Senate Standing Committee on Public Safety

All right, the Senate Committee on Public Safety is set to begin. We are meeting today in room 2200 of the O Street building. We have 23 bills on the calendar. 11 bills are on consent.

We have AB 1832 by Assemblymember Blanca Rubio on consent, AB 1859 by Assemblymember Alanis, AB 1888 by Assemblymember Arambula AB 2020 by Assemblymember Bonta. AB 2279 by Assemblymember Cervantes, AB 2310 by Assemblymember Hart, AB 2871 by Assemblymember Maienschein, AB 2766 by Assemblymember Lowe, AB 3027 by Assemblymember Baines, AB 3042 by Assemblymember Stephanie Nguyen, AB 3168 by Assemblymember Gibson in this committee, the author will present their bill from this podium.

Witnesses will testify from the microphone outside the well, which is that lectern right there. Each bill can have two main witnesses in support and two main witnesses in opposition. Each of those witnesses get two minutes each and we will time them. After the main support and opposition testify, we will take all additional support and opposition.

Me two s stating their name, organization, and whether they support or oppose to keep her busy hearing going and keeping it short. If you are a me too, please be lined up and ready to go after we have opposition speak. We take authors as they arrive in order to be as efficient as possible.

With that, we will begin. Can we get a roll call to set quorum.

[Roll Call]

All right, a quorum has been established. We are going to move with Assemblymember Jones Sawyer. First, let's make a motion for the consent calendar. Senator Bradford has moved.

[Roll Call]

All right, the consent list is on call and we're going to have assemblymember Jones Sawyer present. AB 852.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members. Today I present AB 852, a bill that is a technical cleanup of my bill of AB 89 from 2021. First, I would like to thank the chair and committee staff for working with me on this bill, and I will be accepting the committee amendments.

Second, I'm not sure if I had the opportunity to do this before, but I'd like to thank the vice chair for coming on as a co author on this important measure.

AB 89 increased the age requirement for peace officers in the state from 18 to 21 years of age, following data that older officers are better equipped for the job.

The bill also required the California community colleges to make recommendations on associates degree in modern policing in order to increase the education requirement for GED to an associate's degree in modern policing or any bachelor's degree. The community colleges have returned that report and developed a model curriculum that is now out for stakeholder review.

AB 852 fixes implementation concerns by clarifying the intent of AB 89 to provide a choice between associates degree and a bachelor's degree. AB 852 also extends the deadline for new recruits to have to meet these new requirements in line with community college timelines and addressing law enforcement recruitment concerns.

Lastly, through working with my co author, we have added additional language to give new recruits up to 36 months after the beginning of their employment to meet the degree requirement. This cleanup bill was developed in collaboration with law enforcement stakeholders and community colleges alike.

With me to testify on the bill is Jonathan Feldman, on behalf of the California Police Chiefs Association.

Thank you. You have two minutes.

Morning, chair and members. Jonathan Feldman, California Police Chiefs Association appreciate the author and the vice chair in working on this with us as a cosponsor of the original bill, we obviously support the advancement of the education requirement, but there needs to be more time to implement it to avoid any type of recruitment and onboarding deficits.

So we appreciate all the measures in the bill. I look forward to continuing to work on the advancement of the education requirement in the years to come. Thank you.

Do you have any other lead speakers?

No. They said.

Thank you. Do we have lead opposition? Lead opposition seeing none. We're going to go to me twos.

Good morning, Madam Chair and members. Cory Salzillo, on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association, for the cleanup purposes addressed, we support the bill. Thank you.

Good morning. Lizzie Cootsona here on behalf of the California Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and the Center for Employment Opportunity. Thank you.

Hi, Justin Bowers with cleanathforkids.org strongly supports. In addition, the NCCCA, Ecosustainability Peeps, Facts, and North County Equity and Justice also strongly support. Thank you.

Dan Messner with the California Public Defenders Association, in support.

All right, we're going to move on to committee members, Senator Seyarto.

Just real quick. I want to thank the author for recognizing that this needed to be worked on a little bit to address some shortcomings that were being manifested in the hiring process for our police officers.

They are having a real hard time with recruitment right now, and I think these amendments will help them and also accomplish what the original intent of your bill was. And I appreciate working with you on it and ensuring that we have the best possible bill to move forward. So with that, I will move the bill.

Thank you. Would you like to close?

Assemblymember, I respectfully ask for your vote.

Thank you. We have a motion by Senator Seyarto. Can we get a roll call vote, please?

Item number one. AB 852. Motion is do pass as amended to the floor. [Roll Call]

That motion's on call or that bill's on call. Thank you. If you would like to present AB 2136 now.

Yes, I would like to. Thank you. Madam Chair Members, I present AB 2136 which clarifies the legality of accessing and providing drug checking services in California. The most effective way to address the presence of fentanyl and other analogs, tainting their drug suppliers through evidence based health and harm reduction approaches. Increased access to naloxone.

Naloxone training and fentanyl strips help prevent drug overdoses and are keeping people safe and alive. Drug checking is simply another important tool at our disposal. Today, researchers and community based organizations throughout the state are offering to analyze small samples of drugs to reveal their components, including any traces of fentanyl.

They are checking for contaminated drugs in the areas in the most vulnerable populations, like in my district, skid row and Los Angeles. But technically, this service is illegal. Although drug checking equipment and testing are permitted in California, the drugs the states drug paraphernalia and possession laws prohibit drug testing and analyzing for substance uses.

Programs that are helping people make informed decisions about their health are currently operating under a legal gray area. AB 2136 addresses the gaps in state law to encourage more cities to offer drug checking or services.

In partnership with community based organizations, research institutions, and state and local public health departments, this Bill also provides legal, criminal, and administrative protections for both the drug checking services providers and the participants. The intent is for the protection of AB 2136 to apply once the individual is at the testing facility.

This is not a get out of jail free card. I understand this provision is a concern and has committed to working on clarifying language as the Bill moves forward. Members, it can take less than 10 minutes to reveal vital information about the contents of substances people consume. This is an opportunity to save lives.

Let's make that, make that. Let's not make that illegal. With me in support of this Bill is Brendan Harshberger with Drug Checking Los Angeles, and Gray Gradner, acting state Director of the Drug Policy Institute.

Thank you. You have two minutes.

Thank you. Good morning. Chair Wahhab and Members of the Committee. And thank you, Assembly Member Jones- Sawyer. My name is Grey Gardner. I'm the acting state Director for the Drug Policy Alliance. The EPA is a leading organization working to end the drug war and advance policies grounded in health equity and human rights.

As we all know, California continues to experience a severe overdose death crisis. It's devastated individuals, families and community Members around the state. There were again roughly 12,000 overdose deaths in 2023. This body has taken steps to respond to this, in part by ensuring access to fentanyl test strips, which is a form of drug checking.

However, fentanyl test strips alone provide limited information. With an increasingly unpredictable, changing, and dangerous drug supply, the risk of accidental death is even greater than ever, even for casual drug use.

Drug checking services utilize test strips, but they also utilize advanced scientific equipment such as mass spectrometry to provide more detailed analysis of the chemical composition of substances, including indicating whether drugs such as fentanyl or xylazine are present. By providing this information, drug checking services help people who use drugs make more informed decisions about their use.

Evidence has shown that with more complete information, people often change the way they use or interact with substance, including using slower, not using alone, or in some cases, not using it at all.

These programs often provide an entry point to treatment to minor medical care, and providing safer use or other information that help the health of individuals using the services. The results are also often shared with public health organizations and community partners to identify trends in the local drug supply.

AB 2136 is about helping all of us better respond to this public health crisis. It clarifies the law that such programs are lawful and it protects participants and providers so that we can launch more of these programs around the state to better protect people. For these reasons, we respectfully urge your aye vote and thank Assemblymember Jones-Sawyer.

aye vote and thank Assemblymember Jones-Sawyer.

Thank you. Next speaker.

I would like to thank the Members of the Committee and Assembly Member Jones-Sawyer for having me here today. I'm currently a graduate student at UCLA and a graduate student researcher with drug checking LA, and I've also worked as a medications for addictions treatment outreach specialist at the LA LGBT Center.

I would also like to clarify that I'm here today speaking on behalf of myself as an individual based on my personal and professional experience. I believe controlled substances testing colloquially drug checking is an important part of how we can curb overdose deaths in California.

AB 2136 clarifies the legality of accessing and providing drug checking services provides the necessary protections to expand these life saving services statewide. Research shows that the information we provide can empower participants to prevent overdose by choosing to either not use the substances we test or to use them in a different way that reduces harm.

One such lifesaving scenario is finding fentanyl in a pill or powder that the client believed to be a different substance. The trust we build with our participants by providing them with drug checking services has been an important pathway to engagement with services such as substance use treatment and HIV testing and treatment.

While at the La LGBT center, I've personally linked clients met through drug checking to treatment.

In addition to the benefits and protections it provides participants, the real time data we collect on the illicit drug supply can inform public health and safety agencies responses to emerging threats in the community, such as xylazine, a veterinary tranquilizer that increases the risk of overdose.

This Bill will provide the confidence needed for our participants to engage in testing. For providers to start offering these lifesaving services. Now is the time to adopt these measures and a tragic example of traditional data arriving too late. Far too many Californians died before we understood the threat of counterfeit press pills.

It is my hope that comprehensive drug checking can help us get ahead of emerging threats in the illicit drug supply and ultimately save lives. Therefore, I respectfully ask you to support this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any lead opposition? Lead oppositions first seeing none. Me too.

Good morning. Glenn Backes is doing Me toos for the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights and Smart Justice California. Thank you.

Thank you.

George Parampathu, on behalf of ACLU California action in support. Thank you.

Diana Corodarma, on behalf of initiate justice in support.

Thank you.

Norma Palacios in support. In addition to Delivering Innovation in Support of Housing. San Francisco Treatment Demand Coalition, Any Positive Change in National Harm Reduction Coalition, To Give You a Project, and Hillary 360 in support. Thank you.

Hi, good morning. I'm Thuy do a proud co sponsor 360 as a Solis policy Institute fellow and a supporter of this Bill. Also reading some of the organizations who can't be with us today.

As for me, toos Californians united for a responsible budget or curb glide, Larkin Street Youth Services, San Luis Obispo Bangers Syringe Exchange program, legal services for prisoners with children, Bien Star Human Services, the San Francisco Public Defender's office, Tenderloin, Neighborhood Development Corporation, Community Health Project LA, Balanced Imperfection, excuse me.

And Drug user Health Advisory Committee of Southern California. Thank you.

Dan Messner with the California Public Defenders Association in support.

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

A couple of. Questions, a little bit about. So when somebody takes their drug in to get it tested, whether it's in powder form or pill form, what becomes of the tested material? If it is positive, is there a collection process?

Thank you. Do we have any other me toos? Seeing none. We're going to move on to Members of the Committee. Committee Members, Senator Seyarto.

Questions, a little bit about. So when somebody takes their drug in to get it tested, whether it's in powder form or pill form, what becomes of the tested material? If it is positive, is there a collection process?

Do they get confiscated or just get given back to them for them to decide whether they want to roll the dice or not?

Well, they wouldn't be rolling the dice because they would know whether or not it is contaminated. They would get it back once they tested it. Absolutely. They would not get it back. If we realize it has fentanyl or any contaminated substance in it.

So it gets confiscated from the person that's doing the testing in the case where there is a testing place to take it to?

Yes.

All right. Now, would you like your witness to speak?

Sure, because I may be saying something wrong, so go ahead.

So just to clarify, you're asking if it were to test positive for fentanyl, would the testing place be the one to confiscate it, or.

I would like to know what happens to the drug now that it is tested positive? Where does it go from there?

So if it is tested positive, we provide all of our clients back the sample that we tested, and it would be up to the client to decide what to do with it at that point.

Okay, so when I meant by roll the dices, if it does test positive for fentanyl, that doesn't necessarily mean that they're going to overdose on it. In their mind, they might not overdose. They'll think, hey, I'm a big person, I can take this amount. I'll just take a half of it instead.

Well, unfortunately, if they take the half that does have the fentanyl in it, then they wind up dead anyway. So my concern with bills like this is the enabling factor. We want people to get treatment. Absolutely. They have to get treatment because they're not going to self treat and get off of drugs.

We don't want them to die from this scourge that we have out there. And there are several efforts to be able to get not only testing, but also have everybody armed with Narcan, and they run around, and if somebody goes down in front of them, they put the Narcan in them and hope they spring to life.

Those are all well and good, but at the end of the day, if you're abusing drugs, the end result is that you will most likely meet an early death. And so we are not being compassionate to people by keeping them alive now so that they can have their early death later.

What's compassion is for us to treat them when we identify that somebody is a drug addict that they need to get treated. And right now we have a lot of treatment centers, but we also have a lot of drug addicts. So I don't know that our treatment centers are very effective.

And I think that's where we need to make our effective push and spend our money is ensuring that treatment centers and the people that need them get to them. And because otherwise they're going to die. They're going to die. I've had drug addicts, I've been on calls with drug addicts, and I'll go on them for all year.

And then the last call I go on is the one where they die. And we try to get them in and we try to get them. It just, that's how it works.

And so this is something that I think gives a false sense of safety to a lot of people, that whatever they're doing is going to be okay.

So when they take their drug and they jump in their car and they go crash into somebody and die that way that, you know, hey, at least they didn't die from the drug overdose.

So, you know, I struggle with bills like this because on one hand, I do want people not to OD, but on the other hand, I don't want to enable people to continue to potentially OD. And even you can also od on drugs that are not laced with fentanyl.

So, you know, I don't think it takes care of all the problems. Might take care of a little bit of it, but I'm not going to be on board with this. I think there are other ways that we can attack this problem that would be more effective and ensuring that people get the treatment they need.

And we're not doing that. We're giving them choices. We're giving them back the drug that's bad so they can give it to somebody else that doesn't have the testing because they're going to want to recover their money, too, and go buy other drugs that might not be laced.

So there's a lot of holes in this, and they need to be plugged before I can jump on board with it.

Thank you. Any other Members seeing? None. Somebody Member would you like to close?

Look, when they're at the testing center, there will be opportunities for them to get drug treatment. And as we know, we can't.

And if we tried to incarcerate and force people to have drug treatment and that that didn't work, and we ended up, for example, in LA County was probably the largest group of drug people, drug dependent in LA County jails, for example.

And so this is an opportunity for these drug treatment centers to do exactly what the Member is talking about, being able to provide that treatment right there in real time.

Once they know that, not only if it's tainted or if it's not tainted, we're now getting them into services or closer to people who can provide those services, because this is about getting as many people contacted with services as possible. So I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Do we have a motion moved by Senator Bradford? Can we get a roll call vote, please?

Item number two, AB 2136 motion is do passed to Judiciary Committee. Wahab, aye. Wahab, aye. No Bradford. Bradford, aye. Skinner, Wiener. That bill's on call. Thank you.

We are going to move to file number 15 by assemblymember Davies. AB 2518.

Good morning. Thank you, Madam Chair, Senators, today I'm here to present AB 2518. I first want to thank Committee staff for working with my staff and stakeholders on this measure.

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

Under current law, if an adult is convicted of a felon offense, such as murder, upon the release, as a condition of the release, they are prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm for life. However, the same condition does not apply to a minor convicted of the same crime.

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

As noted in the terrific analysis for this Bill, this type of proposed prohibition for a minor was deemed completed constitutional in people versus Villa, wherein the court held a juvenile Second Amendment right were not infringed by firearm prohibition.

According to the Los Angeles Times, approximately 14% of all violent crimes in both Orange County and San Diego, county, where I represent, involve the use of a firearm. More must be done to ensure criminals are not finding ways to cause more turmoil for our neighborhoods and our schools.

This type of policy proposal has a very real implication as a recent tragedy in the scenario has occurred here in California. In December of 2023, a Fresno County 14 year old killed his parents and attempted to kill his younger sister as well.

If and when he's convicted of these crimes at the age of 30 and upon release, he will be able to purchase a firearm. We cannot let individuals like him own firearms again. Senators, I firmly believe in second chances.

I believe people can reform themselves and after the incarceration, go on to live full and productive lives for their communities. However, there is nothing that says a person convicted of a crime like murder needs to own a firearm to live a productive life after theyre released. Again this type of prohibition already applies to adults.

There is no reason someone who is 17 and commits murder should be able to own a firearm again while someone who is 18 will not be able to. This is a common sense change in the law to help reduce our gun violence epidemic.

With me here to testify and support is Rochelle Beardsley from the Sacramento County DA's office. This Bill received a unanimous support in Assembly public safety, and has no, no votes. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. And you only have one witness?

All right. Thank you. You have two minutes. Thank you.

Yes.

Good morning. My name is Rochelle Beardsley. I'm an assistant Chief Deputy District Attorney for Sacramento County. I am both humbled and honored to speak before you today in support of AB 20518 and I would like to thank Assemblymember Lori Davies for authoring this Bill.

There is a loophole in our system that would allow a person who has committed a murder to legally own a firearm. There has been a clear preference in the Legislature and in the courts to treat minors in juvenile court rather than in adult criminal court, even when those crimes result in taking someone's life, as in murder.

One of the many byproducts of this shift is that those found to have committed murder would be able to own firearms after the age of 30. This is true regardless of how heinous and violent their crimes may have been. This certainly cannot be the intent of such a shift. This should be resolved. This Bill does that.

When looking at the people affected by this Bill, we are not talking about minors and their youthful indiscretions. We are talking about murderers, those found beyond a reasonable doubt to have killed or attempted to kill another human being. Currently, legislation is already in place to prohibit firearms from those in deemed unfit and dangerous.

That's appropriate and safe policy. This Bill is narrowly tailored to address the ownership of firearms by those that have already been deemed to be a danger in society in the most extreme way.

This Bill is drafted in such a way that does not have a broad, sweeping effect, but is focused only on those crimes that are a direct threat to public safety. Murder, attempted murder, and manslaughter. These are all crimes in which the perpetrator has shown a complete disregard for human life.

As such, that person can never be trusted to own a firearm. A firearm in the wrong hands, can be deadly. AB 2518 is a step towards preventing that. Thank you.

Appreciate it. Do we have lead opposition? Seeing none. Do we have any? Me toos in support or opposed?

George Parampathu, on behalf of ACLU, California action in opposition. Thank you.

Chair Members. Jonathan Feldman, California Police Chiefs Association, in support.

Kristen Schlessel, California District Attorneys Association, in support.

Madam Chair. Corey Salziello, on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association, support.

Thank you. Seeing no other speakers, I'm going to move to Members of the Committee. Committee Members seeing none, Assemblymember. Would you like to close?

Thank you. I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Senator Seyarto, would you like to make a motion?

I am moving the Bill. Yes.

Yes.

Thank you, Senator Seyarto moves the Bill.

Item 15, AB 2518. Motion is due pass to appropriations. [Roll Call]

Aye. Bradford Skinner Wiener. Bradford Skinner Wiener.

Bradford Skinner Wiener.

That Bill's on call. Assemblymember Lackey, thank you for being patient. File Item 18, AB 2645, if you would like to present.

Well, thank you, Madam Chair, for allowing me to present AB 2645. As you all know, Amber, Ebony and Feather Alerts are critical alerts asking for the public to help us find abducted children. Since 2002, these alerts have been activated over 320 times and they have involved over 380 victims.

Therefore, this Bill seeks to provide another tool to quickly find these children. AB 2645 will allow these special alerts as justifiable cause for transportation agencies to share license plate reading data from toll lanes with the California Highway Patrol. Utilizing plate reading on toll lanes would allow law enforcement to quickly identify and intercept kidnappers.

Locating children at a timely manner can be quite literally a life saving difference. I would like to introduce Nicole Wordelman, representing the San Bernardino County, who will be the witness and my only witness for this measure.

Thank you. You will have two minutes.

Okeydoke. Nicole Wordelman, on behalf of the Board of Supervisors of San Bernardino County, in strong support of the measure. As described by Assemblyman Lackey, AB 2645 will facilitate the sharing of real-time license plate data from toll lanes with law enforcement agencies in cases of abductions.

AB 2645 allows transportation agencies to share license plate reading data, and it will allow them to more quickly find abducted children in these cases. In situations like Amber Alerts, every second counts.

The county is very grateful for Assemblyman Lackey's introduction of 2645 to give law enforcement the tools they need to act quickly and effectively and urges the aye vote on the measure.

Thank you. Do we have any lead opposition? Seeing none. Can I get the me toos in support or opposed, state your name and whether or not you support or oppose.

Good afternoon, Chair Members. Ross Buckley, on behalf of San Bernardino County Transportation Authority, in support.

Bill Nasofsky with the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department, in support.

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

Thank you. Seeing no other speakers, Members of the Committee, would you guys like to comment? All right. Would you like to close?

Assemblymember, I would encourage and appreciate your aye vote, and so would the public.

Thank you.

Move the Bill.

Thank you. Senator Seyarto moves the Bill.

[Roll Call].

Thank you, Chair.

Can we send out a message to all our lovely presenters to show up?

I call it, "make haste to the appropriate room for-"

Personally, I say "quit lollygagging", you know?

*Chatter*

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair and Senator--now thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, first, I would like to accept the Committee's amendments to add Chair Wahab as principal co-author of the bill. And I appreciate teaming up with you on this effort and on yours as well.

AB 1831 would modernize our laws to ensure that AI-generated sexually explicit images of children are illegal to possess, distribute, and create. With the rapid advancement of AI, this technology is being used to create highly realistic images of child sexual abuse material which can be virtually indistinguishable from a real child.

The creation of these AI-generated images victimizes thousands of children because an AI program must first learn what these images look like by using real images of children taken from the Internet. Law enforcement in California are catching people with AI-generated sexually explicit images of children, but are not able to prosecute those people because of current loopholes in our laws.

This is unacceptable. The abhorrent crime of possessing, creating, and distributing sexually obscene images of children must be illegal, no matter if it is AI-generated or not. Therefore, it's critical that we act quickly to stop child predators from abusing AI to perpetuate child exploitation.

We must ensure that our laws are keeping up with this emerging technology to protect children in California from this abuse. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote. And I am joined today by Mikey Hothi, the Director of California Policy at Common Sense Media.

And I'm also joined by Kaylin Hayman, who is a survivor and victim advocate from Ventura County, and Rikole Kelly, who prosecutes these cases in Ventura County, is also here to answer any technical questions.

Okay, thank you. So you will be granted two lead witnesses. Each witness will have two minutes. Thank you.

Sure. Good morning, Chair Wahab and Committee Members. My name is Mikey Hothi with Common Sense Media, an organization dedicated to ensuring safe digital environments for children. I'd like to express our gratitude to Assemblymember Berman and to yourself, Senator Wahab, for championing this crucial issue.

AB 1831 addresses the growing threat of AI technology being used to create realistic, harmful images of child sexual abuse. It modernizes current law to ensure that AI-generated CSAM is also illegal to possess and distribute.

Creation of this AI-generated CSAM could lead to real life children being physically, mentally, and emotionally harmed by having their images included in CSAM. AI-generated CSAM perpetuates the victimization of real children by using their images to train AI models.

To create AI-generated CSAM, an AI program must first find existing images of real children, including CSAM images of real children being sexually abused. This means that those who generate AI CSAM are relying on prior victimization of actual children and are re-victimizing those children while victimizing other children as well.

Without this Bill, people who possess or distribute CSAM depicting actual children may evade prosecution by claiming those images they possess are AI-generated. Recent arrests and news stories highlight the urgency of addressing this issue. Instances throughout California where AI-generated videos could not be prosecuted due to legal limitations.

This bill aligns with our mission by legally reinforcing the importance of protecting children from harmful digital content. AB 1831 has garnered support from a wide range of organizations, including law enforcement, educational associations, and tech companies. This broad support support underscores the urgent need for an updated legal framework to address this issue.

AB 1831 is a proactive measure to protect children from emerging technological threats to ensure California remains at the forefront of child protection by closing existing legal gaps. Speaking to this exact issue here today, we have Kaylin Hayman who is going to share her personal testimony.

Thank you Chair and members. My name is Kaylin and I'm a 16-year-old girl born and raised in California. I was lucky enough to be series regular on Disney Channel's Just Roll with It from the ages of 10 to 13. Unfortunately, the 12-year-old version of myself became a victim of morph child pornography.

On July 16, 2023, the living shield protecting my innocence broke when I got a phone call from the FBI saying that a man was in possession of images that were morphed to have my face on someone else's body participating in sexual acts. I felt violated and disgusted to think about the fact that grown men see me in such a horrendous manner.

While speaking about this topic is daunting, I know deep down I need to share my voice. I need to bring awareness and justice to those in my position. This is not only affecting children in the public eye, but also normal kids simply existing.

These cases affect one's social life as well as being detrimental to mental health. It truly gives the feeling of being alone. But to all other victims, I am living proof that you are not alone.

Since my victimization, it is a constant thought that every man has malicious intent against me because I feel a lack of protection in my everyday life. These circumstances have made me feel uneasy and angry. The fact that grown adults think that this is right is appalling.

It is even worse that those are the people setting examples for young children. The children growing up in today's world are being exposed to harmful material, but that can be stopped. There is development going in a negative direction, but we can still change the ending.

Not only is this going to help children all over the world, but it will protect their inner peace and innocence. California is a state with so much power, and this is an opportunity arising for positive growth. This state is also home to the base of the entertainment industry.

This law would protect minors in the industry from being sexually exploited like they have been for decades. No more kids would have to be susceptible to the feeling that they were not protected. Respectfully, I ask that you please support AB 1831.

Thank you. Do we have lead opposition? Seeing none. Can we have me-toos in support or in opposition?

Good morning, Chair and Members. Kim Stone of Stone Advocacy, on behalf of the Children's Advocacy Institute, in support.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Matt Broad here, on behalf of SAG-AFTRA, in support. Thank you.

Lizzie Kutzona here on behalf of Tech Net and LA City Attorney, in support. Thank you.

Kelly Brooks, on behalf of the Ventura County Board of Supervisors, here in support.

Gareth Elliott, on behalf of Microsoft, in support.

Rikole Kelly on behalf of Ventura County District Attorney Erik Nasarenko, in strong support.

Kristen Schlessel on behalf of California District Attorneys Association, in support.

George Brampthew, on behalf of ACLU California Action. We have an opposed unless amended position, but we understand the author's willing to take amendments to address our concerns. So we look forward to continuing to work with the author's office. Thank you.

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

Thank you. Seeing no other speakers, I'm going to turn it back to myself. So, Assemblymember, I do appreciate you bringing this. I do want to thank your witness for sharing her story. It means a lot to just hear here as to exactly what's going on.

I will also state that for me, as Chair, I think that the crimes, any type of sexually violent crimes or crimes against children, I take very seriously. So I do appreciate you sharing your story.

I think this is the reason why we've seen so many bills in the last two years kind of come out of this Committee that have historically died in this Committee. So I do appreciate your work on this. I appreciate the partnership as well. I'll ask you to close.

Yeah. I just really appreciate working together with you, and thank you to your team for all the work that you're doing on these important issues. I want to thank both my witnesses for participating today. I respectfully ask for everyone's ayes votes when they get here.

Thank you. And I cannot make a motion. That's one of the rules. So I will have to wait. So on this one, we're going to have to wait for a motion. Thank you again.

Thank you.

All right, I'm going to ask for, for our Senate sergeants to make calls to Assemblymember Sanchez, Ting, Soria and Maienschein and Kalra to show up. Otherwise, we have Assemblymember Jackson, if you would like to present. Assemblymember Jackson will be presenting AB 1877.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. AB 1877 is about ensuring that our youth can thrive and that their past mistakes will not be haunting their future. In brief, this Bill will require a county probation officer to petition a court to seal the records of any person previously adjudicated a ward of the court who has reached the age of 18 and who is no longer under the jurisdiction of the juvenile court.

At this point, current law already allows the person who's become an adult to actually petition the court. But as you know, sometimes these are long and complicated processes, and so there is no reason why the state cannot do it themselves so that they can have a fresh start, have an opportunity for employment and other educational opportunities. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Do you have any witnesses?

I do not.

Perfect. Do we have any lead opposition witnesses seeing none. Can we get Me Toos.

Natasha Minsker, Smart Justice California in strong support.

Danica Rodarmel, on behalf of Initiate Justice in support.

Annie Thomas, on behalf of the California Alliance of Child and Family Services in support.

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

Lizzie Cootsona here, on behalf of the California Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and the Center for Employment Opportunity. Thank you.

Dan Messner, on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association, in support.

George Brampthew, on behalf of ACLU California Action, in support. Thank you.

Jim Lindbergh, Friends Committee on Legislation of California, in support.

Thank you. Seeing no other speakers, I'm going to move to the Committee Members. Senator Seyarto.

Thank you. And I'm sorry I missed the full report there. We're trying to juggle committees here. One thing I wanted to clarify. We already are able to seal records from juveniles. And your Bill also requires them to destroy the records of a juvenile.

No, it just says to seal the records.

We already seal the records.

Well, no, not automatically. And that's what this Bill does. Meaning if a person who was a juvenile and has a record when they turn 18, they themselves can go through a legal process to be able to seal their records. This one does it automatically.

And that, I think that process is there so that we determine when it's beneficial to seal a record and when it might be beneficial to look back on a record to see if there was a pattern that is being continued as an adult. And then that kind of gives you a better idea whether they've gotten passed, because if they're not doing anything as an adult, then nobody needs to go back on and look at the record. But once they've started perpetrating other crimes as an adult, then they will refer back to the sealed.

Yeah. This one does not preclude all seal records. Only - it precludes only those that are more egregious. The issue is, and there are a number of counts, that when a young person is trying to obtain their first job or to get a job that has more meaningful wages, that in fact, when they are still having to check off that box, whether they have a criminal background history, that is precluding a lot of young people from getting the type of employment necessary to prevent them from ever even considering going back to any of those crimes in the past. And so we're just trying to make sure that young people are able to have a fresh start and that they are able to make sure that they are on a path to thrive.

I think fresh starts are great, and I think they are perpetuated or they're, I guess they are perpetuated when a person decides that they are no longer going to engage in the activity that got them that, that record in the first place. But I also think people in certain employees, they need to know also what the background is. A lot of them are fine with it and they're fine helping the person along.

But for them not to be able to have that information, only to find out secondhand, and then that becomes the problem. And the thing, I just think we have the protections in place that we need and for both the person that had the record and the persons that might hire them or else. So anyway, I'm not going to be supporting your Bill today. I think we already have those protections placed. Thank you.

All right. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Skinner. And I just want to make a quick announcement. I'm going to have to leave to present. I will have Senator Seyarto take over as Vice Chair, and we're going to hopefully lift the call and ask for other people to present. So, Senator Skinner, would you like to continue?

Yes. Thanks so much. Assemblymember I will move your Bill. I'm very pleased that you're bringing it. The process you described that a person has to go through to get their record sealed when, even though we obviously allow for it, is costly and time consuming. And some people just do not have the wherewithal, the resources or other available to them to go through that.

And then this thing becomes like an albatross around their neck, which, if they have completed whatever requirements we've put on them for the activity that put them in the criminal justice system in the first place, and they are, then, as you've constructed it, it is their probation officer that does this. Then I think it is entirely appropriate and respectful of public safety and preserving of public safety. With that, I move your Bill.

All right, thank you. We have a motion. You may close. Assemblymember.

Assemblymember, just respectfully ask for an aye vote.

All right, so I don't know what the recommendation from the Chair is on this one, but go ahead and call roll.

Item seven, motion is due. I'm sorry, item 7, AB 1877. Motion is due passed to Appropriations. [Roll Call].

All right, that Bill will remain on call. All right, next up, we have AB 1874 by Sanchez. Assemblymember, welcome. You may begin when you're ready.

Thank you, Chair and members, I'm proud to present AB 1874 today, which would provide judges more discretion in issuing penalties for convicted criminals who repeatedly record minors in intimate settings with sexual intent. As the mother of a young child, I can tell you nothing is more important to parents than the safety of their children.

And my heart sinks when I hear about the cases involving young children being sexually exploited and secretly recorded by vile people who know that they are hurting children. There are few things more precious than a child's innocence. And when they are a victim of this crime, they are robbed of that innocence.

That's why I was shocked when the Orange County Sheriff's Department came to me to discuss this issue and how repeat offenders are continuing to victimize children in our communities. The penalty for secretly recording a minor in an intimate setting is a fine, no more than $2,000 or less than a year in county jail.

The punishment for that individual, if they do it a second time, is the same. The punishment, if they do it a third, 4th, 5th time, is the same. To me, that's unacceptable.

That's why I introduced AB 1874, to ensure that repeat offense of recording minors in intimate settings is treated seriously, and that judges have additional tools to better secure our communities and rehabilitate these criminals. This is a common sense approach that strikes a fair balance between ensuring community safety and rehabilitating repeat offenders. I respectfully ask for your aye vote on this measure and testifying with me today is Captain Rachel Puckett with the Orange County Sheriff's Department.

Thank you very much. You have two minutes.

Yes, sir.

Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Captain Rachel Puckett. As the captain of the Criminal Investigations Bureau at the Orange County Sheriff's Department, I oversee a stellar team of over 60 professionals who handle complex and and sensitive cases ranging from cybercrimes to homicide and cases where children are the victims of sexual assault.

It is my honor to speak to you today about Assembly Bill 1874 as proposed by Assemblywoman Sanchez. We are so appreciative that Assemblymember Sanchez has shed light on this needed change.

The current law makes it a misdemeanor to secretly record another identifiable person who may be in a State of full or partial undress in an area where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. Currently, there are no additional consequences for those who repeatedly commit this crime. In my opinion and experience, this is appalling and unacceptable.

Almost all aspects of the Penal Code have carve outs for minors and have greater penalties for such which acknowledges that our children are more vulnerable, are more easily exploited, and ultimately suffer even greater irreparable mental and emotional harm because of childhood victimization. We believe AB 1874 will fix this problem.

AB 1874 would allow a person convicted of a second or subsequent offense of PC 647 Juliet three to face felony punishment. We strongly feel that an increase in punishment for a second or subsequent offense would act as a deterrent and sufficient justice for victims would be achieved.

As technology develops and devices to record become easier to conceal, it is important that the law recognize the impact to those who are victims of being secretly recorded.

One case that definitely I would like to bring as an example is a case that we had in Orange County where a 60 year old man was caught in 2023 with over 500 upskirt videos found on his phone. The suspect had three similar arrests over the past 10 years for similar conduct.

Had the proposed change in law been in place, there is a likelihood he would have been serving a sentence preventing him from committing this offense. Our children are especially vulnerable and we must protect them. Advances in technology have made it much easier to manipulate photos.

Can you wrap up, please?

Yes, sir. Send them to others or post them on Internet sites. This is an opportunity for the Legislature to provide justice for victims and send a strong message to those who victimize others and violate one's privacy that they will be met with consequence. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Okay, do we have anybody that wishes to be a lead opposition witness? And they can have two minutes to express that. If not, we're going to take the me toos. At this time, if you are in favor or against this Bill, please come to the mic.

State your objection or support and who you are and where you're from.

Mister chair Members. Corey Salzillo, on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association, in support.

Thank you.

Kristin Schlessel, on behalf of California District Attorneys Association, in support.

George Parampathu, on behalf of ACLU, California Action in opposition. Thank you.

Richard Maher, America First Policy Institute, in support.

Thank you very much. Okay, we'll bring it back to the Dais. Any questions? What are you thinking? No questions. Concerns? Comments? Nobody? Okay. No. Alright. I will say thank you for bringing a Bill like this.

I know there's sentiment out there that, you know, increasing the penalties does not reduce crime, but, you know, sometimes it's not about the reduction in crime as much as about separating the people committing those crimes from the people they are victimizing until we figure out what to do with them.

And this is one of those type of bills. This is an egregious, egregious act that people do. And they don't do it by accident. They do it on purpose. And so this is a way for us to hold them accountable and at the same time separate those, them from doing the activity that they continue to do.

And I think this is a way of handling it. And I think it's a good way of handling it. So with that, I will entertain. I mean, you can go ahead and close. I'm sorry.

Thank you, Senator. AB 1874 is a reasonable measure that will provide judges more discretion to punish convicted criminals who repeatedly record minors in intimate settings. I respectfully ask for your aye vote in support of this measurement.

Thank you very much. And since I am not able to. Can I get a motion? I'm about to send the gavel down there.

No.

We'll just wait.

I'll just wait, we'll just wait and, alright, let's do it that way. I'm no longer the chair for right now.

Hi, Senator.

Senator Seyarto, would you like to make a motion?

I think I would like to make a motion on this Bill. I'd like this motion to go forward or this Bill to go forward. Thank you.

The Bill has been moved. Can we have a roll call?

Item number six, AB 1874. The motion is do pass to appropriations. [Roll Call]

We'll leave it on call.

Thank you.

Okay, great. Okay. Yes. Assembly Member Maienschein, you may present. Would you like to--

Yes, please. Thank you. Just in case you have to go to Energy.

That's true.

Well, thank you very much, both Madam and Mr. Chair. Under current law, Penal Code Section 29805 prescribes a number of misdemeanor offenses that, upon conviction, prohibit a person from possessing a firearm for a period of ten years, some of these offenses, including threatening public officials, assault, and child abuse.

However, if a defendant is charged with one of these crimes and is granted misdemeanor diversion, there is no ban on firearm possession. AB 2519 prohibits a defendant who receives misdemeanor diversion for a crime listed in Penal Code Section 29805 from possessing a firearm until they have successfully completed diversion. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

All right. Did you bring any witnesses with you today?

No.

Okay. Is there anybody who wishes to speak as a primary witness in favor of this bill? Is there anybody who wishes to speak as a primary witness in opposition to this bill? Is there anybody who would like to come to the microphone and be a #MeToo to just state your simple support or opposition for this bill?

Anna Ioakimedes with Los Angeles Unified, in support.

Thank you.

Kristin Schlessel, on behalf of California District Attorneys Association, in support.

Very good. And there doesn't appear to be anybody else, so at this time, we'll bring it back to the dais for any questions, comments.

I will move the bill.

The bill has been moved. Mr. Maien--or Assembly Member, you may close.

Thank you very much. I respectfully request an aye vote.

All right. With that, we request--I mean we have a motion to approve by Senator Skinner. Go ahead and call roll.

Item Number 16: AB 2519, motion is: do pass to Appropriations. [Roll Call]. Bill's on call.

Thank you very much.

All right. That bill will remain on call. We have no other--let's go ahead and add on. Oh, we do. Oh, Ms. Soria, there you are. Sorry. Yes. Come on up and you may present your bill at this time.

Great. Good morning, Mister Vice Chair and Members. AB 2281 is a simple but a very important bill for our tribal judges here in California. Similar to our state and federal counterparts, tribal courts oversee a variety of legal cases that can touch upon very sensitive issues.

Misdemeanor cases, custody battles, and child support cases risk the chance of emotions becoming heightened and leading to threats and assaults on tribal court judges. A 2022 study published by the Center for Judicial Executive Security notes that the rate of threats and courthouse violence has increased every decade in the United States between 1970 and 2010.

In an effort to guard against such incidents, the State of California grants additional safety and privacy protections to state and federal judges. However, even though tribal court judges often face similar threats of violence in courtrooms, they are excluded from these safety and privacy protections.

AB 2281 expands existing legal protections to ensure that tribal court judges are in equal standing with their state and federal counterparts. This bill has no opposition and has enjoyed bipartisan support. With me today to testify in support of AB 2281 is Heather Holster, Executive Director of the California Indian Legal Services, Samantha Cypret, Chief of Staff for Chairman Tarango of Wilton Rancheria.

All right, whichever wishes to speak first, you may come up to the mic. Each of you have two minutes. If you could remain, I mean, stay close to that--

Actually, our second witness is still on the way, walking.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Well, hurricane's tough today.

All right. Go ahead and begin.

Good morning, members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today in support of AB 2281. My name is Heather Hostler. I'm the Executive Director of California Indian Legal Services and a citizen of the Hoopa Valley Tribe.

The California Indian Legal Services was established in 1967 during the civil rights era to advance American Indian rights, self-determination and tribal nation building. CILS is general counsel for the California Tribal Court Judges Association and has a bird's-eye view of many of the issues and brought forward this bill in response.

AB 2281 seeks to extend crucial privacy protections to tribal court judges of federally-recognized Indian tribes. This bill is not just about extending privacy protections. It is about recognizing and rectifying the inequities faced by tribal court judges.

It acknowledges their essential role in upholding the rights and sovereignty of federally recognized tribes and ensures that they perform their duties without fear of their personal safety. In recent years, the California Legislature has demonstrated a strong commitment to social and racial justice, passing significant reforms to address systemic inequities.

We are asking that you address yet another disparity through AB 2281 and ensure that tribal court judges receive the same level of protection and respect as their peers in the state and federal judiciary. Thank you.

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

My name is Samantha Cypret and I am Mountain Mighty from the Taylorsville Rancheria. Hello and good morning to Chair McCarty and the members of this Committee. I serve as the Chief of Staff for Wilton Rancheria. I also teach Federal Indian Law at the University of Pacific McGeorge School of Law.

I previously served as the tribe's Tribal Court Director, and it's with that capacity that I'm here today to express my strong support for Assembly Bill 2281. AB 2281 would afford tribal court judges the same level of protection granted to state and federal court officers.

As someone who has worked in both state and tribal courts, I know this legislation is crucial for several reasons. First, tribal court judges are often tasked with making decisions in highly contentious and emotionally charged matters, such as guardianships, protective orders, and domestic violence hearings.

And while each tribe may be different, many tribal courts do not have the same basic level of security, such as bailiffs and metal detectors, considered commonplace in state and federal courts. Many tribes have no security measures in place at all.

This, when coupled with the fact that many tribes are in very rural or remote areas, can lead to tragedy. We've seen catastrophic examples of this of this combination, specifically the heartbreaking events of the Cedarville Rancheria in 2014, where four people were killed and others wounded in the middle of a tribal proceeding.

Next, tribal court judges may be members of the community in which they work. This can put them in increased risk for assault or other threats of violence outside of the courtroom. Offering tribal court judges the same level of confidentiality as state and federal judges would allow for increased protection and peace of mind as they serve their nations.

Finally, tribal court judges deserve the same dignity and respect as federal courts. This bill would affirm the legislature's commitment to recognizing and preserving tribal sovereignty. This legislation confirms that tribal nations, by way of their judiciary, are deserving of the same appreciation, respect and security as any other government official from across the state.

AB 2281 is not just a step in the right direction. It is a necessary action to correct the current disparity between tribal court judges and state and federal judges. The protections outlined in this legislation are crucial and important--

Thank you. Your two minutes is up.

Thank you.

Thank you. All right. Thank both of you for your testimony this morning. Do we have anybody who wishes to speak as a lead opposition witness? If not, we will take the me-toos at this time. Please come forward and state your name, the organization you represent, whether you oppose or approve of the bill.

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

Thank you. Doesn't look like anybody else is coming up, so at this time we'll bring it up to the dais. Any questions, motion? Skinner.

I will move the bill.

Bill has been moved. Assemblymember Soria, you may close if you wish.

Thank you, members of the Committee. I do respectfully ask for an aye vote. And for the record, it is Chairwoman Wahab. I know that one of my--

Oh, I thought you were referring to me. No, I am not.

I just want to make sure that folks know.

We understand that. It's all right.

Just before we take the roll--

Yes, ma'am.

Assemblymember, appreciate your bringing it. This should have been afforded to our tribal judges. So you're just making something equitable because they play the same role in the judicial system for our tribal communities as our judges do for the rest of us. So thank you. Appreciate it.

All right. And was your closing finished? I didn't--

Yes.

Okay, very good. Thank you. So we do have a motion. Go ahead and call roll.

Item 13, AB 2281. Motion is due passed to Appropriations. [Roll call]

All right, that bill will remain on call.

Thank you.

Thank you. And next up we have Assemblymember Ting. I believe you have two bills to present.

I do. Thank you, Mister Chair. If I could proceed with AB 2178.

Let's proceed with AB 2178.

Thank you. Appreciate it. So, AB 2178 is a structured approach to address the state's empty prison bed issue in our facilities with a looming budget deficit.

Currently, we have numerous beds, over 13,000 beds, and projected to have almost 20,000 empty beds by 2028. This obviously has significant fiscal costs to our state. It seems to be fiscally prudent to look at ways to reduce our empty bed capacity over time.

This bill merely tells the Department to reduce the prison bed threshold from its current 13,000-bed threshold over time to 2930 to have a 2500-bed cushion. We think this is very prudent, makes a lot of sense and also is gives the Department plenty of time to ramp down the number of empty beds in their facilities.

And given our fiscal situation, it's one of the one areas where we could cut in our budget. So, with that, I do have LAO here if there's any technical questions. With that, respectfully ask for your aye vote.

All right. Are you here for technical questions or to.

I'm your substantive witness.

Sorry. My witness.

Okay, so you have two minutes, if you would please keep to that.

Natasha Minsker for Smart Justice, California. As the Senators well know, the State of California has a significant budget deficit. We are facing potential cuts in education, public health, and critical social net services.

Meanwhile, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Budget is now $19 billion. The cost for each person we keep in prison is $130,000 a year. The costs per person are so high, in part because we are paying for so many empty beds. 13,000 by last count.

You know, it's one thing to cut education and public health and social services in order to pay for the necessary costs of maintaining our prison system. It's a completely different thing to cut the core services that most Californians rely on to pay for empty prison beds.

AB 2178 is a fiscally responsive bill that moves the State of California carefully in the right direction, ensuring that we can protect the services that all Californians rely on for our education, our public health, and our social net services. This bill is about the needs of all Californians, and we urge an aye vote thank you.

Thank you very much for your testimony this morning. Is there anybody else who wishes to testify as a primary witness? If not, we will go to opposition. If there's anybody who would like to speak in opposition as a primary witness, you have two minutes.

Good morning, Mister Chair and Committee Members. Matthew Easley, representing the California Correctional Peace Officers Association. We do appreciate the motivations of Assembly Bill AB 2178 but we do have some significant concerns using only bed vacancies as the means and calculation for reducing capacity while we're still operating at approximately 120% of design capacity.

So, only increasing the problem that we've been trying to address for over a decade, the closures that will necessarily result from this bill, will negatively impact the availability of programming space. While different programs, education, career, technical, schooling, GED programs, are already competing for scarce space in prison, and this is only going to further that problem. Thank you.

Thank you very much. If there's no other lead opposition witnesses, we will take the me toos. Please come to the mic. State your name, your organization that you represent, and your either approval or disapproval of the measure.

Danica Rodarmel on behalf of Initiate Justice and Ella Baker Center in strong support.

Jim Lindbergh, Friends Committee on Legislation of California in strong support.

Dax Proctor, Californians United for Responsible Budget in strong support.

George Brampthew on behalf of ACLU California Action in support. Thank you.

Dan Messner with the California Public Defenders Association in support.

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

Marlene Mercado with Uncommon Law in strong support.

Thank you very much. It looks like we've exhausted the amount of people coming to speak. Do we have anybody from the dais? We're going to bring it back to the dais now. Senator Skinner.

Thank you for bringing the Bill. This is important because we, the good work that the Legislature has been doing for some number of years to address appropriate sentencing so that we are using our criminal laws in a way that, in fact, protects public safety. That's got to be our number one objective. But we also have to be smart about our responsibilities for taxpayers, for the budget as a whole.

And with the work that's been done over the last 10-15 years, as you rightfully pointed out in your presentation, we now have a prison population of around 90,000, and yet we have facilities that were designed for far more and to keep yards open. That where there's perhaps, you know, two individual incarcerated individuals or none in, you know, countless numbers of facilities, is not a good use of taxpayer funds and does not promote public safety.

It also ties up money that, because this is one of our few areas where we have discretion, and that's meaning the CDCR's budget, it is one that is a discretionary part of our General Fund. The funds that we are utilizing to maintain beds that we don't need are funds that instead could be used for rehabilitative programs. There's just so many aspects to why we need to right size our facilities and right size our corrections budget while still putting public safety first, which I think is what your Bill is doing. So I'm appreciative that you brought it forward. Happy to move it. I'm also appreciative of the LAOs work on doing this analysis to help us with the determination of what is an appropriate cushion or bed threshold to use.

Thank you, Senator Seyarto.

So I have a question regarding the, what the goal is, because it's not just to count beds and then decide that we have inoperable, you know, we don't, it doesn't cost anything to have an empty bed unless you're maintaining a whole facility that does that empty, you know, that houses that empty bed.

So this is essentially a way to try to consolidate the facilities that we do have remaining, because we've taken a lot offline, and those are hard to fire back up. We have them kind of on a warm start status right now. Is that what the intent of this Bill is, is to try to identify more places where we can shut down more prisons or a determining factor in shutting down those prisons.

So this Bill is, if you think about it from a real estate point of view, that if you have empty office buildings per se, you're looking to make sure that we're consolidating and looking at having those empty office buildings either taken offline or potentially not used, or you figure out how to better use your real estate.

I think the difference between, say, an office building and a prison is the fact that you actually have significant staffing costs and you have significant costs to keep it up. And so what we've seen is, given the fact that there are another number of empty beds, this is about forcing the Department to actually have a long term plan, a long term vision around how to best use all their facilities.

I know that myself, Senator Skinner, a number of years during budget hearings have asked the Department for plans on how they plan to, to use their facilities, given that the population has really dropped in half. And so when I started the Legislature in 2012, the prison population is now half of what that was in 2012.

At the same time, the budget has gone up almost double from when it was in 2012. No other Department, no other program would we fund this way. We wouldn't fund CalWORKS this way. We wouldn't fund Medi-Cal this way. We wouldn't fund UC or CSU or any of our community college this way.

And so it's really asking the Department to be fiscally responsible. This is one metric, and if they had other metrics, I'm happy to incorporate them in the Bill. They have not brought that forward. You heard opposition mentioned rehabilitation, which is also what the Department mentioned in budget hearings.

What's interesting is when I asked them what rehabilitation programs they do in prison cells, they couldn't answer that question. They said they actually don't do any rehabilitation in prison cells. So it's kind of odd that they would need the empty prison cells for rehabilitation. So again, it's sort of been very, very frustrating in working with the Department that we don't get answers. There's no accountability in terms of money, and they absolutely have no plan in terms of either their long term capital needs or in terms of their current capital usage. So this Bill, I believe, is one small step in really forcing the Department to be significantly more fiscally responsible.

Well, the prisons that I visited and some of them have had this decrease in population, have either repurposed those facilities where the beds are into a different thing, like an education hall or something like that. So, you know, that's a useful purpose that they're using them for. Otherwise they just shut off the switch and it's empty.

And the maintenance requirements for an empty building that's not using electricity or anything else is not that much. But what it does provide is flexibility. And the flexibility comes because as we have allowed our prison population, you know, everybody's celebrating. We've allowed the prison population to go in half.

Well, the reason for that is because we took a bunch of things that were crimes where people used to go to prison for, and they don't go anymore. And so we have actually, is that an indication that there's less crime? Maybe a little bit. I don't know. But what I do see is a bunch of retail theft Bill packages that we're now promoting and a Proposition on a ballot that has decided that that was a failed experiment. And there are going to be probably more arrests around this.

And so I think counting beds and then shutting down prisons because we have some empty beds, the beds don't take anything to maintain. There's nobody shining them up every day or having to make them every day. So I'm thinking that our prison system, if you're concerned about the costs, well, look at every single Department, city, agency, government agency, the state, and see who else has doubled their budget since 2012, because I believe we have. So, yeah, that's everybody.

And there's so many costs associated with that and so many reasons associated with that. I'm kind of tired of hearing that they're the only ones somehow that have increased their budget while they're decreasing some services because they're on standby. Standby costs money. We can't just eliminate them as much as some people would love to do that. So I think whatever we've been doing is probably excessive. We're shutting down yet another prison.

Chuckawalla. And so we'll have another dormant facility. If you want to fix the prison system, then fix the prison system. But if we just want to eliminate facilities so we can say we don't have room for people, I think that's a terrible way to keep our public safe. And so I will be opposing this Bill today because I don't think it is helpful for public safety in the long run.

And I think having those beds available allows us to have the flexibility we need to not just make crimes, not crimes anymore, but to hold people accountable and separate people when we need to from the people that they are victimizing out there, because that's the other part of what this system is for. It's to keep people who like to victimize people separated from people who are just law abiding citizens trying to go about their business every day. So, with that, I appreciate your answers, and I'm not moving the Bill. I think it was moved by Skinner.

Thank you. Would you like to just close?

Sure. Happy to. Again, you know, during tough fiscal times, we have to make tough fiscal choices. This one's a fairly easy one. The equivalency of 13,000 empty beds is between three to five empty prisons. LAO's projection of 20,000 empty beds gets us close to six to seven empty prisons. At a time when we are talking about closing schools, sending less money to UC and CSU, putting less food on people's tables, or finding ways that we can fund affordable housing, this choice is easy. And so, again, I believe this is a fiscally prudent Bill. Would ask for your support of AB 2178.

Thank you. We have a motion by Senator Skinner. Can we get a roll call, please?

Item number 10. AB 2178. Motion is due pass to Appropriations. [Roll Call].

That bill's on call. Assemblymember, would you like to present AB 2483?

I would, Madam Chair. Thank you. So AB 2483 follows the Commission on the review of the penal code's recommendation to set statewide guidelines ensuring efficient and equitable resensing procedures. We've done over the last number of years, a number of resentencing procedure bills, including few that I've done myself.

So now that we have district attorneys, board of parole hearings, CDC, our secretary and judges, they have the authority to refer people back for a second look on their sentence. This Bill would just give the court standardized guidelines creating consistency across the state with implementation of recency laws.

I have Tom Nosewicz with the Committee on the Revision of the penal code as a witness.

Thank you. And you only have one witness?

Yes.

Alright, you will have two minutes.

Good morning, Chair and member staff. I'm Tom Nosewicz, Legal Director for the Committee on Revision of the Penal Code, which is a state entity that was created to make recommendations to the Legislature and the Governor about public safety and all aspects of criminal law in the state.

As Mister Ting said, this Bill is based on a recommendation from the penal code. Committee's most recent annual report, we found that, you know, there's been a, the Legislature and voter initiatives have regularly created resentencing laws, but each time there's a new law, there might be different procedures or certain procedures

are not addressed, and it wastes a lot of time in court the with parties and the judges. And then there's appellate litigation to work these things out, which avoids getting to the heart of what's supposed to happen is whether someone should get a new sentence or not. So the rules that are in this Bill are defaults.

If there's something in a resentencing provision that's more specific that would control, if there's a new resentencing law that could choose a different procedural rule with that new law. And we found these rules by looking at what the Legislature has done in recent bills, what courts have decided, and what practitioners told us would be most efficient.

And the Bill also directs CDCR, the prison authority, to make records available more readily, which is often a big delay in getting these resentencings done.

So this Bill, the Penal Code Committee recommended this Bill because it would make court proceedings more efficient and focused on the merits of what should happen about enter re-sentencing and not distracted by collateral or procedural issues. Thank you.

Thank you. Can we have lead opposition?

My name is Kristin Schlessel. I'm a Deputy District Attorney in Sacramento county, and I am here on behalf of California District Attorneys Association to urge you to oppose Assembly Bill 2483 which will create greater inconsistency and inefficiencies in post conviction procedures.

AB 2483 has the potential for creating ambiguity and uncertainty in these postconviction matters by seeking to impose a generalized framework for the form, process, time of petitions, and eligibility for relief under various ameliorative statutes. However, there are already distinct mechanisms in place for initiating and obtaining relief under these statutes.

By attempting to encompass all proceedings to modify a sentence or conviction pursuant to an ameliorative statute without clearly defining the scope, AB 2483 opens the door to confusion and extensive litigation.

The provision granting court's jurisdiction to consider any pertinent circumstances to modify every aspect of a sentence could potentially lead to limitless authority to alter a sentence despite a jury's unanimous verdict or a plea agreement.

This legislation would create a situation where every part of a lawfully obtained judgment is subject to being struck, dismissed, or modified, creating further legal uncertainty for all parties, including crime victims. Moreover, the retroactive application of 2483 raises concerns about its impact on past convictions and sentences.

Without clear guidance on how the Bill applies retroactively, there is a risk of disrupting settled judgments and creating additional legal challenges for both prosecutors and defense attorneys. Therefore, I respectfully urge you to oppose AB 2483. Thank you.

Thank you. Can we get me toos, both in support or opposition, please? Clearly state whether you support or oppose.

Natasha Minsker, Smart Justice California in strong support.

Danica Rodarmel, I'm on behalf of Initiate Justice, proud co sponsor and also delivering support on behalf of Ella Baker Center.

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

Margie Lie, Samson Advisors on behalf of Families Against Mandatory Minimums in strong support.

Jim Lindbergh, Friends Committee on Legislation of California, in support.

George Parampathu, on behalf of ACLU California Action in support. Thank you.

Dan Messner with the California Public Defenders Association in strong support.

Cecilia Chavez, on behalf of Silicon Valley De-bug in strong support.

Thank you. Really appreciate it. Members of the Committee, would you guys like to speak on the item? Seeing none. Assemblymember, would you like to close?

Again, this is a fairly simple Bill that the Committee on the Revision of the penal code, I think, went through. Just trying to streamline the process, make it simpler and more efficient. Respectfully ask for your aye vote on 2483.

Thank you. Do we have a motion? Do we have a motion?

So moved.

Thank you, Senator Skinner moves the Bill. Let's get a roll call vote.

Item number 11, AB 2483. Motion is do pass to appropriations. [Roll Call].

That bill's on call. Thank you so much Assemblymember.

We can do lift calls while we're waiting for toll risk.

On file item number three, AB 1831 by Assemblymember Berman. Can I get a motion?

Yes.

Senator Seyarto has moved the bill. Can we get a roll call?

Item number 3, 1831. Motion is due pass as amended to Appropriations. [Roll call]

All right, that bill's on call. Can we also get a roll call for item number six, AB 1874 by Sanchez.

Item number 6, 1874. Motion is due pass to Appropriations. [Roll call]

All right, that bill's on call. Can we get-- No, I want to do mine first. File item number seven, AB 1877 by Assemblymember Jackson.

1877. Motion is due passed to Appropriations. [Roll call]

All right, that bill's on call. File item number 13 by Assemblymember Soria.

AB 2281. Motion is due pass to Appropriations, current vote two to zero. [Roll call]

All right, that bill's on call. And can we get file number 16, AB 2519 by Maienschein.

Item 16. Motion is due passed to Appropriations, two to zero, current vote. [Roll call]

Let's do it again. File item number 16 AB 2519 by Maienschein.

[Roll call]

Thank you. That file item is still on call.

Assemblymember Kara will be presenting file item 20, AB 3021. Assemblymember, whenever you're ready.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. AB 3021 requires peace officers, prosecuting attorneys, or investigators to identify themselves and explain the right of individuals being questioned prior to engaging with the immediate family of someone who has been killed or severely injured by a peace officer.

In the aftermath of incidents involving police violence, families of the victim are often approached by authorities under the guise of an interview. Family members are told to go to the precinct, not given information about the state of their loved one, and often lied to about the incident as they are interrogated.

While the family member is distressed and worried for their loved one, law enforcement officers use this opportunity to coerce information about the victim's past in order to incriminate the deceased and shield officers from liability.

Initially perceived by families as isolated incidents, it has come to light that this practice is a police interrogation tactic promoted by a private entity named Lexipol. Lexipol offers instruction on 95% of our law enforcement agencies on techniques to extract information from families with the aim of protecting officers from legal repercussions and criminal allegations.

Such tactics not only inflict harm upon the victim and their family, but also erode trust in law enforcement. Family members of individuals affected by police violence have a reasonable expectation of transparency about the circumstances surrounding their loved ones without being manipulated.

By putting in a few moments between the incident and interrogation, we can empower families to exercise their rights in interactions with police officers when they are most vulnerable. With me to provide supporting testimony is Sam Sullivan, sister of David Sullivan, and Ed Little, with Californians for Safety and Justice.

So each witness will get two minutes. Go ahead, you can start.

My name is Sam Sullivan. My little brother, David Sullivan, was murdered on the morning of August 19, 2019 by Buena Park police officers Bobby Colon and Jennifer Tran. I was informed of his death around 01:00 a.m. that night, and with no sleep or information, we were asked to speak with the DA's deputies.

I believe they were investigating the wrongful actions of the officers who killed David. Instead, they had a plan to extrapolate information about David to prove his killing was justified and to fit a standardized narrative of suicide by cop. These tactics, implemented by controversial law enforcement policy provider Lexipol, turns our grieving ramblings into evidence against our loved ones.

During this interrogation, I was asked leading questions with no relevance about my brother's mental health, his popularity in school, even his feelings about being overweight. David was unarmed, but they asked repeatedly if he had a gun. Their goal was to get one person to confirm their narrative of David being depressed and suicidal.

I'm ashamed to say I fell directly into this trap and confirmed their speculations without question. I was willing to accept their version of reality under this moment of duress because my reality had been shattered. A large focus of the defense's case was in reference to my interview claiming I confirmed David's suicidal intent.

Bruce Praet, the defense lawyer for Buena Park and co-founder of Lexipol, was able to pick and choose my words to fit his fabrication of who David was in an attempt to convince the jury that David was going to die that day, regardless of the negligent actions of those officers.

AB 3021 is aimed to bring accountability to an oversight in the current legal system. Police victims families deserve honesty, support and equal rights as the perpetrating officers who get paid leave, legal consultation and the ability to review body cam footage prior to giving a statement.

Had this bill been in place the day David was killed, our family likely would not have agreed to speak with the DA's office right away and taken a moment to process rather than giving them further ammunition to assassinate David's character. As police killings continue to rise, the need for victims families to be informed of their rights grows. And on their behalf, I ask for your aye vote on AB 3021.

Thank you. Can we get the next lead witness?

Good morning Chair Wahab and Senators. My name is Ed Little and I am a Government Affairs Manager with Californians for Safety and Justice. Family members of victims who have been seriously injured or killed deserve information and support, not manipulation, coercion, regardless of who caused the harm.

But in California, many survivors whose family members are injured or killed by law enforcement are not given this basic dignity. They are instead too often denied information, manipulated into sharing information about their loved one's past while worried and not knowing if their family member is safe. This practice is not an accident.

An LA Times investigation found that law enforcement officers across California are trained to withhold information from worried family members of victims in order to extract information to make a case against the victim who has been seriously injured or killed.

Officers may give family members the impression that their loved one has been arrested or accused of a crime, and family members may volunteer information that they think will help, not knowing that their loved one has actually been killed. These practices compound trauma and fracture trust when family members are finally given the devastating news.

No one should be treated this way in their moments of deepest pain and vulnerability. AB 3021 provides basic protections for family members of victims of police violence and clarity for officers on how to advise family members of their rights.

This bill will require officers to clearly identify themselves and to advise family members of victims seriously injured or killed by law enforcement of their rights, including the right to ask for information about their family members well-being, to refuse to answer questions, to speak to an attorney, advocate, or support person first.

For these reasons, we ask for your aye vote on AB 3021. Thank you.

Thank you. Can I have lead opposition?

Thank you, Madam Chair and members. Cory Salzillo, on behalf of the California State Sheriffs Association, respectfully in opposition. This bill creates new rights for family members of persons killed or seriously injured by a peace officer.

Conferring these rights to family members will undoubtedly impede investigations and could hinder law enforcement's ability to quickly and accurately ascertain information relevant and vital to an investigation. And that's the point of of these interactions.

The bill, despite the recent amendments, also continues to create the possibility of situations where a family member may be killed or injured and another family member may be involved in an alleged criminal act.

And this bill fails to adequately account for such situations and could create untenable circumstances, including a scenario where, by virtue of the fact that a person is not being-- they're told they're not being detained for the purposes of questioning them about their decision, deceased or injured family member, but then potentially detained later for their involvement in the underlying act.

Again, there have been amendments, but we don't think this rectifies the situation.

Finally, I would just say the bill creates a false equivalency between persons who are detained for a custodial interrogation and the rights that they have by virtue of their detention and 50 plus years of Supreme Court jurisprudence, and persons who happen to be related to someone who was killed or injured by a peace officer.

We certainly understand the proponents desire here, but feel this bill will impede investigations by giving certain people rights to which they are not currently entitled. Thank you.

Thank you. You'll have two minutes as well.

Thank you. My name is Kristen Schlessel. I'm a Deputy District Attorney at the Sacramento County District Attorney's Office, and I'm here on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association to strongly oppose AB 3021, which imposes Miranda-like warnings on non-custodial police encounters.

Miranda warnings are reserved for custodial interrogations where individuals are suspected of crimes because such situations are inherently coercive and the warnings are designed to protect a suspect's right against self incrimination. Family members affected by police incidents are not suspects, nor are they in custody.

Providing Miranda-like warnings to anyone other than an accused would confuse and cheat in a system that has spent decades trying to provide adequate safeguards to those who are accused of committing crimes. The core issue lies in the potential for these warnings to mislead rather than inform.

Telling a family member that they have the right to remain silent, that anything they can say, anything they say can be used against them in court, that they have the right to refuse to be searched, and that they have the right to legal representation could carry an implication of guilt, as Miranda rights are designed specifically to address self-incrimination.

As such, family members may view these warnings as inherently accusatory. Applying these warnings to non-suspects could deter individuals from providing crucial information in a situation where understanding the whole picture, like mental health history, is vital. Moreover, this bill would obstruct communication between families and law enforcement, hindering the pursuit of justice and transparency.

Families play a vital role in providing context and understanding in such sensitive cases, which is essential for fair and informed decision making. Therefore, we respectfully urge you to oppose Assembly Bill 3021. Thank you.

Thank you. Can we get me-toos both in support and opposition? Again, state your name, your organization, and whether you support or oppose nothing else. Thank you.

Danica Rodarmel on behalf of Initiate Justice, in strong support

Jonathan Feldman, California Police Chiefs Association, opposition.

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

Natasha Minsker, Smart Justice California, in support.

George Prampthu, on behalf of ACLU California Action, in support. Thank you.

Dax Proctor, Californians United for a Responsible Budget, in support.

Dan Messner with the California Public Defenders Association, in strong support.

Marlene Mercado with Uncommon Law, in strong support.

Jim Lindberg, Friends Committee on Legislation of California, in support.

Sharon Watkins, impacted family member and Community Organizer for Silicon Valley De-Bug, strong support.

DeAnna Sullivan, mother of David Sullivan and also with De-Bug, in strong support.

Anthony Lozano, in support of the family of David Sullivan, in support.

Rosie Chavez with Silicon Valley De-Bug, also impacted family, in strong support.

Judy Edens, the mother of Jason Alderman, in support.

Theresa Smith, mother of Caesar Cruz and I'm in strong support of this bill.

Regina Cardenas, impacted family member. I'm in strong support.

My name is Mariela Vazquez. My hija is Jennifer Vasquez.

Jesse, father of Anthony Nunez, in strong support.

Sandy Sanchez, mother of 18-year-old Anthony, killed 24th of July 2016, in strong support.

Julianne Sines, granddaughter Rudy Cardenas, in support.

Jordan Cardenas, granddaughter of Rudy Cardenas, in support.

In strong support. The parents of Diana Showman, David Tobar, Anthony Guzman Lopez, Tyler Scott Roshing, and Stephen Taylor. On behalf of Silicon Valley De-Bug in strong support.

Raymond Goins, Silicon Valley De-Bug on behalf of the families of Francisco Villarreal, Trevor Seaver, Lorenzo Cruz, Ernie Serrano and Chris Acomoto, strongly support.

Some families who couldn't be here today that are in strong support: the family of Brandon Anthony Lopez, Demetrius Stanley, Furman Vincent Valenzuela and I think that's it here.

Hello. Liz Gonzalez with Silicon Valley De-Bug, in strong support. And on behalf of the families that couldn't be here: the family of Jesus Geney Montes, family of Michael Barrera, the family of Jaime Naranjo, the family of Darnell Benson, the family of, oh, Michael Barrera. Thank you.

Sorry. One more family in support of Mike E. Nelson Jr.

A couple more. The family of Augustine Morales, the family of Richard "Harpo" Jacquez and the family of AJ Phillips. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no other speakers, Committee Members, if you would like to comment. All right, thank you. We have a motion. I do just want to highlight. I do appreciate all the families coming here, especially for those of you guys that have lost a loved one even years ago.

I will say, Assemblymember that in my city when I was a Council Member, we did have an officer-involved shooting. And, you know, it opened my eyes to how things are done. And, you know, the family complained that they didn't even know the time of death of the individual. They were given two or three different times.

And obviously, when law enforcement comes to your door, you're often scared and you're under the pretense of, I'm trying to help figure out what's going on and so forth. So not all information is very transparent.

So I do just want to highlight that this is, is a difficult situation for a lot of family members, and many family members do not know what their rights are in general, and let alone when they are aware that a loved one is in crisis, you know, they want to do anything and say anything to provide some context of some sort without knowing the full context of the situation.

So I do appreciate you bringing this. Would you like to close?

I appreciate your comments, Madam Chair, and we'll take your comments as my close. Appreciate an aye vote.

Thank you. We have a motion by Senator Skinner.

Item number 20. Motion AB 3021. Motion is due passed to Appropriations. [Roll call]

Thank you. That bill's on call. Appreciate it. All right, we're gonna be-- Can we just ask if Senator Wiener's here? Is he not done?

We will be lifting calls on file item number one through consent. Let's do consent and just make sure that everybody has voted on consent.

[Roll Call]

That is still on call. We're going to lift file item number one.

[Roll Call]

That bill's on call number three. [Roll Call] All right, that bill's on call number six.

[Roll Call]

That bill's on call, moving to item number 10.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Number 11. Bill's on call. Sorry, sorry, go ahead.

[Roll Call]

That bill's on call, final item number 13.

[Roll Call]

That Bills on call number 28. We are waiting on Senator Wiener. We're hoping that he arrives so we can close out the roll. All right, we're going to lift calls. We will start with consent items.

[Roll Call]

We're going to move on to number two.

[Roll Call]

That Bill is out, and we are done. That is all. Thank you, all committees and Jordan all right, thank you.