Assembly Standing Committee on Public Safety

Great. Hopefully you can hear me over the drilling. Good morning. Morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Thank you for the opportunity to present SB 1416, which creates a set of escalating enhancements for middlemen found guilty of profiting from the sale, exchange, return, or attempted resale of items obtained through organized retail theft.

Before I begin, I'd like to note that the most recent amendments would add a sunset date of January 1st, 2030, allowing the Legislature to consider the effects of inflation on this legislation to ensure that the penalties remain relevant. The amendments also add an urgency clause to the bill in line with the broader effort around the Senate's Working Together for A Safer California Package, of which this is a part to address the immediate threat that organized retail theft poses to our communities.

As you're aware, increasingly sophisticated organized retail theft operations often involve multiple people collaborating in a coordinated effort to steal merchandise from multiple stores, thereby maximizing the amount of stolen goods aggregated for eventual resale. These operations commonly methodically target merchandise with high resale value and strong consumer demand.

Such items often include electronics, designer clothing, pharmaceuticals, baby formula, diapers, razor blades, power tools, and even makeup products. Organized retail theft, as defined under California Penal Code Section 490.4, includes any person who acts in concert with one or more other persons to steal merchandise from one or more merchants' premises or online marketplaces with the intent to sell, exchange, or return it for value.

A disconcerting byproduct of the evolution of social media and the rise of online marketplaces is the ease with which individuals or syndicates can seamlessly coordinate the activities of others to steal, aggregate, and then resell stolen goods. The scale has begun to compete with the legitimate businesses from which these goods are originally stolen.

As a prime example of this phenomenon, last Thursday, a 71-year-old man and his 39-year-old accomplice were arrested and charged in Long Beach with stealing more than 2,800 boxes of Legos in sets whose values ranged from 20 dollars to well over 1,000 dollars.

An investigation revealed that at least some of the merchandise had been stolen from Target stores in the Southern California area and that the stolen Lego sets were being sold to buyers both locally and across the country through online listings. That's right, a sophisticated fencing ring for stolen Legos, of all things.

And this isn't even the first instance recently of Legocentric organized retail theft because the market for collection-worthy sets of Legos has been so strong, Legos have been the focus of other organized retail theft rings in other parts of California. This past April 4th, Southern California residents were arrested and charged with stealing over 300,000 dollars worth of Lego sets from local retail stores, also with an eye on the online market for their resale.

Under the provisions of AB 1065 and later extended through subsequent recent legislation, the California Highway Patrol, in addition, in consultation with the DOJ, has developed task forces to work with allied agencies and affected distributors, shippers, and retailers to combat organize retail theft across the state. The enhancements created by this bill will add another set of tools in support of that important work.

Under its provisions, a person found guilty of operating a fencing operation to dispose of goods secured through organized retail theft will be sentenced to an additional term of one year in prison if the property value exceeds 50,000 dollars, two additional years if the value of the stolen property exceeds 200,000 dollars, three years if the value exceeds one million dollars, and four additional years if the value exceeds three million dollars.

As I noted in my opening, this bill is a component of the Senate's Working Together for A Safer California Package. By enhancing the criminal penalties associated with organized retail theft, SB 1416 will better safeguard California's businesses by deterring those hoping to profit from it. With me to testify today is Ryan Allain from the California Retailers Association. I am respectfully asking for your aye vote this morning.

Thank you, but before you proceed, do we have a quorum? Yes. We do. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call].

Yes, and then before your witness goes, I just wanted to clarify--you made your opening statement--I just want to note that for this bill and the other three bills, there are not being amended today in Public Safety Committee, they're being heard as is, without the urgency clause and without the inoperable clause?

That is correct.

So those will be considered potentially. A later day. Not today.

Correct.

And with that, I'll move the bill.

Please begin. Witness.

Thank you, Chair McCarty, Senator Newman, and Members of the Committee. My name is Ryan Allain, and I'm the Director of Government Affairs for the California Retailers Association. We are pleased to support SB 1416, which, as the author just explained, would create sentencing enhancements for attempting to sell, exchange, or return for value any property acquired through retail theft. Organized retail theft has plagued the retail industry and our communities in recent years.

It has forced retailers to spend millions annually on security measures such as guards, cameras, and store redesigns. Retail employees and customers are increasingly feeling unsafe, and the simple act of shopping has become burdensome for many. SB 1416 promotes public safety. Shoplifting and theft are not victimless crimes.

They jeopardize the safety of retail workers and create an atmosphere of fear and mistrust and contribute to the proliferation of organized crime. By cracking down on the sale of stolen property, we help safeguard our communities. Unfortunately, shoplifting pays. It's a low-risk, high-reward scheme.

The unlawful acquisition and resale of stolen goods perpetuates a cycle of profitable criminal activity that undermines the integrity of retail environment and erodes consumer trust. To combat this reality, we need to enhance penalties for prolific offenders profiteering off of stolen goods.

By imposing stricter penalties for those attempting to profit from stolen merchandise, SB 1416 serves as a deterrent against retail crime. It sends a clear message that such illicit activities will not be tolerated, thereby helping protect businesses, consumers, and communities from adverse effects of criminal behavior.

SB 1416, paired with the package of measures introduced in the State Legislature, will help keep our employees, our customers, and the neighborhoods retailers operate in safe from this criminal activity. Thank you.

Thank you. Others in support?

Good morning, Chair and Members. Dane Hutchings, representing the City of Merced, in support.

Mr. Chair and Members, Andrew Antwih, with Shaw Yoder Antwih Schmelzer and Lange, here on behalf of the City of Beverly Hills, in support.

Mr. Chair and Members, David Jones, on behalf of the City of Stockton, in support.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Committee Members. Zach Cefalu with the League of California Cities, in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Opposition?

Good morning, Chair and Members. Alicia Benavidez, here on behalf of ACLU California Action, in opposition to 1416. I'll keep my points brief and hopefully loud enough for you to hear. Sentence enhancements have been studied extensively across the country and have generated no conclusive evidence that they deter or prevent crime.

Instead, studies have found that the uncertainty of punishment, the fact that someone will be punished for a particular crime, has a greater deterrent effect than the severity of the punishment itself. We believe that existing penalties are sufficient to punish the behavior contemplated by this bill.

Incarcerating offenders with the additional enhancement has no measurable benefit and instead runs counter to the reforms made under Prop 47 and the state's concerted effort, as well as this committee's, to reduce the prison population. And for these reasons, we respectfully oppose this measure.

Thank you. Others in opposition, please come forward.

Thanh Tran, Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, in opposition.

Thank you. Questions or comments from committee members? Seeing none, we have a motion and a second. You may close.

Thank you, Committee Members. This is a narrow bill, and these sentencing enhancements are deliberately targeting a new category of crime, a recent phenomenon. We believe they are necessary. They will have an impact. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

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

On SB 1416 by Senator Newman, the motion is: do pass to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call].

That measure passes.

Next measure. Thank you Portantino. This is item number one, SB 53.

Good morning. I tried to get here first. Thank you, Mister chair and Committee Members. In 2019, I authored SB 172, which established safe firearm starge law in California. SB 53 is an expansion to those requirements by creating additional standards for safely securing firearms for all guns. You know, to me, it sort of seems common sense.

We encourage people to lock your car, and nobody cries foul or outraged. So we should certainly encourage people and require people to lock their guns.

Existing law requires firearms in a home either be kept in a locked container or secured with a locking device that prevents the gun from functioning if a child under the age of 18 is home. But there is no broad requirement for securing storage of firearms by all gun owners.

Death by firearm is now the number one cause of death for children in our country. Nationwide, over 4.6 million miners live in homes with access unsecured guns, and one in five gun owners store their firearms in the least safe manner, such as loaded or unlocked. Over 70% of children.

70% of children reported knowing the location of a household firearm, and one in five parents who reported that their children had never handled a household firearm were contradicted by their children's report. Additionally, 76% of school shooters obtained their firearms from their parents home or the home of a close relative.

SB 53 intends to reduce firearm suicide and unintentional firearm injuries through the safe storage of such weapons. Research shows that states that implement safe storage laws saw a 78% drop in unintentional shootings. We have the ability to drop our unintentional shootings by a significant number if we enact this law.

Thank you. Please begin. Primary witness.

SB 53 does not infringe upon an individual's Second Amendment right. It just uses common sense and good public safety knowledge and good data to support this Bill. With me today, I have Rebecca Marcus from the Brady campaign, and when appropriate, we respectfully ask for an aye vote .

Good morning, chair and Members, Rebecca Marcus, representing the Brady campaign and strong support of SB 53. California has some of the strongest gun laws in the country, and SB 53 will enhance this framework to ensure that all gun owners safely store their firearms to prevent unintentional shootings, mass shootings, theft of firearms, and firearm suicide.

The reality is that secure storage of firearms should be as automatic as putting on a seatbelt. An important way to effectuate that behavior change is through this type of mandate, we cannot have just a portion of the population storing their firearms safely. Every gun owner needs to engage in safe gun ownership.

As the Senator just stated, gun violence has become the number one killer of our children. All too often, the source is an unsecured gun. SB 53 is how we can ensure that children cannot get their hands on guns to prevent unintentional shootings and school shootings.

Gun theft has become a significant issue here in California and a significant source of gun crimes. Keeping firearms in a safer lockbox is a common sense and effective method to prevent this theft. Secure storage of firearms does not interfere, as the Member said, with any person's right to bear arms or to engage in self defense.

Similar laws have been upheld in court. Everyone agrees that gun ownership comes with certain responsibilities, and safe storage is one of them. We urge you to support this life saving legislation and thank the Senator for his consistent leadership on this issue. Thank you.

Thank you. Others in support.

Jamie Minor, on behalf of Giffords, pleased to support. Thank you.

Jillian King. Volunteer Moms Demand action in support.

Yara Judah. Volunteer with Moms Demand action in support. Good morning.

Julie Chapman. Volunteer with mom's demand action in support.

Amy Siropian. Volunteer with Moms Demand action in support.

Kim Manfredi. Volunteer with mom's. Demand action in support.

Brian Ricks, with the Los Angeles Unified School District, in support.

I'd also like to add that every town has asked me to add in. Me, too. In support. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Opposition. Please come forward. Thank you. You have five minutes between yourselves.

Mister chair and Members of the Committee. Good morning. I'm Rick Travis, CRP Legislative Director, also representing Safari Club International and the National Rifle Association and firearm owners throughout the state. We stand in opposition to SB 53 for the following reasons.

Three SCOTUS courts under Heller, Mcdonald, and Bruin all found as a violation to render a firearm inaccessible, as SB 53 will if passed. This Bill will also cause several issues, including, but not limited to, existing safes rendered unacceptable due to the simple lack of a receipt for the purchase of said storage device rain and approved safe unapproved for the purpose of purchasing on a firearm.

Millions of dollars of existing safes will no longer be of value or usable, thus adding new costs to existing firearm owners, furthering their burden to exercise the enumerated right. The enumerated right is not the same as driving a car, which is a privilege.

With all due respect, the author's use of national data in California that has the most stringent laws is a false comparison. We are not the same as the other states. I have personally seen as a former paramedic multiple examples where the tragic loss of life was simply the inability to defend oneself prior to first response.

This places law abiding citizen in harm's way, in the middle of the night, or in a crisis. This Bill also places additional burdens on those already in socio economic depressed situations and places them in further depression situation.

This is our 150th year of providing firearm safety to Californians and we're here to work to keep people safe, which is the first two words of our motto. And yet we continue to be called on after 150 years of proving ourselves highly successful. Millions of trigger pulls, no accidents. Thank you.

Mister Chairman and Member Sam Paredes, representing gun owners California. Now, I want you to understand what we're doing here. We're taking probably 50 million trigger locks that are presently in the State of California that have been used by law abiding citizens to protect their guns. No longer valid.

Now they have to go get an approved lockbox or a safe in order to comply with the law. And as my colleague pointed out, Heller specifically said that you cannot do what the Senator is attempting to do with this Bill. Let me quote to you the Supreme Court, not my words, the Supreme Court.

The requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self defense and enhance unconstitutional. Heller.

In sum, we hold that the district's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self defense.

Heller in Heller, we held that the Second Amendment protects the right to possess handguns in the home for the purpose of self defense. What is going to happen? This Bill is going to pass. It's going to be signed by the Governor. We're going to go to court, we're going to win.

And the State of California taxpayers are going to Fund a losing defense in the law and pay our attorneys fees.

At a time when the budget here in the State of California is so upside down, and it is an absolute fact that we will win based on what the Supreme Court says, it doesn't make any sort of fiscal sense, policy sense.

And frankly, if the Legislature wants to just tell the Supreme Court to go pound sand, go right ahead and do it, and things will happen as we predict. We don't want the State of California to make responsible gun owners vulnerable to predators roaming the streets. We want no more victims of crime.

So I urge a no vote on SB 53. And we will be happy to answer any, any questions, including responses to some of the statistics that are tossed around here with very little validity. Thank you.

Thank you. Others in opposition.

Greg Hurner, on behalf of the 10 chapters of Safari Club International and California in opposition.

Okay, thank you. Hi, Mark Henley. On behalf of California Waterfowl Association, in opposition. Thanks.

Chris Hoon. On behalf of Delta Waterfowl, in opposition.

Thank you. Questions or comments from Committee Members? Assebmlymember Wilson.

Thank you to the author for bringing this forward. My question is centered around the note from the opposition in regard to Heller BDC. There's a reference saying that this is specifically addressed in the Supreme Court decision. There's the line that says disassembled or bound by a trigger lock.

I'm assuming that they're equating the trivor lock to a lock storage.

Well, I can speak to the overall concept of Heller. When the San Francisco case was recently adjudicated, the court specifically said that Heller did not apply to the safe storage in that particular case. It was specifically noted that Heller didn't apply in that case. And so we believe. This is constitutional.

You gotta speak up. I'm sorry, you gotta be competing with the wonderful construction next door.

I said in the San Francisco case, it was the judge that.

It was the 9th Circuit.

The 9th Circuit case. It specifically said that Heller did not apply to the safe storage in that particular case. So we believe this is on solid.

Constitutional grounds because of the 9th case. But is, would you, is, is trigger lock the same as storage just in, and I'm just talking about in General, not related to the case, are those two different mechanisms of securing a weapon there?

We believe that a safe storage in a lockbox is safer than a trigger lock. It's more secure.

It's more secure is a far superior method of storage.

Okay, no other questions.

Okay, thank you. Do we have a motion for this Bill? Mister Alanis.

Just real quick, if I can hear opposition side of that it sound like you were going to say something.

I'm sorry, say that again.

To the question that was asked about the lockboxes. Did you have something to share on that?

Yeah. The Supreme Court, when they actually did the hearing before the nine justices, they physically talked about lock boxes and safes. They questioned the. The people, the lawyers, and said, you mean trigger combinations?

What about people when they're being invaded and the stress is there and they cannot, their battery runs out on their biometric, or they cannot remember the combination, or they cannot fumble with the keys in order to open a lockbox or anything like that. And the Supreme Court specifically rejected that? They did.

With the issue of the San Francisco case. It was not taken up to the Supreme Court yet. This Bill will allow us to take it all the way to the Supreme Court, and I am 100% confident that we will win, specifically based on Heller and Mcdonald. Thank you.

Follow up question from assemblymember Wilson.

When you use. When the phrasing that is used. Trigger lock and the fumbling. And I'll try to be loud, too. As I've asked, the trigger lock is on the gun itself.

Yes. A trigger lock is sold or provided with every gun sold in the State of California.

But it's on the gun.

You add it to the gun, you put it on the gun to disable the gun and not make it functional.

And as I understand it, this Bill is about where it is stored, not whether it's.

No, it invalidates the legality or the.

No no whether it invalidates. I'm just saying, just so we can be on the same page, trigger lock refers to something that is physically on the gun.

Yeah.

And the Bill is talking about storage where the entire gun is in a safe is held. Yes. Okay. Yeah.

Wiping out the trigger locks and saying, you can only keep them in a safe.

So you noted that in the Supreme Court, Heller V. DC, when that conversation was happening, there was discussion around storage, where the gun is actually held versus something attached to the gun, trigger lock.

All that they actually talked about. Both things.

Understood. So they talked about it. But when they actually wrote in there, the part that you referenced, and that's noted in our analysis, they don't use storage. They say disassembled, meaning having to take the gun apart or bound by a trigger lock, meaning something on the gun, not where it's stored.

So although they had the discussion about storage, they didn't reference it. Right. So that means that they had settled in my mind to that. So with that, I'll make the motion.

And second. No further questions. You may close, Mister Portantino.

Thank you. Thank you, Mister Chairman. I would note that our original safe storage, SB 172, has been on the books and has not been overturned by the courts. I think we are on solid legal ground. And again, we have an opportunity. We have an opportunity to make our homes safer, our society safer, our children safer.

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

We know this is effective. We know it works. Shame on us if we don't seize that opportunity to make children safer in California. Shame on us. And so I think this is common sense. I appreciate the conversation and respectfully ask for an aye vote.

On item number one, SB 53 by Senator Portantino. The motion is do pass to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

The measure is on call. Next measure, item number four, Senator Min, SB 1242. Thank you. Please begin, Senator Min.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, Committee Members. This bill, SB 1242, is part of the Senate's Safer California plan and would authorize higher penalties for those that commit arson in order to facilitate retail theft.

Retail theft has become increasingly sophisticated in recent years with scenarios where fire is being used as a tactic to hide and distract from criminal activity. At an incident in store here in the Sacramento area, a fire was set in the clothing department to distract employees. Employees while suspects were exiting with shopping carts full of merchandise.

This dangerous diversionary tactic endangers lives and disrupts business operations. Stores not only lose the stolen merchandise, but suffer damage to their buildings and merchandise, sometimes having to close for weeks to make repairs. SB 1242 would specify that the crime of reckless arson.

For the crime of reckless arson, the fact that the offense was carried out within a merchant's premises in order to facilitate organized retail theft shall be a factor in aggravation and sentencing. Today I have with me Ryan Allain, Director of Government Affairs for the California Retailers Association.

Thank you, Chairman McCarty, Senator Min, and Members of the Committee. My name is Ryan Allain, Director of Government Affairs of the California Retailers Association. I'm here to speak in support of SB 1242. I'd like to start with a few examples to highlight why this legislation is needed.

Last September in Southern California, a woman was taken into custody in connection to a fire with a popular retailer where she set fire to the baby clothes section of the store, and according to the investigation, the fires were intentionally set to cover to an attempt to steal.

The fire caused $500,000 in damage to the building and $1 million in damage to products. Last June here in Sacramento, while shoppers were in the store, fire was set inside while a carefully orchestrated team walked out with hundreds of dollars worth of merchandise. The fire forced the store to close for weeks due to damage and restocked product.

Just during that time last year in Sacramento, according to the Sacramento Metro Fire, they noticed a rise in arson used as a deterrent, and they said that this is organized crime. They have a premeditated plan.

They know where they're going to go, how they're going to set the fire, and what they're going to take from the store. Arson within retail establishments poses a severe threat not only to property, but to human life. These establishments are not just buildings, they are hubs of economic activity where individuals earn their livelihoods.

When arson strikes, the consequences ripple far beyond the physical damage. The economic repercussions of arson within retail stores are significant. Small business owners invest their time, resources, and passions into these establishments. When businesses fall victim to arson, it not only results in financial loss, but disrupts the local economy as they are closed for weeks or months.

By enacting legislation to increase penalties for arson within retail stores, we send a clear message that such crimes will not be tolerated. Urge you to support Senate Bill 1242. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Others in support?

David Jones, on behalf of the City of Stockton, in support.

Zach Cefalu, the League of California Cities, in support.

Dane Hutchings, Rancho Palos Verdes, in support.

Mr. Chair and Members, Andrew Antwih, on behalf of the City of Beverly Hills, in support.

Witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Questions or comments from Committee Members? I'll start, Senator Min. So I just want to note that this bill, along with the other two retail theft bills, and we noted this earlier, is being heard as is will not include any urgency nor inoperable clause to the measure. With that, I do support this.

And just I'll let you know that a few months ago, our girls were at the Target, the little mini Target here on J Street, and someone started a fire. And this happened literally a few blocks from the capital.

So they witnessed it and they thought of course it was dangerous and innovative way for people to cause a distraction and run out with goods, but put a lot of people in danger. So I do support this measure. We have a motion. So moved by Assemblymember Wilson, second by Assemblymember Reyes. Seeing no more questions or comments, you may close.

Thank you for sharing, Mr. Chair. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you call the roll please.

On item number four, SB 1242, the motion is do pass to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

Next measure, item number two, SB 905, Senator Wiener.

Hey, how are you?

Please begin.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, colleagues. I'm here to present Senate Bill 905, which will address the significant problems we're experiencing around auto break ins and theft from cars. Primarily, the bill closes the locked door loophole, which is a nonsensical barrier to holding auto burglaries accountable.

Under existing law, in order to prove an auto break in, auto burglary, you have to prove not just that the person entered the car without permission or even broke into the car, you have to prove that the doors were locked. That shouldn't matter. It's completely irrelevant, and it undermines prosecutions in pretty clear cases.

If an owner, for example, does not recall whether they've locked every single door in the car, or particularly if someone is visiting and is now 3000 miles away and is not really going to come back just to testify in court that they locked the door, even if there's a video of the person breaking into the car.

So the bill addresses this by removing that loophole. And it does so, just for clarity, because there was discussion in the analysis. Instead of changing the existing crime, it creates basically a duplicate crime without that loophole. And the reason is so we don't want to increase exposure to felony murder to three strikes, et cetera. So it's creating...

That's why it creates a separate crime. And I mentioned that only because the committee analysis did discuss that particularly issue. We've also put language into the lock door loophole port of SB 905 to minimize the risks of immigration consequences for conviction of that crime.

The bill also, in Section 2, addresses the problem of organized resale of goods stolen from cars. And the auto burglars often seek valuable items such as laptops, cameras, cell phones, and then resell them. Under the bill, as amended, individuals can be prosecuted for holding more than $950 of stolen goods intended for resale, whether the goods were stolen in one incident or multiple incidents within a two year period. And we're amending that two year period into the bill.

The bill is part of the Pro Tem's Safer California Package, and we're working collaboratively, of course, with the Assembly on these issues. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote. With me today is Carl Nicita from the San Francisco Police Department.

Thank you. Motion and a second. Witness, please begin.

Good morning, Chair McCarty. Committee Members, I'm Carl Nicita, Principal Legislative Liaison for the San Francisco Police Department, here to speak on the locked door loophole. First, thanks to Senator Wiener for his support and work on this issue.

As I'm sure you all know, auto break ins are a persistent problem in San Francisco and elsewhere in our state. My city is making real progress on auto break ins thanks to the hard work of the members of the San Francisco Police Department with bait cars, plain clothes officers, and other operational strategies.

But this is just the start, and we need more tools to sustain this work to hold auto burglars accountable. One challenge with auto break ins, as Senator Wiener said, is the locked door loophole. Because under current law, to secure conviction when an auto burglar is arrested, one of the elements that prosecutors must prove is that the vehicle was locked. A broken window by itself does not prove so. As a result, victims are often asked to testify to that fact.

But as Senator Wiener said, when a victim is a tourist or visitor, which in San Francisco is often the case, because these theft rings target areas with our iconic locations, it can be difficult to secure testimony when a victim lives elsewhere. Senate Bill 905, sponsored by San Francisco Mayor London Breed, closes this loophole by creating a new law of forcibly entering a vehicle with the intent to commit a misdemeanor or felony therein. Closing this loophole will help prosecute the organized theft rings targeting San Francisco and beyond.

More successful, aggressive prosecutions of these cases will send a message that if you break into cars, you will be held accountable. Again, thanks to Senator Wiener's for his work on this issue. Thanks to you for your time this morning, and I respectfully urge your aye vote.

Thank you. Others in support, please come forward.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Dylan Elliott on behalf of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and support. Thank you.

Sergeant Bernie Ojeda, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, on behalf of Sheriff Robert Luna, in support.

Alex Torres on behalf of the Bay Area Council in support.

Emellia Zamani with the California Travel Association in support.

Dane Hutchings with the City of Carlsbad in support.

Zach Cefalu with the League of California Cities in support.

Kristin Schlessel with the California District Attorneys Association in support.

Richard Maher with America First Policy Institute in support.

Ryan Allain on behalf of the California Retailers Association in support.

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

Margo George on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association. We want to thank the author for the amendment to 496. But also we're still seeking an amendment to 496.5 to mitigate the immigration consequences. Because as is written now, this would result in basically banishment, deportation, or removal from the United States. So we're just asking that the intent to temporarily deprive the owner of the benefit of the property also be added to Subsection A. Thank you.

Thank you. Any others in opposition, please come forward. Seeing no opposition, we have a motion and second. Question or comments from Committee Members? Assembly Member Reyes. But before we do that, Senator Wiener, I do support this bill, but I do want to note that this bill is being heard as is, and there is no amendment with the inoperable clause nor the urgency that could be discussed another date, but not today. Assembly Member Reyes.

Thank you. Senator, I do want to thank you for your thoughtfulness in the language, specifically adding the separate crime. But the question regarding immigration, in your comments, you said that that was addressed. Can you respond to their comments, please?

So there are two parts of this bill. There's the locked door loophole part, which is, I view this as, it's something I've been working on for a long time. This is my third effort at this. I introduced the locked door loophole elimination in both 2018 and 2019. This is my third try.

So I have accepted the language to really reduce the risk of immigration consequences for that. The second piece around the stolen property from cars that came from the, through the Safer California process. I am very interested in including language in there as well.

But that is a broader collaborative team, shall we say, involving both houses and the Governor. And so we're navigating that. But it is my desire to make that amendment. But unlike the locked door loophole piece, I have more ownership over since I've been working on that for so long. I hope that makes sense.

It makes a lot of sense, and I would ask that that would be of great concern to me. And I do appreciate that the opposition brought that up. Also supporting and commenting favorably about the amendments you have taken. But the immigration consequences are extremely important. I know that, as you've said, then you're committed to continue that conversation before it gets to the floor.

Yeah. And I would also welcome your advocacy joining with me so that we can move in that direction.

Excellent. Thank you. I think it's already been moved.

Yes, moved and seconded. Mr. Lackey.

Yeah. Thank you for your second attempt. Right. Okay. Third.

I'm stubborn.

At least not giving up. Because this is clearly an absurdity. I mean, you think about why in the heck would somebody break out a window if the door was unlocked? They expose themselves to danger. They expose themselves to being caught by breaking out the window. And it's just, it's not logical. So thank you for pointing this out and not giving up. That's what I appreciate greatly. Enjoy the Republicans.

Thank you, Assembly Member.

That's something that we face constantly, so I'm thankful that you've showed the tenacity to making sure justice is arrived at. So thank you.

Thank you, Assembly Member.

Okay, motion and a second. You may close, Mr. Wiener.

Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Please call the roll.

On item number two, SB 905 by Senator Wiener, the motion is do pass to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

Thank you. We have no authors, but I understand Assemblymember Reyes you're going to present for Senator Smallwood Cuevas. Item number seven, SB 1484, please begin.

Good morning, Mister chair and Members. I am pleased to present SB 1484 on behalf of Senator Smallwood-Cuevas. SB 1484 is a cleanup Bill that clarifies that youth under 12 are prohibited from appearing before a court, even in informal court settings or traffic courts.

In 2018, the Legislature passed SB 439, which was intended to protect California's children by completely limiting the juvenile court's jurisdiction in cases involving youth under 12.

While the intent of the Bill was to entirely prevent youth under age 12 from contact with a court system, unintentional omissions in the welfare and Institutions Code has left children vulnerable to expedited and informal procedures adjudicating youth charged for nonviolent crimes.

This unintentional omission has created confusion regarding the minimum age limits of youth who may be subject to such informal or expedited processes, the SB 1484 would clarify that the age restriction enacted in SB 439 also applies even in the context of informal or expedited proceedings.

These expedited and informal proceedings look different throughout the state, but in some counties, youth may be referred to informal traffic courts and or proceedings before the juvenile hearing officers. In these proceedings, youth may not be appointed a public defender or court reporter. Youth in these proceedings may face significant fines and penalties.

The Legislature has already agreed that children under the age of 12 do not belong in our courts. SB 1484 is a common sense clarification that children under 12 must be protected from the negative impacts of justice system involvement, even in informal and expedited proceedings. With us today to testify and answer questions is Justin Rausa from the Office of the Attorney General, the sponsor of SB 1484.

Morning, Mister Chair and honorable Members of the Committee appreciate the opportunity to present to you on behalf of the sponsor, Attorney General Rob Bonta. We also like to thank Committee staff for the detailed analysis and applaud Senator Smallwood Cuevas for authorship and Assembly Member Reyes for presenting on her behalf today.

To add to Assembly Member Reyes' presentation, the Bureau of Children's Justice was formed within the Civil Rights Enforcement section at DOJ in 2015 to safeguard equal opportunities so that every child in the State of California can meet their full potential.

The Bureau of Children's justice investigative work addresses systemic issues that impact youth across the state, focusing on remedying patterns or practices of discriminatory policies or procedures. In addition, publicly available 2022 Racial and Identity Profiling Act data.

As you all know, as the RIPA data shows that law enforcement officers are reporting stops and citations of youth under 12, some of which may have led to adjudication through informal courts and expedited programs.

As presented by Assembly Member Reyes, SB 1484 is an important Bill to close the gaps in other welfare and institution code sections that clearly fall within the scope of SB 439. Chaptered in 2018 by then Senator Holly Mitchell, SB 439 was intended to apply to all circumstances where youth under 12 were subject to court processes as set forth throughout the welfare and institutions code.

In closing, happy to answer any questions and on behalf of the Attorney General, we respectfully request your I vote on behalf of these children across the state and require an age appropriate approach for nonviolent infractions per the existing statute. Thank you. Thank you.

Others in support, please come forward.

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

Thanh Tran with the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in support. Thank you.

Alicia Benavidez on ACLU California action in support.

Opposition. Please come forward. Seeing no opposition Committee Members, so we did a hypothetical and we came to the conclusion that you presenting the Bill for a Senator could technically do the motion if you wanted to as well.

I move the Bill.

Okay, there we go. Just wanted to try that. Thank you. We have a motion at a second. Questions or comments from Committee Members? Vice Chair Alanis? No question. You may close.

I respectfully ask for your aye vote on behalf of Senator Smallwood Cuevas.

Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay, the measure is on call.

[Background Noise]

Okay. Senator Gonzalez, item five. SB 1253, when you're ready.

Thank you, Mister chair and Members. So I'm here to present SB 1253, which makes essential updates to the Firearms Safety Certificate program to keep Californians, California communities safe. And I'd like to start by accepting the Committee's amendments and thank them for their work described on page six of the analysis.

And would like to thank them, of course, of their work, as I just mentioned. And California has made great strides in recent decades to reduce gun violence. However, accidental and unintentional shootings continue to be a leading cause of firearm related incidents in the state, particularly for children, contributing to roughly 30% of all firearm related deaths and injuries.

From 2016 to 2022, SB 12th 53 will increase firearm safety by requiring individuals who move into California to register their fire, not only to after they register their firearms, but to also obtain a valid firearm safety certificate.

This will ensure that all firearm importers have the necessary safety skills and comprehension on the up to date laws in California, including safe handling and storage and child proofing. What to do when children are in the home while you have a gun.

Testifying in support of this measure today, I have Rebecca Marcus on behalf of the University of San Diego School of Law Consumer Protection Policy center, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Please proceed.

Good morning, Chair and Members, Rebecca Marcus, representing the Consumer Protection Policy Center of the University of San Diego School of Law. CPPC is a nonprofit, nonpartisan academic center of research, teaching, learning and advocacy, and regulatory and public interest law.

From 2016 to 2021, there were close to 70,000 gunshot wound incidents that resulted in death or required urgent medical attention. 45% were the result of self harm, either an accident or an act of suicide. Of the 15% that were the result of intentional self harm, there was a 91.5% fatality rate.

As the data shows, there are many ways in which California communities are impacted by gun violence. Not all legislative bills to combat gun violence should focus on targeting criminals or illegal firearms. Strategic legislation should be used to help reduce the number of unnecessary deaths and injuries that impact our California communities.

FSCs were established so every firearm owner could understand and follow firearm safety practices. This test requires the applicant to be provided with information regarding responsible handling and securing the owner's firearm, proper transfer of a firearm to another person, and suicide prevention.

Current law only requires new firearm owners to acquire a firearm within California to have an FSC, there's no requirement for persons who bring firearms from out of state to complete these requirements. SB 1253 will simply create parity and require persons who bring in firearms outside of California to acquire FSC within 120 days.

The proposed amendments that were just taken will make it clear that the same categories of gun owners who are currently exempt from obtaining an FSC will remain exempt under this Bill. The current exemptions include active and honorably retired peace officers and federal officers, licensed firearm dealers, federally licensed collectors, concealed carry permit holders, and specified hunting license holders.

A requirement for all applicable firearm owner to take the firearm safety certificate course would lead to a more informed firearm ownership population and help reduce the concerning statistics previously mentioned. Thank you. And we respectfully ask for your. I vote thank you.

Thank you. Others in support, please come forward.

Good morning. Brian Ricks of the Los Angeles Unified School District in support.

And I'd like to offer me toos on behalf of the Brady campaign and Giffords.

Okay, thank you. Seeing others in support, we have opposition. Seeing no opposition, we motion a second by Senator Reyes and Member Mister Byrd. Questions or comments from Committee Members?

Just a quick follow up.

Yes. Member Wilson?

Just the comment from opposition and the analysis talks about notification. How does that work when people are coming from out of the state? How would they know? Is there some kind of posting when you go buy ammo or.

Yeah, well, we had originally had this in a former Bill. We're working on that language with the DOJ. Currently, there's a few different options on notification that we're certainly looking at, but we want to make sure that folks, once they come in, that they do know clearly that they have to obtain an FSC when they register, which would be 60 days even after the registration date.. Still working on that language, but I don't know if there's additional information. My witness would like to add.

Just that under current law, a person who comes into the state, moves into the state with a firearm must notify the Department of Justice within 60 days of the firearm. And so our hope is that with it'll just be part of that same notification, and we're working that out with DOJ. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. We have a motion a second. Seeing no more questions or comments. You may close.

Just want to respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you, Mister chair.

Thank you. Please call the roll

[Roll Call]

That measures on call. Thank you. Thank you. Senator Wahab is on her way for our final Bill. Yes. We're going to do vote changes and add ons right now.

[Roll Call]

Do you have others that I think Zbur missed... Yes. Okay. Final Bill, item number three, SB 982. Senator Wahab, thank you.

Chair and Members, SB 982 simply eliminates the January 12026 sunset to sustain the crime of organized retail theft. This Bill is part of the Senate Safer California plan and Governor Newsom's retail theft package.

This package is comprised of evidence based ways to address the fentanyl crisis through treatment and prevention, and bills combating retail theft through crime prevention and enhanced tools for law enforcement. Despite the likelihood of underreported retail theft, especially low value theft, data shows a 29% jump in reported retail theft from 2019 to 2022.

Aside from big retailers, many small businesses are suffering the consequences of organized retail theft and oftentimes do not have the same resources to protect themselves. I can attest to this because my parents were small business owners when theft would occur. That actually replacing a window, a door, the product, talking to insurance, it's a whole ordeal.

And we do need to prioritize the victims. In California, nearly half of small businesses are owned by racial and ethnic minority groups, many who are immigrants as well. When retailers are affected by these crimes, they typically make up those losses by raising prices, reducing hours, or closing their shores, ultimately impacting other consumers.

Earlier this year, Attorney General Rob Bonta announced charges against a ringleader of an organized retail crime scheme that spanned 21 counties across the state and involved an estimated $8 million worth of losses. In August 2023, AG Bonta had announced arrests and charges against four people allegedly involved in smash and grab robberies.

Two of the suspects were also accused of a carjacking that same month. Organized retail theft is not shoplifting. It is carried out by professional individuals who may be linked to other violent crimes. This provision is intended to target professional, organized perpetrators, not low level offenders. With me today in support of this Bill is Ryan Allain, Director of government affairs for the California Retailers Association.

Thank you, Chair McCarty, Senator Wahab, Members of the Committee. Again, my name is Ryan Allain on behalf of the California Retailers Association, speaking in support of SB 982. The organized retail theft statute has been an effective tool in combating organized retail crime.

The statute has resulted in multimillion dollar cases being prosecuted and organized crime rings being dismantled let me be clear. These are organized crime rings that utilize stealing from retailers to Fund other criminal activities, such as human trafficking, drugs, and other very nefarious activities, not just in California, but throughout the United States and other parts of the world.

Retail employees and customers are experiencing organized retail theft daily, and Californians are demanding that policymakers take this issue seriously. But by eliminating the sunset on the organized retail theft statute, criminals know they're coordinated. Criminal activity will not be tolerated.

By passing SB 982, this Committee is setting an example that organized retail crime rings have no place in California retail stores, and the priority of the state is to ensure retail employees, retail customers in the neighborhoods we operate in are free from this organized criminal activity.

I just want to list a few examples of how this organized retail theft statute is being used. Last week, Placer County District Attorney's office recently filed charges against a man accused of stealing $17,000 worth of merchandise from a retailer in Roseville, with the charges including organized retail thefts.

Last month, Los Angeles Sheriff's Department organized retail theft crime task force arrested eight suspects on charges of organized retail theft and receiving stolen property. And then also last month, the San Francisco District Attorney's office charged an individual with, among other things, seven counts of organized retail thefts. I respectfully ask for your. I vote on SB 982. Thank you.

Thank you. Others in support, please come forward.

Good morning, Mister Chair, Members. Ryan Sherman with the Riverside Sheriff's Association, California Narcotic Officers Association, California Reserve Peace Officers and the Police Officer Associations of Arcadia, Burbank, Claremont, Corona, Culver City, Fullerton, Murrieta, Newport Beach, Nevada, Palos Verdes, Pomona, Riverside, Santa Ana, Upland, the Deputy Sheriffs Association of Placer county, all in support. However, we are in opposition to the inoperability language. Thank you.

Good morning. Tamar Tokat, on behalf of the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Yarelie Magallon, with Political Solutions on behalf of Target in support. Thank you.

Ethan Nagler, on behalf of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, in support.

Sergeant Bernie Ojeda, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, on behalf of Sheriff Robert Luna, in support.

Zach Cefalu, with the League of California Cities, in support.

Kristen Schlessel, on behalf of California District Attorneys Association, in support of the Bill language in print, but will respectfully oppose SB 982 if it's amended to include the poison pill, rendering the Bill inoperable.

Just your name and position, please. Thank you.

Thank you.

Mister chair. David Jones on behalf the City of Stockton in support.

Opposition, please. Seeing no opposition. Do we have a motion? and a second. We do. Questions or comments from Committee Members? I'll start. And we support this Bill. But just I want to note on this Bill, I said, for all the other retail theft bills, the Bill is being heard as is. There is no language about urgency nor inoperable clause that could be addressed at a future date, not in this Committee today. Questions or comments? Seeing none, you may close.

I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Okay. Thank you.

[Roll Call]

That measure passes. We have a few measures on call, and we'll do add ons.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. This concludes the hearing. We will adjourn.