevention guidelines based on industry best practices and stakeholder feedback. There are many options to reduce ER violence issues that do not involve putting people in cages. We urge your no vote on AB 977.

Thank you. Can we have people who speak for me, too? Both in opposition or in support?

Good morning. Vanessa Gonzalez with the California Hospital Association, representing over 400 hospitals and health systems in California, proud co sponsor of the Bill and respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you.

Madam Chair and Members. Tim Madden representing the California chapter of the American College of Emergency Physicians, in support.

Good morning, Chairwoman and Members. Alfredo Medina here on behalf of Cedars-Sinai Medical Group in support. Strongly support. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. My name is Fred Notewear, representing Stanford Hospital in support. Thank you.

Danica Rodarmel on behalf of Initiate Justice and Law Defense. In respectful opposition.

Good morning, Madam Chair Members. Victoria Rodriguez with Nielsen Marksman on behalf of Yolo County, in support.

Good morning. Jonathan Clay, on behalf of Scripps Health and USC Keck School of Medicine, in support.

Good morning, Madam Chair Members. Grace Koplin on behalf of Providence Health, in support.

Kristen Schlessel with the Sacramento County District Attorney's Office on behalf of California District Attorneys Association, in support. And then here for any technical questions that you have.

Vanessa Cajina on behalf of the California Academy of Family Physicians, here in support.

Good morning. Jared Moss, on behalf of the San Diego Chamber of Commerce, in support.

All right. Seeing no other public comments, we're going to move on to Members of the Committee. Committee Members. Senator Seyarto.

First Assemblymember, thank you for bringing this Bill. It is long overdue. This is an issue that is not new, but it's getting worse. Anybody who has seen it firsthand, can tell you that it is not just perpetrated by people who are having mental breakdowns. It is perpetrated by people who are bullies who expect to be treated first instead of the person that walked in after them because they don't understand a triage system and they are attacking defenseless people in their workplace. We have workplace violence laws.

We also have laws that when somebody is having a mental issue, there are allowances for that. But this spans the entire sector of the people, whether whatever they're race, gender or ethnicity, all those things. It doesn't matter. The people that are doing this are doing it because they're mad and they can get away with it. And they need to stop being getting, they need to stop being allowed to get away with it. If current laws, you know, there's a comment that it's not going to prevent it. Yes, it will, because there are a lot of people whose anger they allow to let fly because there are no consequences for it.

However, when there are consequences and serious consequences like this should be, then that's a way for them to self check themselves before they get into the confrontation that leads to them getting arrested, because that's the part that people don't want. But unfortunately, if we're going to not give that consequence for them, we're going to continue to have these batteries take place. I know personally a nurse that was disabled, she was attacked, thrown to the ground and disabled. She had a head injury and she could never go back to work. She could never go back to work.

And the person that did that, there was nothing mentally wrong with them. He was just mad. So enough with excuse making. It's time to hold people accountable for their bad behavior because they don't have to go to jail. What they can do is sit there, be a good patient and cooperate with the people that are trying to help them for Pete's sake. Stop making excuses. This is a great Bill. Thank you. And I'll be supporting it. And I move the Bill.

All right. Any other Members? Senator Skinner.

Excuse me. Assemblymember Rodriguez. Got frog in my throat this morning. Sounds like coughing, like you. Anyway, I appreciate why you brought the Bill, and I appreciate the supporters indication that, you know, we have this law for EMTs and such who are, when they're out in the community versus the circumstance in an emergency room.

However, it's like so many things, maybe we should have thought more when we passed that original one, but because we have one, you know, one statute in one circumstance does not necessarily mean we should apply it everywhere. And I, no one who's in a hospital setting should, I mean, you should never feel in fear of your life. It's an intense setting. You're saving lives. You do not want to have that stress, that pressure. However, as the analysis points out, very well, we, you know, we commonly, we fall into the theory that if we make something, if we enhance the charges of something, that, that becomes a deterrent.

But as even the supporters testified and the, and the folks that came to my office, they admitted that this is often when a person is under emotional duress or they could be having a psychotic episode. I mean, we realize now that because of the lack of mental health resources, the lack of even mental health practitioners, ERs are where people in mental, who are having crisis of mental health are brought.

And punishments like this are not deterrents for people who are, who can use no judgment. And to have the result be that we have a person who is in that kind of psychotic state who may have an underlying mental health problem, then in a jail for a year, where we know that right now our jails are the mental health facilities, which we know they're not, they can't be, they're not adequate to be.

I think, you know, this Bill, the one version of it was vetoed by Governor Brown for, for the reasons, basically describing how adding enhanced punishment is not a deterrent, and that he didn't see the logic for filling our jails with people who may have experienced this, even though he, of course, like all of us, decried any violence that would occur towards a health practitioner in a hospital setting or an emergency room setting.

Another version of this Bill was held by this Committee in 2019. And while I appreciate, again, the supporters feeling like, why should we be less subject to, why shouldn't a perpetrator against us have the same type of charges or consequences as the person in the community, I think that logic is not good enough. And I understand this Bill is, you know, got a lot of support in the Assembly. It's well on its way.

But I would have, I suppose in, within, I think it would have been wise to add some buffers, to add some language in the Bill that at least allowed a judge to consider if the person was in a psychotic state or if the person was, if there was that kind of circumstance of mental duress that could cause, it doesn't justify the hurting of anyone in the hospital room or the EMT.

Don't get me wrong. I don't want anyone out to under, to think that I am somehow justifying, no, I am not. But we know that there's these kind of circumstances, and when we think about, what's this Committee called, public safety, that's, we're always trying to strike that balance. How do we just, putting people away for longer isn't necessarily a public safety outcome.

And when we consider most of the people, you know, not everybody, most of the people who might get charged under this are going to have a public defender at least if there was some kind of buffering type of language in the Bill, then it at least would equip a public defender better in terms of trying to defend that person. Because right now with what we are doing, if we pass this and it gets signed, is we're just saying, you know, you pretty much have to automatically go to jail for a year. And I don't think when we really think about it is really the public safety outcome we'd necessarily want. So I just wanted to add that. And uh.

Thank you. Assemblymember, you can close.

Well with that, I just wanted to just make a point clarification to a Senator regarding those issues regarding mental health and psychotic issues. So there is language in the Bill that the judge can use that under circumstances, depending on the nature of the incident. So with that, I just want to let there is that flexibility in there. And with that, obviously, this has been a process of issues for decades. You know, I think what happened with the pandemic, it just elevated to it to the next level.

And this Bill is very much leaded. Like I talked to folks that we need to take care of the folks that take care of us. Right. And I think this is just one step that would equalize penalties if it already occurs outside of a hospital setting, it should just be equal inside the hospital as well. It's already there. So this is just one way to protect our healthcare workers every day here in the State of California. With that, I respect the ask for an aye vote thank you.

Thank you. We have a motion by Senator Seyarto.

Can I just ask one question? Since in your close you mentioned that there was that language which I did not see in the Bill. Could you tell me what page that is in the Bill or what section I can get.

I don't have it with me on a second, but I can get back with you.

Because I. Again, I could have missed it, but I did look at the Bill closely, and I did not see that.

Okay. We'll let the consultant actually take a look in two seconds.

Okay.

And I might feel differently about it in that case, but I did not.

If that. It's the California Rules of Court case 4.423.

So it's not specifically in the Bill.

But there is because of that court case.

Right. Which is not. That's General law, which I appreciate. However, it doesn't necessarily help in any particular incident. So it doesn't necessarily give a public defender much for.

All right, we have a close. We have a motion. Can we get a roll call vote, please?

AB 977. Motion is due passed to Appropriations. [Roll Call].

Thank you, Assembly Member. I believe you also have... Okay, thank you. Assembly Member Chen with AB 2120. Again, I do just want to highlight, I will be presenting another bill for the Assembly. Many of us have bills to present. We may be stepping away, and we will have other folks chair the meeting at this moment in time. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair, for allowing to present AB 2120. I first want to thank you for the committee and the committee staff for your hard work on this bill, and we will be taking all of the committee amendments. AB 2120 clarifies trespassing provisions to exclude repossession agencies and protect its aid employees while searching for collateral.

However, repossessors will subject to trespassing laws of private and secure locations. When a debtor has failed to repay the debt, the legal owner who holds a note collateral may issue a repossession order. The law provides that under the repossession order, a repossession agency or its employee may come to the property to reclaim the purchase that has fallen into default. But in the midst of this process, debtors will often call the police, claiming the repossessor is trespassing onto their property.

As a result, the repossessor gets erroneously arrested, required to go to court for trespassing, only for the case to get dismissed at the hearing. Due to the repossessor's arrest, they now have a criminal arrest history for simply doing their job. AB 2120 will clarify. The repossessors are not punished nor arrested for trespassing while searching for the collateral. I urge you to vote yes on AB 2120 to protect those who are simply doing their job. Here to testify are Marcelle Egley, President of the California Association of Repossessors, and also Dave Quintana.

Thank you. You're the primary witness. Go ahead. And you got about two minutes.

Yeah, well, I'll be very brief. I just want to actually thank the consultant, Alex, for your great work on this bill, for allowing us to come up with language that addressed the Governor's veto in a very elegant manner. And with that being said, I'd like to introduce our President of our association, Marcelle.

Good morning. My name is Marcelle Egley. I'm the President of the California Association of Licensed Repossessors. To briefly address Ms. Shahan's concerns regarding this bill, as far as the consumer debtor, they getting little or receiving no notice regarding the repossessor coming to repossess the vehicle, the average time for repossession takes about 90 days.

During that 90 days, the consumer, also referred to as the debtor, is contacted at least once a day with effective contact during the timeframe of delinquency leading up to the repossession. Some lenders allow more than 90 days, give or take a few days less or more, if they're working with the consumer, if the consumer has been in contact with them. But there is continuous contact, email, telephone calls, and texts during this time.

So when we arrive at the scene, it's not a surprise to them that we're there to secure the vehicle. As far as safety is concerned, the safety really lies on our side. I think if you're taking, which is an intimate taking, yes, somebody's vehicle, which we're licensed to do. Our agents are bonded, they're DOJ background, FBI backgrounded before they're ever issued a license from the state. It's more dangerous taking somebody's car from a grocery store, a Walmart, leaving them stranded with all their belongings in the car, car seats, etcetera.

Whereas if it is from their home where they're currently living, then all those things can be returned to them at the scene, or they can come to our facility free of charge and pick those things up. We do hold those under California law for 60 days. As far as predatory lending with lenders and dealerships, I believe, is the main predatory concern of Ms. Shahan's, what I read in her opposition. The predatory lenders that we work for, the major banks, Ford Motor Credit, Capital One, Ally Bank, are not predatory lenders.

The dealers that she refers to that commit the predatory lending, most of them pick up vehicles themselves. They are allowed to do this under California law. Most of those repossessions do not come to us. It's the main lenders that I mentioned and credit unions in the space. Are there any questions I can answer?

No, that will be fine. Thank you very much for your testimony.

Thank you.

Is there anybody else? Anybody who would like to speak as a primary witness in opposition to this bill, come to the mic. You have two minutes.

Vice Chair and Members, I'm Rosemary Shahan, President of Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety. And we're opposed to the bill mainly because we're concerned about the potential for altercations between the owners of vehicles or other collateral that is being repossessed and the repossessors when they're on their private property. And the bill would give a new exemption that hasn't existed before for repossessors to enter onto private property to search for collateral or repossess the collateral, as long as they leave the private property within a reasonable amount of time.

And we just feel like it's really foreseeable that people are going to want to defend their property from being seized. And we know of instances where people do not have advance notice that their vehicle or other property is going to be repossessed. For some people, when their car is repossessed, their life basically falls apart. They lose their only means of transportation to work, to get their kids to school, and of course they're going to be upset about this. And we think that this is an ill advised measure, and we respectfully request a no vote.

Thank you very much, ma'am. Okay, at this time we'll take me too's for people that are in opposition or in support of the bill. Anybody? That will bring it back to the dais, anybody on the dais who wishes to comment or have questions for the author? Okay, Ms. Skinner? Yeah.

Thank you. Like our previous bill that we heard, there was a bill like this that was vetoed by Governor Newsom in 21-22 because of the bill did not have the item about repossessors not allowed to go into secured or locked areas. I want to know if your bill, currently, does it contain that provision or was it removed? So in other words, does it contain the provision that this does not apply to them going into a locked or secured area?

I know that the consultant addresses this veto in the testimony and as well as the information, but also defer to Marcelle for some of that data, if you could.

And the specific question is whether the bill contains that provision that prohibits them from going into the secured or locked area.

Yes, ma'am. We're not allowed to go into a locked and secured area.

No, you're answering that generally, but this bill, in this previous version, eliminated that clause, and I want to know if the current. If the one before us has that in it or not.

Yes, I apologize. That was my answer. I wasn't clear, but yes, it does not include locked and secured, so it doesn't exempt us from that. Is that your question. Am I answering you correctly?

I don't know.

This is the amended language, and it puts back the reference to that which prohibits...

Okay, so you have it in. Okay, so the consultant just clarified that the amendment that this committee. Most recent. Well, it's an author's amendment, I guess, but does put that back in, that your previous version of the bill would have allowed the possessor to go, repossessor to go into a secured or locked area and not be considered trespassing. And now this version has it where you cannot.

Correct.

It prohibits that from going in to locked area, Senator.

Okay.

All right. Thank you. Just have a couple of comments. While I sympathize with people who are having their possessions repossessed, there's a reason for that. They breached their contract. And a lot of times, you know, people.

You know, people try to only think about repossessions of the poor person who's just got their little car, and they're very dependent on that. But a lot of times, those are not what are the targets of repossession. Because something has to be valuable enough to repossess, otherwise the process costs more than the possession, what they're repossessing.

And that doesn't make sense. So those aren't necessarily what they're going after. What they're going after are vehicles that somebody way overextended themselves. And sometimes they're exotic vehicles. They're worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. And so they need the tools to do their job safely.

And because those confrontations are going to happen whether they are on private property or on public property. If you come out to grocery store and you got a bag full of groceries and the repossession there, you think there's not going to be a confrontation? Of course there is.

And that's why, you know, the job of a repossession is pretty dangerous, I would imagine. And I think they do things in a manner where they try to minimize that as much as the circumstances allow them to, which is they'd rather have no confrontation at all.

But at the same time, the property that does not anymore belong to that person who is not paying for it or did not pay for it. It is not their property, and they're just taking it back. And if this law makes it easier for them to do that and a little bit safer, then I have no problem with it. So with that, you go ahead and close.

I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Thank you. And with that, I'll make the motion on this bill. Thank you.

Okay. The bill's been moved. You've made your close? We'll do a roll call.

AB 2120, the motion is do pass to Appropriations. [Roll Call]

The bill's on call. Assembly Member Quirk-Silva, when you present, I'm going to give back the gavel to the Vice Chair.

Assembly Member, welcome. And you may present your bill.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. I want to first thank the Committee staff for working with our office. And we do accept amendments. Today I present Assembly Bill 1788, which allows counties to establish mental health multidisciplinary teams focused on addressing the mental health needs of justice involved individuals.

The prevalence of mental health needs among justice involved individuals has skyrocketed to 20% in 2010, to a staggering 53% in 2023. In short, this means more and more individuals that are coming into our county jails have severe mental health needs.

To fulfill California's commitment to rehabilitation and reduce recidivism, we must develop efficient practices to assist individuals grappling with mental health needs within the justice system.

Just a personal note, I had an opportunity to visit our Orange County county jail and see some of the updated practices that they are actually engaging with in order to make sure they're meeting the needs of some of the mental health issues they're seeing.

Vagueness in existing law has hampered efforts, including the lack of authorization to facilitate the sharing of critical information between entities. AB 1788 allows multidisciplinary teams to share confidential information to expedite mental health assessments and facilitate services while incarcerated and upon release.

Most importantly, AB 1788 includes safeguards to protect confidentiality, ensuring that shared information is used solely to provide services with no implications in the individual's legal proceedings.

With me today to provide testimony and answer any questions the Committee may have, and the sponsor of AB 1788, is Mr. Ray Grangoff, Chief of Staff of Orange County Sheriff Coroner Don Barnes.

Okay, welcome, sir. You have two minutes.

Thank you very much and thank you to the Committee. The Orange County Sheriff's Department is proud to sponsor this bill and partner with Assemblywoman Quirk-Silva, who really has been an exceptional partner with us on, on these issues.

As many of you know, 2020 saw the passage of Assembly Bill 210, which allowed for increased information sharing between multidisciplinary teams to assist those experiencing homelessness. Some of the information shared included health information, mental health information, law enforcement data and social services information.

It's important to note that law enforcement was not recipient of the mental or medical health information, which is carefully protected by HIPAA. However, being able to share our data with providers allowed for better shelter placement and higher level of care. Being able to share this information led to three expected outcomes.

Better quality of service delivery, increased ability to match better services to the client, reduce costs by decreasing duplication of services. Post-COVID correctional facilities have seen an increase in the mental health population it serves. Our Orange County population jumped from 22% to 45%.

For those with an open mental health case. Those numbers are even more striking considering the average daily population has decreased by 50% since COVID. We have also seen a sharp increase in those experiencing substance use disorder. In Orange County, approximately a third or 900 inmates are receiving medically assisted treatment to help them overcome opioid addiction.

Like many sheriff's departments, Orange County Sheriff's Department has taken numerous proactive steps to assist the jail population experiencing both behavioral health issues and substance use disorder. This includes specialized behavioral health housing units, an increase in LPS beds, crisis intervention training for all our staff, and new rension programs.

AB 1788 is the next proactive step in creating a multidisciplinary team and we just appreciate the Committee's support. Thank you.

Thank you very much, sir, for your testimony.

Is there anybody else who wants to be a lead witness? If not, we're going to go to lead opposition. Does anybody wants to speak in opposition as a lead witness? If not, we'll take the me too's. For both opposition and for people who support the bill, just come up to the microwave.

State your name, the organization and whether you support or oppose the bill.

Nicole Wordelman, on behalf of San Bernardino County in support.

Thank you. Dylan Elliott. On behalf of the California Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry as well as the Center for Employment Opportunities, both in support. Also, the California State Association of Psychiatrists currently in support with the minor amendment as outlined in our letter. Thank you.

Good morning. Jared Maas, on behalf of the City of Long Beach support.

Very good. All right. We'll bring it back to the desk if there are any questions. Go ahead, Senator Skinner.

I'll move the bill. The fact that we have right here in this bill, the evidence that what percent of our justice involved people have mental health problems kind of speaks to the previous bill. But this one, of course, is for the interventions when the person's in jail versus previous, prior to their getting to jail.

And I know that we have done, we, meaning the Legislature and our communities have been trying to increase our response, provide for circumstances where it is non armed public safety, responding to mental health type circumstances versus law enforcement.

And that I hope will help, and meaning will help in terms of having fewer of our population that is suffering from mental health issues, from ending up in jail. And this, of course, is once they already are in.

But I think this is clearly something that the state is going to have to continue to grapple with, because when we think about our budget deficits, having a person in jail for a year is a lot more expensive than providing them good mental health treatment for six months to a year.

Our incarceral facilities, whether state prison or jail, are far more expensive. As expensive as good mental health treatment is, it is cheaper than jail time. So, but anyway, your bills about once they're there, but I think at least it does address the fact that we have many, many people with mental health issues in our facilities.

And with that, that's why I will support it and that's why I'm happy to move it.

Okay. And then I will just add on to that, that sometimes that's where the only place you can get a hold of somebody that's having this and therefore being able to get them to a place where we can actually treat them. But when they get there, we need the treatment.

So it's a piece of the system that is broken and needs work. And I think your Bill goes a long ways to doing that. And I thank you for bringing it, and you may close.

Thank you, Senators. I would just say this is personal to me, as some of you know, that I, in fact, had a brother that was formerly incarcerated. And as many of the individuals that interface with our justice system, they often do have mental health problems and addiction issues.

And I know that if we had had this bill or a form of this bill where there was interfacing while they were incarcerated and after and before, all of those pieces really need to be there, he would still be alive today.

And I'm very hopeful that the work that is being done while they're incarcerated, whether it's in our jail system or even prison that that follows afterwards, because that's where we're missing that link, where when they leave the institutions they are, many times they flounder and are not able to navigate the systems that are out there.

And by being able to build this system around them that can interface while they're in and out, I'm hoping we'll make a very big difference. And with that, I ask for your support.

All right. Thank you very much. And we do have a motion by Senator Skinner. Go ahead and call the roll, please.

AB 1788 motion is do pass as amended to judiciary. Wahab? Seyarto? Seyarto, aye. Bradford? Skinner? Skinner, aye. Wiener?

All right. That bill will remain on call, and with that, we have no other authority.

The call on consent.

Okay, we're going to go and lift the call on consent.

Currently three to zero. Skinner? Skinner, aye. Wiener.

All right, we're going to leave that open until Senator Wiener gets back. We're going to take a short recess until we get some authors. So if you're an author, and this would be the time, because you're the last one.

We're going to call this back into order. The Public Safety Committee is reconvening so that we may hear the last of our bills. Assemblymember, McCarty.

Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. First of all, thank you for working with us, your Committee, and we will be accepting the Committee Amendments as reflected in the analysis. This is a simple Bill to bring about more transparency for local government when they have settlements or payouts related to police misconduct.

We know this is an issue that sometimes, you know, clever reporters find and put in a local newspaper. But too often the public is shielded from these settlements. And this is taxpayer money. Simple as that.

You know, some jurisdictions have to issue bonds through Wall Street to pay some of these settlements, and this impacts ability to pay for parks and, you know, police services and fire and other general services in communities throughout California.

So we want to make sure that these dollars are spent in jurisdictions and the public is well aware. With that, we have been working with the jurisdictions to address their concerns to reduce costs and eliminate unnecessary bureaucracy. With me today are two witnesses from ACLU California and the California Public Defenders Association. Respectfully ask your aye vote.

Thank you very much. If the first witness will come to the mic, you have two minutes, please. Thank you.

Alright. Good morning, Chair and Members. Alicia Benavidez here on behalf of ACLU California Action, in strong support of AB-1725. Police misconduct costs California taxpayers millions of dollars every year, and these settlements result in local jurisdictions paying out significant tax dollars that could be used to better invest into the community.

For example, in 2022, a San Diego federal jury awarded $5 million to an innocent person who was attacked by a police dog. It hit on the head after he complied with officer requests, all while his hands were restrained behind his back.

In 2023, a man was awarded $1.3 million because he was tased just before police dog tore a chunk off of his calf.

The man was never charged with any crime, and just last month, here in the City of Sacramento, a settlement for 3 million involving a woman who was struck in the face by a rubber bullet and blinded in one eye during a 2020 protest against police brutality.

Unfortunately, the total sum of settlements and the associated offending conduct are not easily accessible. And while taxpayers pay for these settlements, the public often will only hear about the settlements from news outlets, if at all. The information about the financial implications is difficult to find and frequently requires expensive Public Records Act litigation.

Current law allows the public to file civil suits or claims against law enforcement for misconduct, use of force incidents that result in death or serious bodily injury, and the law also stipulates officers are not responsible for paying these settlements. Instead, the settlements typically come from general fund of the jurisdiction involved.

That means city and county budgets allocate funds to their local law enforcement agencies with the expectation that they'll be financially liable for wrongdoing year over year.

AB-1725 merely ensures transparency by requiring entities to post financial details about police misconduct settlement judgments and on their websites, Californians have the right to know how their government spends their tax dollars.

By requiring municipalities to publicly post financial details of their law enforcement use of force settlements, AB-1725 provides much needed transparency for the public, and for these reasons, respectfully urge an aye vote.

Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. You have two minutes. Thank you.

Good morning. Lesli Caldwell-Houston for the California Public Defenders Association, in support of AB-1725. Not long ago, I served on the Solano County Civil Grand Jury for two years.

One of the issues we looked at was the use of force by law enforcement in our county and how much taxpayer money was paid out to settle lawsuits alleging the use of excessive force by our local agencies.

I had never known as the Assemblymember, spoke about, other than in newspaper articles, what kind of settlements and large payments were made by the cities and Solano County in such lawsuits. I was surprised at the amount of money, our money, that was spent.

I wondered at the time why there wasn't a transparent mechanism to allow the citizens to see how much of their money was being spent due to the use of excessive force. It shouldn't take a civil grand jury investigation and subsequent report or a public information act request to make this information fully public.

I want to highlight the difficulty for our average citizen to navigate the filing of a PRA. CPDA has a long standing history of advocating for police transparency, accountability, and accessibility. We agree that AB-1725 provides important public access to police activity.

Easy access to critical information regarding police settlements and judgments is a much needed correction to the opaque information and secrecy that currently shrouds much of this information from public view.

AB-1725 will provide more transparency and accountability by providing the public with a clear way to learn about the actions of our law enforcement and how much of our taxpayer money is being spent. We respectfully request your ay vote.

Thank you very much. Are there anybody else who would like to speak in opposition? These are me too's.

Mr. Chair and Members. Julie Navores here on behalf of the League of California Cities, regretfully in opposition, and we have been speaking to the office and Committee Staff about this Bill. We certainly appreciate the amendments that are in the Committee analysis that address a couple of our concerns regarding implementation on the Bill.

However, we still have not seen the language and one of the issues that's to be addressed, is those cities who do not have their own police department. There's about 155 cities that don't have their own police department.

So we believe those cities should only have to report on things that happen in their own jurisdiction within their own city. Just by way of background, cities are sued, unfortunately, over a variety of issues, from minor car accidents, slip and falls, code enforcement, property damage, and the alleged conduct of police.

Though the particular facts of attorneys handling any given case means there will be variances from time to time, in general, all city litigation and settlements are handled the same.

A claim is received, it is assessed, if need be, is assigned to an attorney for handling, and that attorney would engage in working up the case for formal settlement negotiations. Some cases may go to trial, but often because of financial reasons, these lawsuits are settled.

And as noted in our first letter we sent to the author, 95% of civil cases are generally settled out of court. And while we appreciate the sensitivity of police cases, cities get sued on a variety of issues. So these are often handled the same way as many other cases.

While it may sound like an easy thing to post all police settlements. These requirements are still an unfunded mandate. So while we appreciate the amendments, our main concern still remains about this unfunded mandate and the fact that all this information is readily available to the public.

All of the city's settlement agreements, police or otherwise, are already public records and are readily accessible by any member of the public through a city council agenda, for example, they're all agendized on a city council agenda. You can always speak in public comment if you want.

And they were likewise already, as mentioned by the supporters, available through the Public Records Act. So therefore, we do not believe the Bill is necessary. Thank you, and we urge your no vote.

Thank you very much. I was a little bit, I got a little bit lost in our process there. Are you also a lead opposition witness? Okay, then you have two minutes. Thank you.

Thank you. Faith Borges, on behalf of the California Association of Joint Powers Authorities. I would also like to begin by thanking the author staff and the Committee staff for being generous with their time to hear our concerns. We do hope to constructively build on those conversations.

The California Association of Joint Powers Authorities supports the principles of transparency and accountability that was noted by my colleague. But we would like to note for the Committee that since the 1970s, private insurance companies have been unwilling to provide insurance to public agencies.

And so public agencies have used the JPA mechanism to effectively self insure for this liability and not for profit JPAs. This model is used by the vast majority of cities and counties to manage these payments. JPAs are not insurance with large capital reserves alluded to throughout the Bill's current text and the public perception of this issue.

These claims are fully funded with local government scarce dollars. The JPA arrangement enables local governments to effectively self insure. Our concern with this Bill is the reality that the plaintiff lawyers use awards and known settlement values to anchor juries or negotiate higher settlement values with this information as the new floor.

This upward trend has resulted in a substantial diversion of local government dollars away from public services and towards legal proceedings, with plaintiff attorneys commonly taking 30% to 50% of settlements and awards. In the spirit of transparency, we would like misrepresentations about insurance versus JPAs corrected within the Bill.

We'd like to know how much public money is going towards attorneys, and we'd also like to know why the state has been admitted from the current version. Thank you for your time today.

Thank you. Okay, now's the time for the me too's. So anybody that would like to add on as a voice for either an opposition or support can come up. State your name, the organization you represent, and whether you simply, whether you are in support or opposition, this is not testimony. Thank you.

Donovan Hall, with Catalyst California. Morning. In support.

Thank you, sir. Anybody else that would like to come up? Okay, we'll bring it back to the dais at this time. Senator, Skinner.

I'll move the Bill. Thank you, Assemblymember, for bringing it. I think this is a good addition to our efforts in recent years to bring more transparency to our communities and their interactions with our law enforcement officers. So I think it's a good Bill and I appreciate your bringing it. I'm happy to move it.

Okay. So I guess that brings it to me, you know, really intending to support this Bill, but in looking at it and listening to some of the opposition concerns, you know, they kind of bring up a good point. It just seems a lot of this is all aimed at just one agency, the policing agency.

And we have always, as a Member of a City Council myself, we've always been able to and had to report out whenever we had settlements or anything like this. So is your effort to make the information a lot easier to put out there?

Because if that's the effort, then the second question is why not for everybody, including this building? Because it's all public money.

And if we're really interested in making sure the public knows how their public money is being spent on lawsuits then, and we're going to go outside of the current system we have, then it should apply to everybody. So my question would be, why wouldn't it?

Well, I'm open to that on another Bill. Maybe you and I can offer that Bill next year. I won't be here next year, but you certainly can.

You know, as Senator Skinner mentioned, this is a transparency issue and we've done a lot of work in the last few years, bipartisan on excessive force, police standards, de-escalation, and by all means, you know, incidents have gone down.

Police departments are getting better and the more the public knows how much is being spent on these settlements, the more likely they are to demand that their police department, you know, improve their practices to try to bring about better outcomes. And so, you know, I think that this is not that complex.

And I'm kind of confused about the argument, the opposition. There's three things. There's one, the self insured cities, the contract cities, and then why put this up there? It's a burden to put it up there, but it's already available anyway. So it's already available and it's easy to get.

It shouldn't be that hard to spend 3 hours on the 1st of January to go back and put whatever only probably most jurisdictions of a couple of these settlements throughout the year to put them up on their website. Like they put up hundreds of things on their websites throughout the year.

So I don't necessarily know how much of a burden it is. You know, I think it's transparency. This has been a bipartisan Bill in years past. You know, I think that this is something that we can all get behind and make sure we are spending our tax dollars and the public knows about it in a timely manner.

Thank you for your answer. And you know, I agree with you about the transparency issue and people knowing it just, I also agree with that. It shouldn't stop here and it's kind of sad that it does. And so I'm still a little bit on the fence, but I guess I better make up my mind quick.

So with that, I'll allow you to close.

I enjoy the opportunity to discuss this and working with your Committee to clarify some things and we will work with the others. And I'm still not certain about the opposition from the contract cities. I'll continue to listen to that and try to figure out how we can achieve an outcome that's fair for everybody.

And with that, respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Great. So we have a motion by Senator Skinner and go ahead and call roll.

SB-1725, the motion is Do-Pass as Amended to Appropriations. [Roll Call]

I'm sorry. That Bill has two votes at this time. We're going to hold it open, as we will for the other things, until the other Members can come on and add on. Let's do that. You know what? Why don't we open the roll for the. Everything is missing. Yeah.

All right. AB 977, the motion is do pass to Appropriations. Current vote is four to zero. [Roll Call]

It was three to zero.

So that's a Rodriguez bill? I was going to stay off. I'm going to have to change it to a no.

Oh, yeah. No, you can't go to not voting from yes.

I was going to stay off. I'm going to go to a no. I'm hoping to supporting it if there are changes, but not the current form.

Okay, it's out, three to one.

Okay, that bill is out, three to one.

AB 1788, motion is do pass as amended to Judiciary. Current vote is two to zero. [Roll Call]

That bill will stay on call.

Consent calendar. [Roll Call]

The consent calendar is out. Okay.

AB 2120, motion is do pass to Appropriations. Current vote is two to zero. [Roll Call]

That has three votes. It'll stay on call.

That's it. That's it.

Okay.

Okay, we're going to come back from recess and lift the calls. Hold on, let me pull it up.

AB 1725, motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations. [Roll Call]

Okay, that stays on call.

Okay. So...

That stays on call.

Okay. We'll put that back on call.

AB 1788, motion is do pass as amended to Judiciary. [Roll Call]

Put it back on call.

AB 2120, motion is do pass to Appropriations. [Roll Call]

Put it back on call. That's it? Okay, we're gonna go back into recess until Senator Wahab returns.

We're back in for lifting calls.

So the Senate Public Safety is back on, and I just want to lift calls.

AB 1725, motion was do pass as amended to Appropriations. Current vote is three to zero. [Roll Call]

That bill is out.

AB 1788, motion is do pass as amended to the Judiciary Committee. Current vote is four to zero. [Roll Call]

That bill is out.

AB 2120, motion is do pass to Appropriations. Current vote, four to zero. [Roll Call]

5-0, that bill's out.

That's it. Okay.

So the full package is out. Correct? All right. And Senate Public Safety is now adjourned. Thank you.