Assembly Standing Committee on Public Safety

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. You know, over the years we've had a spirited debate about solitary confinement, also known as segregated housing. And a part of those debates have been, you know, what are the facts, what's the data, who's in for what reason, and the rest. And that's what this bill seeks to try to provide to you policymakers, real facts and information about what's happening in our prisons.

So this bill would require, starting January 2026, that the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation would collect data and annually report to us on who was being sent to solitary, how long are they being kept there for, under what circumstances, and the justification.

Because I think all of us want to be sure that we're providing humane and safe conditions for those who are confined, as well as the general prison population, as well as the staff. So the only way to ensure that any proposed changes to the state's segregated housing rules are working is through the collection of real data.

The department has made some changes in that space. Arguably, they're vague and narrow and may be insufficient, and I think they may very well be insufficient. But without the data to really make good choices, informed choices, we're really left with a lot of blind spots. So my bill would ensure that we get those facts.

Who is placed in solitary, for how long, for what reason, what protections are in place to care for them, to make sure that, if there are abuses, we can identify them and make sure that we can consider legislative fixes. That's the goal of this bill. With that, respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. You're the star witness today?

Yes, sir.

Okay, others in support, please come forward. Any in opposition, please come forward. Questions or comments from Committee Members? Mr. Alanis? Thumbs up? Yes. So that's proposed aye when we get a quorum. Thank you. Yes, so we support this bill. Mr. Zbur.

So I want to thank you for bringing the bill. I actually, I'm a little bit confused about some of the opposition because it seems like it's only a good thing. And just want to say that, you know, I know that AB 280, another bill is out there. It's something that I support, support strongly, and will be continuing to support. But I don't see this being in conflict in any way. And obviously, even after 280 is through, there will be some amount of solitary confinement, I assume, and this would actually pick up and give us data on that. So with that, I'm proud to support the bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Let's briefly establish a quorum.

[Roll Call]

Okay, a quorum is established. Mr. Glazer, would you like to close?

Thank you for your consideration. There is efforts to try to make changes in this space. This isn't meant to be contradictory of any of those proposals that have been authored. Obviously, the Administration has been wrestling with all of us about what changes they're willing to make.

I hope that they'll find, you will find this bill to be a helpful one, no matter what changes do take place, to have some accountability in the data, to examine it and make thoughtful choices going forward. And with that, respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Okay, we have a motion from Mr. Alanis, a second from Assembly Member Nguyen. Please call the roll.

For item number six on SB 733 by Senator Glazer, the motion is do pass to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

Okay, that measure passes. Bring up next Senator Alvarado-Gil, and also to note that SB 349 by Roth has been pulled off the calendar, pulled by the author. Senator, please proceed.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members, this is a bill I truly wish that I did not have to bring forward. But in this day and age where our schools and places of worship are susceptible to threats of danger, I believe it's timely and necessary. Senate Bill 796 addresses threats at schools and places of worship.

It would make it unlawful for someone to threaten to commit a crime that will, that's the key word, that will result in death or great bodily injury, even if a specific person is not named. Additionally, this Bill would only apply to schools and places of worship, mirroring a Bill that this Committee previously passed unanimously in 2019.

Assembly Bill 907, author was Grayson. Existing law prohibits making criminal threats against a specific person, even though there is no intent to actually carry out that crime. However, it is not illegal to threaten to commit a crime like a mass shooting, a bombing against a particular location.

So, this bill would fill that gap in the law and provide clarity for all investigators and prosecutors who could now hold individuals accountable for the terror and disruption that their words cause.

So, without Senate Bill 796 there is still that gap, to be able to not only hold people accountable, but to account for the immense resources that are expended. We have a community, a state of fear in our schools, in our places of worship.

And these are places that should be held sacred, so that every teacher, student, staff member, administrator can feel safe going to work every day, so that parents can go to work feeling that their children are safe.

And in a time where we're practicing active shooter drills, I remember when I went to school, it was stop, drop, and roll, and it was earthquakes that we were practicing for. In addition to that, families that come together to be part of their community go to their synagogues, to the temples, to their churches.

Places that are sacred for worship would also be covered under this Bill. I have to testify with me today as Santa Clara County Supervising Deputy District Attorney, Adam Flores. Thank you for being here, Adam. And Patricia Rucker from California Teachers Association. Thank you, Patricia, for being here as well.

Good morning. You both have five minutes to share.

Good morning, Members of the Committee. I'm Patricia Rucker representing the over 300,000 educators who are members of the California Teachers Association. Many times, you've heard my colleagues come before you and testify in multiple committees, and we say that number, and we talk about all the members we represent.

Today, that number means more to me in talking about this bill than before. Back in the 20th century, I was a student at a public school in North Highlands, California. I grew up and went to work and taught school in a neighborhood that's in the feeder pattern for Grant High School District in Sacramento County.

And all that time, both as a student and as a professional, I never had to deal with issues related to this. For reasons not related to this Bill, I had a chance to go and visit my old neighborhood and visit the school that I went to school at.

And it is so very different from the picturesque little red schoolhouse that a lot of us like to keep in our mind about schools, about the sweetness and the naivete and gentleness of the days when we were elementary school students as well. That school now has a fence around the entire campus.

We used to be able to go to that school and walk around the track or play on the field, have our football games for Pop Warner there, play on the playground. The only place that was fenced in was the kindergarten yard, obviously, because those little kids couldn't understand why they shouldn't cross the street.

But my parents used to be able to pull up to that sidewalk and take pictures of us out on the field. Those were where memories were created.

I have very different memories as a student than the students I went to school, than the students I went to school with who are now sending their children there, and the students that I taught. This bill is important to the Members I represent who are still in school today.

The standing committee that CTA has on school safety and school management looks at statistics on credible threats that are sent to schools and that are presented to schools every single week of every single school year. These credible threats become important because we often feel isolated as educators and professionals.

We feel alone, and we don't think people are necessarily paying attention to the urgency of now. Schools are no longer those little red schoolhouses where sweetness and light occurs. Education still has to occur.

We are still accountable, and we still need to protect and give light and hope to the students who show up at those schools every day and ask us to protect them.

This is a simple proposal that calls out and prioritizes and highlights for all of those professionals I represent why this school, these campuses, these places of worship should be highlighted, called out, and specifically protected by legislative proposals such as this. So, for that reason, the California Teachers Association and its 300,000 members urge your support of this bill.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair and Members. It's not just mass shootings themselves we must end, we must also end the threats of those shootings which cause significant disruption and trauma to communities. Notably, these threats can be a precursor to a person carrying out a mass shooting.

It is common that mass shooters may signal to their impending violence through a behavior known as leakage. Our communities are vulnerable to these threats through a legal loophole and existing law. Current law does not prohibit these threats if they do not name a specific person.

In effect, threats to shoot up a school or place of worship are not prohibited, despite, of course, the clear danger they present. Further case law is, ambiguous at best, at whether the conduct is prohibited by existing statute, and we don't believe that it is. 796 is narrowly tailored.

It prohibits threats to schools or places of worship when a specific individual is not named, and it allows police to investigate these threats before they come to fruition. It creates a jail, county jail felony misdemeanor wobbler. It's not a strike. There is no minimum jail sentence, and juveniles can only be charged with a misdemeanor.

Importantly, the First Amendment does not protect the types of threats prohibited by this bill. So given the reality in California of mass shootings and targeted violence, the law must be updated to protect our communities. For these reasons, I ask for your aye vote on this Bill.

And there are other organizations that could not be here that would also like to voice their support for this Bill, specifically San Francisco District Attorney's Office, California District Attorneys Association, and the Anti-Defamation League.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Anyone in support? Please name, organization, and position.

Chair and Members Jonathan Feldman with the California Police Chiefs Association, proud co-sponsor of the Bill.

Chris Myers with the California School Employees Association in support.

Mr. Chair and Members, Victoria Rodriguez on behalf of the City of Visalia in support.

Danny offer with every town for gun safety and strong. Support of the Bill.

Thanks Clifton Wilson on behalf of SF City Attorney David Chu in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone in the room in opposition, please step up.

Good morning. You'll both have five minutes to share as well.

Good morning, Chair and Members. My name is Duke Cooney with ACLU California Action. We are in respectful opposition to SB 796. While ensuring that our schools and places of worship are safe spaces is the utmost importance, we do not believe that this bill is necessary to accomplish that goal.

Under existing law, a person can already be prosecuted and convicted of maliciously communicating that deadly harm will occur on the campus of a school or place of worship. Specifically, Penal Code Section 422, which punishes criminal threats in any setting, whether school related or otherwise, already addresses the behavior at issue in SB 796.

We caution against expanding existing law when enforcement of that law is often problematic. Penal Code Section 422 is a statute that is often misused to penalize conduct that does not truly belong in the criminal justice system. Penal Code Section 422, like SB 796, does not require that the person making the threat have either the intent or the ability to carry it out or that the person take any action to actually carry out the threat.

Defendants, often young people or individuals with mental health issues, can face punishment for something that they said that they have, or sorry, for something they said with no intent to actually do anything about it. This is particularly true for those with mental health conditions who are offering suffering from paranoia and delusions, and expanding this statute is not the way to address the behavioral health issues of young people or people with mental health illness. For these issues, we respectfully oppose and ask for your no vote on SB 786.

Is this yours? Oh, okay. Margo George on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association, an organization of 4000 criminal defense lawyers, public defenders, investigators, and allied para professionals. I do want to acknowledge that we live in very painful times with white supremacists and mentally ill youth threatening to attack schools, churches, synagogues, and mosques.

And we all want to do something to stop this attacks and feel like we are safer in our communities. Unfortunately, SB 796 is not the solution and will not fix this. As my colleague from the ACLU outlined, it will expand the current definition of 422 terrorist threats. And 422 is a serious felony and a strike, as in three strikes. And it's a matter of great concern for public defenders across the state to see this expanded. It's, as Mr. Cooney outlined, a statute that's often misused to penalize conduct that does not truly belong in the criminal justice system.

This is particularly true for many of our clients who have mental health conditions, who often suffer from crippling paranoia and delusions. The fear that these clients experience can lead them to say things that are easily misinterpreted or are simply a threat of their illness. And I wanna give a couple examples. Roger, who was a Marine Corps vet and suffers from PTSD and is bipolar without his medication and was at an acute psychiatric hospital. He lives in Florida, but he was here for a Marine Corps reunion.

He didn't bring enough medication, and as a result, had an episode of hearing voices and smelling dead bodies that required him to be 5150. The doctor told him that his symptoms did not meet the criteria for 5150 and he would not be admitted or given his medication. He complained to the discharge planner and asked her what the criteria was. She told him, danger to himself or others. He said, well, I was thinking about getting a gun and shooting myself for the staff, to which she promptly called the police, and they arrested him for a felony 422.

That's the kind of case that we get. Another individual, Brian, was in his fifties and mentally ill. He was off his medication, and he told his that he was going to blow up the building. His friend called the Department of Mental Health asking for help and was transferred to the police department. The police arrived and promptly arrested him for a 422 terrorist threats. For those reasons and for all of the people who suffer from mental illness and all of the people who have hateful ideologies...

Thank you. We're done. Time's up.

Okay, thank you very much. Ask for your no vote.

Anyone in opposition, please step up. Name, organization, your position, please.

David Bolog in opposition. Thank you.

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

Thank you. Anyone else? Okay, we'll bring it back to the committee. Any questions? Ms. Wilson?

Thank you for the, well, thank you to the author first for submitting this bill. And to the opposition, my questions center around 422, which you noted, both noted in your testimony. And so there's, I'm looking at the committee's analysis on page six, and it says, interpreting penal code Section 422. And it gives, in order to convict, they must have the following beyond a reasonable. And the fourth or fifth bullet, E, said the threat actually caused the person threatened to be in sustained fear for his or own safety or for his or own immediate family safety.

And so the proponents of the bill have noted that this, basically, this wouldn't apply if you did a general threat. And so I'm wondering, the disconnect there. You note it as it capturing mental health folks. But you also note that this is sufficient, 422 is sufficient, and it's already, in its already form, and we don't need this. But then there's that particular E that I'm having a difficult time reconciling with 422 and what the proponent and the author is trying to do.

Do you want me to have... Thank you for the question. I think in the analysis, the Consultant points out that the one case that went up on appeal that had a generalized threat, that the court did not criticize or undermine the general threat, the nature of the general threat. It was somewhat ambiguous, but people get arrested all the time and prosecuted for general threats, and we don't see appellate decisions overturning those convictions.

So I think, in one respect, the proponent is right that it is somewhat ambiguous, but in its actual application, we're seeing it used for general threats, and people are being prosecuted around the state for general threats. Because the individuals who receive the threat, as group, do meet the subjective requirement of being, you know, upset, scared, you know, fearing for their safety.

And so just to make sure I understood that. You're saying, and that although there might be ambiguity in the law on the surface, just by the written law, because of the E or any section of it, you're saying that, in practice there has been no ambiguity because in practice there has been charges related to general threat and there has not been appeal of those charges based on this criteria related to those that have provided general threat.

To the best of my knowledge, that is correct. And the District Attorney may have some incident from his county that goes the other way, but to stay wide, that's my impression of what's happening.

Do you mind? To the proponent.

Yes, thank you, Committee Member. So I think, respectfully, 422, there has to be a specific threat to a specific person. That's current 422. So this argument about general threats to general people, like with no specific person in mind, that's exactly why we are here. Because if the threat is too general, not to a specific person, then it would not qualify under 422. That's how it is applied in practice.

And then the people would have to show a specific person, the elements noted here, and also the specific intent that it was understood to be a threat, that it was communicated as a threat, and that the victim also was in sustained fear. So there has to be the intent of the person making the threat, and also you take a look at the victim's perception. This idea of a general, again, general threat. No, it has to be to a specific person. And that's, again, why we are here.

And you would say, in practice, that in the State of California that we haven't seen prosecution of people making a general threat to a school without intent or a place of worship. Just a general threat that they have not been prosecuted. Or successfully, I should say successfully prosecuted.

There's one case that was noted in the committee. I believe it was in the committee, NRE AG I believe it is where there was a general threat to the school. That is an outlier. That's one case. And this law, this proposed bill, clarifies whatever ambiguity there is, because in practice, there has to be that specific person that is named. And that's what we see, is that there has to be this specific person named.

So your hope would be that there would be increased prosecution as it relates to these types of threats because you only have so much resources within, you know, an office. And so if you, if there is ambiguity, you might decide to prioritize another case over that because of that?

Exactly right. And I would even say take it upstream a little bit further. Law enforcement agencies may receive these general threats, and they may not even be able to pursue them because they say there's no specific person named. We can't even pursue this. We can't investigate this and then pursue it to the District Attorney's office. So it even causes challenges upstream to law enforcement.

Okay. Thank you so much. Thank you to the Chair.

If I can just add, in practice, what we're seeing in the community is these threats are being made, and it's school principals, superintendents, that are having to make the decision to put go on lockdown. These are teachers that are having to make the decision to keep their students safe. This is not law enforcement in practice. This is real life frontline workers that are having, in an instant, to make the decision in life or death situations. And that's without even looking at prosecution or arrests. These are some of our religious leaders that are there to give messages to their congregation.

And under the threat of harm, having to make a decision that instant whether to close their doors, send people home. And that creates this community of fear where we should be having centers for learning, for hope, and for joy. So aside from prosecution, aside from arrest, in practice, what is happening right now in California and the US is we are under siege by terror, by threats, and by fear of being harmed. And that's what this bill is about.

We need to add teeth to the journey of accountability in these situations and let our parents and our teachers, our educators, know that we stand with them, and we hear that they are now being placed in situations every single day that they have to wonder whether they're going to be home safely at the end of the day. So this, for me, is really about not just holding people accountable, deterring from criminal behavior, but creating a society of safety and security. So with that, I kindly ask for your aye vote.

Okay, well, give me a second for a minute. We still gotta finish with committees. I'm assuming that was gonna be your closing.

Sorry.

Mr. Ting, do you have any questions? Okay, I'd like to just throw my comments into this as well. 422 that we're talking about. I know it was referred to as terrorist threats, but that has since changed. It's now called criminal threats. The DA, I'd like to get a little bit more of your opinion on that. I know you addressed Ms. Wilson's questions and concerns about that.

I know we cited the one case that you said, and I know it was hard, even as being prior to law enforcement, I need to have a victim in charging that, with the 422 as it goes. Is there any other, any other maybe case or any other scenario that you can think of where a 422 was brought in with what the opposition was bringing up?

Could you clarify?

As far as them saying with mental health, people coming up with mental health. Gentleman named Brian from the Marine Corps, who apparently came from Florida without his medication, which is unfortunate for him, but we need to protect our community. So he was 5150 and then didn't make the criteria. Do you hear any further on that or do you have anything you want to elaborate on that?

Yes, I would actually. The people acknowledge that there may be individuals who have mental health concerns and mental health issues that are brought into the criminal justice system. What I think is very important for the committee to consider is also mental health diversion.

There may be someone who commits a 422 or the behavior sought to be prohibited here, and then the court later determines through the investigation and prosecution, although the conduct is of course prohibited, that somehow mental health played into what had occurred. The court is actually empowered through the mental health diversion statutes to address the mental health issues while also holding the person accountable for their conduct that is prohibited here.

So I think it's important to step back and also look that this body has already passed statutes that seek to address those individuals who have mental health considerations, and that is that appropriate balance that this body has already sought to address. Holding the person accountable for conduct that is not proper, that is prohibited, while also seeking to address the mental health considerations. And the court is able to take all that into factor and potentially even dismiss the case at the completion of that prosecution.

Thank you. And I think everyone's concerns here also with people with mental health can share all that as well. But in the long run, regardless of mental health or not, we need to make sure we keep our churches and our schools safe as well. Having said that, do you have anything else you would like to do, Senator, for your closing?

Thank you for the questions, and thank you for our witnesses for being here today for this discussion. I kindly ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. All right.

Item eight, SB 796 by Senator Alvarado-Gil. The motion is do pass to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

Measure will be on call. We have a couple Members. Thank you, Senator. Next up, Senator Wahab, on SB-1353. Floor is yours.

Thank you, Colleagues and members of the public. SB-1353 adds to the existing Youth Bill of Rights that youth detained in juvenile facilities have timely access to mental health and behavioral health resources, including mental and behavioral health therapists and counselors.

According to a 2017 review from the US Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, youth with mental health problems who are involved with our justice systems are more likely to recidivate. Oftentimes, these youth have gone undiagnosed, which results in externalizing behaviors that contribute to their incarceration.

The intertwined nature of mental and behavioral health means we have to ensure both are being accounted for to ensure the maximum benefit to those in need. SB-1353 is sponsored by Prosecutors Alliance Action.

We have also worked collaboratively with the chief probation officers of California on amendments and are still in conversation with them regarding potential floor amendments.

While we did not yet reach a consensus with them on the language in print, their input, as well as that of additional stakeholders, improved what we already are trying to accomplish, while also respecting the work previously done on the Youth Bill of Rights.

SB-1353 empowers incarcerated youth and promotes anti recidivism by emphasizing the importance of timely access to mental and behavioral health resources in the Youth Bill of Rights.

I do want to highlight that again, as a former foster youth, oftentimes aged out foster youth and foster youth in general, end up being the ones that hit the juvenile system, number one. Number two, that largely unstable households contribute to this factor as well.

When we are talking, and I'm Chair of Public Safety on the Senate side, when we're talking about public safety as a whole, we are not doing enough to stop recidivism, number one, and number two, focus on reentry. And number three, also focusing on our youth who deserve every single resource we have that we can give to them.

Right? They are kids. They just need a little bit more time and attention and the services that really are appropriate for them. So with that, I'd like to introduce my witnesses, Glenn Backus from the Prosecutors Alliance Action and Thanh Tran with Ella Baker Center for Human Rights.

Good morning, gentlemen. You have five minutes to share. Thank you.

Morning. Good morning. Glenn Backus for Prosecutors Alliance Action. Prosecutors Alliance is proud to sponsor this Bill that adds to the existing Bill, Youth Bill of Rights, the right to timely access to behavioral health care and mental health care, and access to counselors and therapists for youth held in juvenile facilities.

Prosecutors Alliance is a membership organization of more than 4000 prosecutors, victims, advocates, and allies who are working to reform California's criminal justice system through simple, smart, modern solutions that advance public safety but also protect human dignity and community well being.

Senate Bill 1353 lives at the crossroads where respect for human rights and compassionate policy intersects with good crime prevention policy. Many of the youth in state and local facilities have suffered significant trauma and many suffer today untreated and undiagnosed behavioral health and mental health issues.

Using the time that they are temporarily in control of state or local probation to provide effective compassionate care will greatly reduce the likelihood that they will recidivate or be reincarcerated. The goal is to make the lives of youth better, but in doing so make our communities safer. We respectfully urge an aye vote.

Hello. My name is Thanh Tran, Policy Consultant with the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, and this Bill is very straightforward. For many low-income youth captured in the juvenile system. Undiagnosed and untreated Mental health and behavioral health issues is why they were locked up in the first place.

And this may be their first and best chance to get the care that they need. I speak not just from a data standpoint, but from experience.

I was placed into foster care at 18 months old, because my mother was incarcerated for her addiction. The unprocessed trauma, pain, and anger of being a foster child was never addressed in therapy. Instead, I was incarcerated nine times from the age of 12 to 18. During my time in Sacramento's Juvenile Hall, Sacramento's Boys Ranch, Sacramento's Warren E. Thornton Youth Center.

I was never once offered mental health services. I was offered psych meds to pacify me during my incarceration. Then I was released as a further traumatized child back to the same toxic environments that led to my incarceration in the first place. Incarceration is not how you heal youth.

That said, if they're already captured within our system. It is our responsibility to them and the public safety of our community to provide them with meaningful behavioral and mental health services to help them heal and give them tools to survive their toxic environments.

This way, we have an opportunity to prevent future hurt acted out by, by hurt children. I'll close by saying after being incarcerated nine times as a juvenile and serving ten and a half years in state prison, I'm finally taking therapy.

And if we pass this Bill, maybe another young Thanh won't have to suffer and cause all of this suffering for all of these years to finally get the mental health services that they need. So I implore you to please pass this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other support?

Natasha Minsker. Smart Justice California. Strong support.

Danica Rodarmel, on behalf of Initiate Justice and La Defensa. In strong support.

Tara Gamboa-Eastman, with the Steinberg Institute. In support.

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

Good morning. Lizzie Cootsona, here on behalf of the California Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. In support. Thank you.

Hi. Denee Choicelaw, on the behalf of California Collision for Youth. In support. Thank you.

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

Thank you. Do we have opposition to this Bill?

Good morning, Chair and Members. Danielle Sanchez, on behalf of the Chief Probation Officers of California, I do want to very much appreciate and acknowledge the Senators work with us on this.

We have collectively been engaging early on recognizing the shared goals around ensuring access for mental health services and something that the probation chiefs certainly take very strongly and importantly about the services we provide to youth while under our care.

That said, as we've looked at, again, how we look at this in practice to ensure that access, but do it in a way that mitigates some of the implementation challenges around codifying this, specifically in the Bill of Rights section, that the language in print doesn't fully address those concerns.

I think as we look at this Bill, and again, recognizing that it's expanding the type and scope of services beyond what is currently currently in the Bill of Rights, that it's important that the language reflect availability of those services so that we can make sure that we, again, are meeting the goals of the Bill in a way that is able to be operationalized.

So, again, want to acknowledge the Senators work the work with the sponsors on this, on our aligned goals, and we are certainly committed and look forward to continuing conversations in the hopes that we can get kind of these final pieces addressed and worked through. So thank you.

Thank you. Opposition? Yes, come forward.

This is me too testimony. I just wanted to hear both sides before I made a decision, and I'll offer my support. My name is David Bolog. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Seeing no other testimony, questions or comments from Committee Members? Miss Wilson.

Thank you to the author for bringing this forward. I think it's extremely important. And to the testimony and support, you know, very touching and relevant as it relates to this and goes to show why this Bill is so important. So I move the bill.

Thank you.

Thank you, Vice Chair Alanis.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to thank the author for bringing this. And obviously, in your opening statement saying, working with opposition, I'm happy to hear all that's happening.

Thank you for everything you've been doing as well, and coming through a hard life and obviously making good and sharing that with others as well. Big supportive youth program, school resource officer, D.A.R.E coach, all that stuff. I'm a big believer in getting to them when they're young and mental health is also part of that.

So I'll be very supportive of this today. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no others. Would you like to close, Senator.

Respectfully ask for an aye.

Okay, thank you. To support this measure, we have a motion. Assemblymember Wilson. Second by Mr. Holden. Please call the roll.

Item 11, SB-1353 by Senator Wahab. The motion is Do-Pass. [Roll Call]

Measure passes. Next author, Mr. Umberg, SB 92. Okay, let's briefly do the consent calendar. Mr. Umberg has another bill on that list too. So we have seven bills in the proposed consent calendar. SB 379, Umberg, SB 442, Limón, SB 1005, Ashby, SB 1122, Seyarto, SB 1381, McGuire, SB 1473, Laird, and SB 1489, McGuire. Do we have a motion? A motion by Assembly Member Wilson and a second by Mr. Ting. Please call the roll.

For the consent calendar. [Roll Call]

Okay, consent calendar is adopted. Mr. Umberg, SB 92.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. I want to particularly thank you and your staff and Ilan Zur for of your work on this bill. SB 92 simply extends the sunset for remote access in criminal proceedings. We have, for the last several years, had remote access in both civil and criminal proceedings.

Remote access is about to expire in criminal proceedings, and remote access is a tool that has provided, in particular those who can't afford, for example, to miss a day of work to simply show up for a 15 minutes hearing, the opportunity to participate, but not miss a day of work.

It also provides the opportunity, for example, for parents to participate when one of their children is in jeopardy of losing, for example, their liberty. With me here is Tracy Kenny from Judicial Council to testify, I hope, in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Hi, Tracy Kenny on behalf of the Judicial Council in support of Senate Bill 92, which would extend the sunset date on the existing authority for criminal remote proceedings. I would note that remote proceedings have been taking place regularly in our criminal courts since the Covid-19 pandemic. So we have four years of experience with this authority, and the courts and the public have seen great benefits from providing this access. I want to emphasize that this is an option. Remote witness testimony in a criminal case requires the consent of both parties to the proceeding, and it is never allowed in felony trial.

So in the most serious matters, there is no opportunity for remote testimony. We know that the public wants this option because they are opting for remote proceedings in many cases. We estimate that over one and a half million criminal proceedings have been conducted using remote technology, and they save court users millions of trips to the courthouses annually. And we do user surveys to see the satisfaction that people have. We ask them, did you have a positive or a negative experience, and over 95% of employees in court users indicate that they had a positive experience with remote technology.

We've seen a lot of benefits, particularly in collaborative justice courts, where defendants are asked to come back to court on a regular basis, and having the opportunity to participate remotely for those regular proceedings gives those defendants the opportunity to participate in whatever treatment programs they may be undergoing, work programs, and other services without interrupting those activities, to be able to check in with the judge and successfully graduate from those programs.

We heard another great example of the value of this testimony when a public defender from Contra Costa County was testifying before the Committee on the Revision of the Penal Code and indicated that because of the Covid-19 emergency rules, he was able to obtain remote witness testimony from a statistical expert to be able to prove a claim under the Racial Justice Act, which requires very specific information about implications of bias in these cases.

So having that testimony in that Racial Justice Act case was essential to him, and he would not have been able to obtain that testimony if he had to pay for that expert to travel to California because it would have been outside the budget. The criminal remote statute has clear protections which require the court to convene in person if there's any kind of audibility issue or technological glitches or if for some reason the court reporter cannot maintain the record or the court interpreter cannot provide language access.

The statute has lots of built in protections to ensure an accurate verbatim record as well as effective language access protection so that we have integrity in our processes. We believe we need to move forward with incorporating remote options in criminal matters on a regular basis, and we ask for your aye vote to continue this authority for an additional year.

Okay, thank you. Others in support?

David Bolog, SSB Alliance. I only ask that the author consider adding language that will protect the defendant if there'd be no punishment to them if they're in custody, whether they choose to do it remotely or choose to be transferred to the court. Thank you.

Thank you. Others in support? Opposition, please come forward.

You have five minutes between the group.

Thank you, Mister Chair. Sandra Barreiro, on behalf of SEIU California, we are opposed unless amended, and we aren't opposed to remote specifically. However, we still think that trial courts need to reconcile the impacts on staff that remote has caused.

So we surveyed our court clerks and 87% said that their workload has significantly increased since the pandemic and 80% said their court is experiencing a recruitment and retention problem. At least 28 courts have yet to provide court reporters with the appropriate equipment to meet their statutory duty of accuracy.

And if a court reporter certifies a transcript that is inaccurate, they could lose their license or be charged with a misdemeanor. So we understand that remote can be more efficient and can be more convenient for court users.

However, during criminal proceedings, people's lives are at stake, and we have to acknowledge the limitations of remote and try to reconcile with some of these impacts that staff have experienced. I respectfully request your no vote. Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Melanie Kim, State Policy Director at the San Francisco Public Defender's Office, in opposition to SB 92 unless it is amended to ensure fair and equitable access to justice.

My understanding is that, separate from this bill, all the stakeholders are currently involved in negotiations related to remote proceedings, and we asked the Committee to consider these negotiations. With that said, here are some of our concerns with SB 92.

It provides that a witness may appear at a misdemeanor or felony criminal proceeding, except for a felony trial remotely. Most critical and alarming is the prospect of a witness testifying remotely in a felony case and then being unavailable for trial.

Their previous testimony could be admitted to convict an individual without the witness ever being confronted or cross-examined in person. Secondly, Californians do not have universal access to adequate technology, high speed Internet and privacy. Many Californians live in rural communities where high speed Internet is not available.

Even in urban communities where it is available, not everyone has access to remote technology and may not have the space to participate in remote proceedings safely and privately. Lack of adequate technology exacerbates existing economic and racial inequality in our justice system.

SB 92 is silent on the need for minimum standards for courtroom technology to conduct remote proceedings. Without adequate safeguards in the existing statutes, public defender offices have witnessed some courts routinely choosing expediency or convenience over their mandate of fair and equitable access to justice. Thank you.

Thank you.

Margo George on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association. We are opposed unless amended, and we think that there are certainly benefits to remote proceedings, but there need to be adequate safeguards.

There have been a number of instances throughout the state that include people hacking the proceedings, people getting online and committing sex acts during court proceedings, people telling our clients to hang up and then promising to get their cases dismissed if they send them money. Witnesses and mentally disordered offender in mental health proceedings have testified from their cars, expert witnesses.

So we just need some safeguards to protect the integrity of the criminal justice system, and to make sure that proceedings are afforded the dignity and the decorum that is necessary to protect all of us. So that's why we're opposed unless amended and respectfully ask for your no vote. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Others in opposition?

Mister Chair and Members, Pat Moran with Aaron Read & Associates, representing the Orange County Employees Association who represent the court workers in Orange County. Opposed unless amended. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair, Members. Janice O'Malley with AFSCME California. Also an opposed unless amended position. We also represent court reporters, court clerks, and court IT professionals. Thank you.

Okay. Questions or comments from Committee Members? Assemblymember Wilson.

Thank you to the author for bringing this forward, and I do appreciate the concerns brought in by opposition. I was reading through the opposed unless amended letters. I would say in regard to this particular bill, because it is narrowly focused on just extending, there is merit to, if this is going to be common practice that we should consider as a Legislature, putting parameters to protect people through the process and recognizing there can be some unjust.

I just want to confirm that a defendant or any partner to the proceeding can decline to participate remotely, which means no one would be able to participate remotely. Is that accurate?

So that is accurate. This requires the consent, for example, of the defendant. And it also provides that should there be some sort of glitch when someone's testifying remotely, that the court reporter is present, physically present, and has both the opportunity as well as the right to, in essence, pause the proceeding.

The court reporter themselves versus the judge would typically--

Well, the judge, of course, always has that opportunity.

But the court reporter is allowed to raise that flag, and it would have to be paused because they would not be able to do it accurately.

Exactly, correct.

Okay, thank you. Move the bill.

Mr. Alanis.

Thank you, Mister Chair. To Tracy's point, with four years worth of COVID with video court, it's actually going on a lot longer than that. I've done remote hearings with preliminary hearings or coming in that way from that.

It was just easier for us to do it over video from a jail cell or from a jail facility than it was to the court. So we've been doing that for many, many years. I'm a big fan of remote meetings.

I'm sure all of us have them with our staff and whatnot as technology is moving forward and we're moving forward with it, and I think that's what this bill does as well. I understand the opposition's points with rural communities as my district is as well, poor connections and people not being able to get in.

But as the question that you answered earlier, it's all about persons consenting to wanting to be part of that, and I'm sure they'll make sure the correct ways for them to actually have a proceeding to happen.

And as far as the court reporters, a lot of my friends are court reporters, and I see and know the frustration with that. I've actually been in court where they've actually have stopped the proceedings because they didn't hear what was said. So that is something that is still practiced.

And just looking at your face, Senator, as the questions were going, I'm pretty sure you're thinking about that as well as far as working with them. So I appreciate that.

As far as people hacking in and making gestures and stuff in zooms, I know a lot of City Council meetings also have had that problems as well, and they found ways to remedy that.

I want to say, if anything, it's going to be something where that person that's testifying is going to be in on a secure line that we won't have to worry about that. So having said that, I think this helps with people, with traveling.

For those who are worried about so many cars on the streets and stuff like that. Sometimes people's health does not allow them to come to a building, which would also help with that as well. Or maybe even age or maybe access to a building as well. So with that, I'll be supporting this bill.

And if it's been moved, I'd like to second. Thank you.

Okay, we have a motion and a second. So this, of course, was put in place, as noted in the last few years during the pandemic. You had a bill last year would have extended for four years, didn't go forward. The budget gave it a one-year extension, and then this bill does it another one year.

So you've heard from some of the concerns. So we'll be back here a year from now. So what do you attempt to work on to try to make sure we address some of the underlying issues. Maybe you can address that in close.

Shall I close? All right. Thank you, Mister Chair. I am quite interested in finding out about the hacking during trial.

I had not heard that there's hacking going on during trial, so I'd love to explore that, to make sure that the technology doesn't permit someone to, for example, hack into a trial to, in essence, ruin the trial by providing the jury or the fact finder with information and evidence that is not properly adduced, number one.

And the same thing goes with respect to appropriate attire. If someone is appearing remotely in inappropriate attire, the judge doesn't abdicate her responsibility simply by virtue of the fact that it's a remote proceeding.

If it's a remote proceeding, for example, there's an expert testifying, that expert is required, or should be required, at least in my view, to be appropriately attired and appropriately address the finders of fact.

In terms of remote access in rural communities, to the extent that there is a community that doesn't have, for example, the ability, via the Internet to participate, that witness and or that defendant certainly may appear. There is nothing in this bill. And we try to make it crystal clear that this bill does not preclude someone from appearing in person.

It simply gives an opportunity to appear in a different modality. And with that, I urge an aye vote.

Okay, thank you. We have a motion and a second.

Item one, SB 92 by Senator Umberg. The motion is due pass to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll call]

Measure passes. Next measure. Senator Skinner. Consent one? Oh, second one. Yes. SB 758. Yeah, three bills. I thought the other one was good. Yeah. Gotcha. Okay.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members, SB 758, by the way, we will accept the Committee's amendments. Thank you very much for your work on this, Mr. Chair, and Mister Ironside's work as well. This bill does two things very simply.

One is it notifies folks when they come to the state of California, hey, if you're bringing illegal weapon, just like if you're bringing an orange or a watermelon, you shouldn't do it, and you could be subject to penalties. That's item one.

Item two is that if you know, and the emphasis is on know, in other words, actual knowledge that you are. Excuse me. Thanks. If you actually know, then you can be subject to certain additional penalties. With that, I urge an aye vote.

Thank you. Witnesses in support?

Here simply to answer any technical questions.

Okay, thank you. Others in support. Opposition, please come forward.

David Bolag in opposition. Thank you.

Seeing no other opposition, questions or comments from Committee Members. Vice Chair Alanis?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senator, I just, I noticed, as far as the signage that you're talking about when people are entering, is, is there something that we're going to do with the signage from. To the best of my knowledge, it hasn't been updated since 2021.

Well, Mister Nowick seems very anxious to answer this question, so if you don't mind, Assemblymember, I'll ask Mister Nowick to answer yes.

What the reference is, and this was brought to my attention by the able Committee consultant, is that the Department of Justice was not updating a pamphlet under a Catharine Baker law.

This is not relevant to that because these are signs that the food and ag have been doing since the Alpert Peace Shelley Law went into effect in 1998.

So the concern about DOJ and not updating the pamphlet is a legitimate issue that I would suggest that this Committee bring to the attention of the Department of Justice, but it's not really relevant to this.

Got you. But I'm sure at some point, to make sure the bill is better than what it is is we make sure that the information that we're sending them to is also updated as well. And if DOJ needs to be reminded of that, I'm sure they'll be brought in somewhere to. Hey, we're sending people to this website,, make sure it's updated. With that I thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members, I urge an aye vote.

Okay, a motion, a second from Alanis and Nguyen. Please call the roll.

Item seven, SB 758 by Senator Umberg. The motion is do pass as amended, to the Appropriations Committee. McCarty? McCarty, aye. Alanis? Alanis, aye. Gallagher? Nguyen? Nguyen, aye. Holden? Holden, aye. Ting? Ting, aye. Wilson? Zbur?

That measure passes. Okay, now we have Senator Skinner, the final bill of the morning, SB 254.

Thank you, Chair and Members. Pleased to present SB 254. SB 254 brings back some transparency to our state prisons. California used to be a national leader in terms of that access to media, but in the 1990s, California cut off most of the access, and today, our prisons are among the least transparent in the nation.

So what 254 does is provide our news media access to our state prisons with appropriate guardrails. And I'll get into those. So it's not just a flat out, any media, any journalist can show up at any prison unannounced and do whatever they like. No, that is not how it's designed.

We will get into that, but what it does is align us closer to states like Florida, Maine, and Rhode Island. So what it would do is enable news media to tour prisons and interview incarcerated people if there is consent from the incarcerated individual and if the warden of the facility determines that the tour and or the interview is not a threat to security or safety. So the warden still has to approve. The bill also opens our prisons access to Members of the Legislature, to the Governor's office, and to judicial officials. And I think that that one is particularly appropriate.

While we Members of the Legislature have access to most state facilities, we do not have access to the prisons without quite a procedure. And when we look at situations like the incidents, unfortunately, of staff on incarcerated individual sexual abuse, say, in our women's facilities, you know, it might help for us to be able to have a little more transparency there so that we can help make sure that that circumstance is completely stopped.

One note I'd like to make is the analysis indicates that this bill covers our jails. It does not. In the Senate, I did amendments that removed jails, so jails are not in it. And SB 254 now has no opposition. But I would like my witness, Brittney Barsotti, who's the General Counsel for our News Publishers Association, to speak to the bill.

Thank you. Good morning.

Please proceed.

Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chair, Members of the Committee. Brittney Barsotti with the California News Publishers Association, representing over 400 publications up and down the state, and also with a large coalition of journalism groups that support SB 254, which, as the Senator said, only applies to California prisons. Thank you to amendments.

As you know, transparency is essential to a well functioning government. A lot of our members, or actually all of our members, take great pride in being that government watchdog and being able to report not just on what the government does, but also what it does well. Right?

Because the public needs to know what is working to be able to make good policy decisions and engage on the issues that impact them. I'm here today because, for the last 30 years, the fourth estate has been limited, especially as it pertains to CDCR, which has a $14.5 billion General Fund spending tag.

And right now, the press and the public are really unable to see how that money is spent. As Senator Skinner noted, in the 1990s, we substantially reduced access under Governor Pete Wilson. Right now, you are only allowed to bring in a small notebook and pencil to be able to interview any member who is incarcerated.

So the advances in technology, like audio visual equipment, things that have been really effective storytelling mechanisms, are not allowed to be utilized inside our prisons. So this is an ironical piece of legislation. It simply restores the access that was previously allowed to the press. It brings greater transparency back to the prison systems.

And I'd like to finish by saying right now is the perfect time to restore media access. Why? The Governor and the Legislature are embarking on sweeping transformation of the state prisons, including San Quentin. And we've also gone undergone substantial changes since realignment over the last 30 years. So it would be wonderful for the public to be able to see what's working and what hasn't, right? Has healthcare improved? Has mental health care improved inside the prisons? How is overcrowding doing and being reduced?

And this bill will give journalists the essential tools they need while protecting security to be able to answer these questions and much more. Let me end with a quote by Michigan's Republican Senator who authored Michigan's access bill. Limiting media access serves to create rumors and suspicion. To maintain full trust of the people, we must protect the ability of the media to investigate all sides and report fairly and accurately to the public. And with that, I respectfully urge your aye vote on SB 254.

Thank you. Others in support, please come forward.

David Bollog with the SFV Alliance. Since 2020, after the passage of SB 132 in 2019, there has been the allowance of whoever identifies whatever gender they are to be assigned to that of prison that they are serving time in, and that has been useful to actual men who have transitioned into women, trans women have used this to their benefit. But unfortunately, there has been male predators have used this law in their advantage to go after female prisoners.

Well, he has five minutes. Go ahead.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I'm not done. I don't know if you were cut me half or not.

No, you have about 45 seconds left because you had five minutes.

Thank you. Unfortunately, these female inmates are now...

Are you a support witness?

Yes.

Okay.

Yes, I'm in support of it because female inmates are being sexually assaulted under the under the SB 132, and they are scared or have reproduced percussions from inmates, from prison staff if they do report this. This will allow...

Through the Chair, he's talking about transgender...

You have 10 seconds to wrap it up, sir.

If these women are allowed, and if these women are allowed to share their information with the media and the Legislature, they will be allowed to be addressed in this. Thank you.

Next speaker, just... Your support support section's over. Me too's now.

Natasha Minsker, Smart Justice California, strong support.

Margie Lie, Samson Advisors, on behalf of FAMM, in strong support.

Margo George, California Public Defenders Association, in strong support.

Duke Cooney, ACLU California Action, strong support. Thank you.

Opposition? No opposition. Questions or comments from Committee Members? Ms. Wilson.

Thank you. First of all, to the author. I appreciate you bring forward, but I would not... But I want to... I would be remiss if I did not note that in part of the testimony in support of this vital piece of legislation provided misinformation, and I know it wasn't at the will of the author or one of the testifiers, regarding transgender people within our prison system system. And just noting that for the record, it was definitely off topic and should not be used in a way to support this vitally important bill.

And any type of testimony related to that truly is an attack on that community, especially at a time when we're celebrating them and ensuring that they feel like there's a sense of belonging not only in their communities, but in the Legislature. It's important to call that out as an attack. But getting back to the bill versus the testimony about the bill. I think it's, like I noted, it's vitally important and I think it's key.

My only one concern, and I'm supporting the bill, so would like to move it, was, I noticed on the, on the news side or the media side, in Item F, there's a deny related to security, direct threat, you know, physical safety, all of that. And then. But on the side where we as government officials, people who are required to give oversight, not that there should be a nod, but there's no caveat or any kind of mechanism related to, if we, if, because it's just broad, it's based on our pleasure. But there's no mention of safety or physical threat like there is for the other people.

And so I don't know if that's intentional, just because maybe we wouldn't go if there was that kind of threat, but that might be something to consider, some type of allowance for the fact that we may desire to go at a particular time where it would be unsafe for us to go. But that's my only comment to that. Thank you.

Appreciate. I think with, we're trying to strike that balance that with...

Was that a question you're asking? Yes.

Yeah, I did want her to comment. She can comment now or in close or however she see fit.

Look, we should not, obviously, legislators are not above the law, so... But we are in a different category. So. But I certainly am open to looking at whether there should be any appropriate guardrails there.

Okay. Seeing no further questions or comments. You made a motion. We have a second for Mr. Ting. You may now close.

Appreciate the comments. And as I indicated, there are guardrails, but certainly open to looking at whether there should be additional. But I think it's designed to give a modest access to media and to government officials. And with that, I ask for your aye vote.

Okay, thank you. We have a motion and a second, please call the roll.

Item two, SB 254 by Senator Skinner. The motion is do pass to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

That measure passes. We're now going to go back and do add ons. Do we have any on call? We have one measure on call, so we'll just go down the order of the measures. The measure on call and add ons.

For item number one, SB 92 by Senator Umberg. The motion was do passed to the Appropriations Committee. Gallagher, Zbur. Item two, SB. Just heard that one, so we'll skip down. Item number three, SB 349, was pulled by the author. Item number four, by Senator Umberg.

379, was on consent. Item number five, SB 442 by Senator limone, was on consent. Item number six, SB 733, by Senator Glazier. The motion was do passed to the Appropriations Committee. Gallagher? Holden? Not voting. Holden not voting.

Wilson?

I'd just like to make a comment before I express my vote. I,

Yes.

confirmed with the chair.

So I also sit as chair of the California Legislative Black Caucus, and we have made a priority, AB 280, which is Assemblymember Holden's Bill to ban solitary confinement, recognizing absent of that Bill, this would be a Bill that I would support in the sense that it does provide data, which is something that has been missing from our conversations around solitary confinement.

And so, given that both bills will support the Bill today for both bills to go through the legislative process, but, however, stand firmly that solitary confinement should not exist, but definitely open to information and oversight for accountability purposes. With that, I'll give an aye vote.

Wilson. Aye. Item number seven, SB 758 by Senator Umberg. The motion was do pass as amended. [Roll Call] . Item number eight, SB 796 by Senator Alvarado-Gil, the motion was do passed to the Appropriations Committee. This item was on call. [Roll Call]

Item number nine, SB 1005 by Senator Ashby, was on consent. Item number 10, SB 1122 by Senator Seyarto, was on consent item number 11, SB 1353 by Senator Wahab do pass. Gallagher, Zbur.

Item number 12, SB 1381 by Senator McGuire, was on consent item number 13, SB 1473 by Senator Laird, was on consent item number 14, SB 1489 by Senator McGuire, was on consent.

Yeah, okay. I'm not sure, Scott.

Perfect. Thank you.

Thank you, Mister chair.

He's coming back. Hey, this is John. Public safety. Okay, thank you.

For the consent calendar. [Roll Call]. Item number one, SB 92, by Senator Umberg. The motion was do pass to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]. Item number two, SB 254, by Senator Skinner. The motion was do pass to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

Item number three, SB 349, by Senator Roth, was pulled by the author. Item number four, SB 379 by Senator Umberg, was on consent, item number five, SB 442 by Senator Limone, was on consent, item number six, SB 733, by Senator Glazer. The motion was do pass to the Appropriations Committee.

Gallagher. Item number seven, SB 758, by Senator Umberg. The motion was do pass, as amended, to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]. Item number eight, SB 796 by Senator Alvarado-Gil. The motion was do passed to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

Item number nine, SB 1005 by Senator Ashby was on consent. Item number 10, SB 1122 by Senator Seyarto, was on consent. Item number 11, SB 1353 by Senator Wahab. The motion was do pass.[Roll Call]

Item number 12, SB 1381 by Senator McGuire, was on consent. Item number 13, SB 1473 by Senator Laird, was on consent. Item number 14, SB 1489 by Senator McGuire, was on consent.

Okay, there you go. Absolutely. Thank you. This hearing is adjourned.