Assembly Standing Committee on Public Safety

Good morning. We will start without a quorum and take action as we get Members down the road. We have one author here, Senator Roth. Please come forward. SB 902.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members. Today I'm presenting item two, which will add no matter 10 year firearms prohibition to misdemeanor animal abuse convictions. We're talking about serious animal cruelty incidents here, not minor swatting the dog because the dog chewed the newspaper. These are convictions of Penal Code 597 A for the malicious and intentional maiming, mutilation, torture, wounding, or killing of an animal.

Now, California has had a history of ensuring firearms do not fall into the hands of those that have demonstrated violent tendencies in an attempt to prevent future violence against others. Crimes such as stalking, endangering the health of a child, and endangering the health of an elder or dependent adult.

Research reflects that 41% of intimate partner violence offenders had histories of animal cruelty in the past, and that individuals who commit animal abuse are five times more likely to commit violence crimes against humans. Based on the connection, in 2016, the FBI amended the National Incident Based Reporting System to start collecting data on animal abuse.

Given the numerous studies showing that animal abuse is a predictor of violence against humans, California needs to ensure that dangerous people with a history of animal abuse are prohibited from owning and possessing firearms for at least 10 years.

I've taken amendments to address the reasonable concerns from the opposition and move the ACLU and public defenders to a position of neutral on this bill. With me today to testify on behalf of the bill is Riverside County Deputy District Attorney Megan Holtman.

Thank you. You have five minutes.

Good morning, everyone. My name is Meg Holtman, and I'm a Deputy District Attorney out of Riverside County. Countless studies have shown that there is a link between animal abuse and violence toward humans. Statistically, those who harm animals are more likely than others to go on to harm humans.

It is a crime to abuse animals here in the state of California, and Penal Code Section 597 A applies specifically to the most egregious forms of animal abuse, specifically those who commit affirmative acts of violence toward animals. It does not include those who, for example, neglect their animals by not feeding them.

This section encompasses precisely the behavior that has been found to be a predictor for violence against people. Nationwide, gun violence is at an all time high. Mass shootings are becoming all too common, and guns are becoming more prevalent in all kinds of crimes, including domestic violence.

It's important that these potentially lethal weapons are not readily available to those who have already demonstrated a willingness to hurt others. California has long led the way in seeking to keep guns out of the hands of those with demonstrated violent tendencies. Now, felons are prohibited from possessing firearms.

However, under current law, someone who is convicted of misdemeanor level animal abuse can access and possess a gun as soon as they're off of probation. And here in California, misdemeanor probation is only a year long. This means that an animal abuser can lawfully get access to a gun within essentially a year of conviction.

The purpose of this bill is to ensure that those who've acted to hurt animals are not able to lawfully access or possess firearms within a 10 year period. Ideally, this will allow ample time for reflection and to correct whatever it is that led to those the violent conduct in the first place. So SB 902 is a step towards safer communities, and I would respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Any others in support, please come forward.

Good morning. Lieutenant Julio Donion from the Riverside Sheriff's Office. And we're in support.

Good morning. Michelle Roberts, on behalf of the California District Attorney's Association, in support.

Good morning, Chairman, Members. Jared Maas on behalf of the California Police Chiefs, in support.

Good morning, Chair, Members. Nickolaus Sackett, on behalf of Social Compassion in Legislation, in support.

Thank you. Any opposition, please come forward. Seeing no opposition, questions, or comments from Committee Members. We were one short still, so we'll take that up later, but you may close at this time. We can remember that you're close.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. At the appropriate time, respectfully asked for an aye vote, and I want to thank you and your Members for your consideration. Thank you.

[Background Conversation]

Welcome, Senator. We don't have a quorum yet, but we can certainly hear your Bill. We have AB 1025, SB 1025, file item 11. Okay, let's establish our quorum real quick. Can you please call the roll? Oh, we lost somebody. Yes. Okay. Sorry. Okay, Senator, please proceed.

Good morning everybody, I'm here to talk about SB 1025. Eligibility for veteran diversion programs to include the same charges that are currently used for mental health court. I did some work on this earlier to help more veterans get into diversion courts. Oftentimes, based on their history in the military, they can act out in ways that run afoul of the law when they get out.

And so we want to make sure to offer them a diversion court. While they already have access to mental health diversions, they're not oftentimes unique to veterans need. So this allows them then to go to veterans court. So I appreciate the work also of my Republican colleagues on this.

We got some information late last night you'd like to see some more changes, and we are committed to making those. We think it's helpful for the bill. With me here to testify and support is Cliff Costa, on behalf of the California Judges Association, and also Alex Valiant, US army veteran.

Thank you, Mister chair and Members, Cliff Costa. Today, on behalf of the California Judges Association, we're the sponsor of the bill and very much appreciate Senator Eggman continuing our efforts on this. We introduced the bill last year. This is our second attempt. Got held up in appropriations last year. So we're very happy to see this move forward.

Veteran treatment courts are one of the most successful programs we have at the Superior Court, and this definitely is an opportunity to expand that program to do, as Senator Eggman mentioned, make it on parity with the mental health diversion. There are currently 46 veteran treatment courts in California, and that is growing.

And so we think that this bill will help grow those programs.

You know, our, those who serve in military, you know, face very, very unique circumstances and situations, and this is an opportunity to really help them, give them access, and we can step in, take them, give them the treatment we need, have the court monitor that treatment process, and allow our veterans to continue to move forward and with their lives.

And with that, I respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Thomas Lamphere, the Alex Valiant Switcherooie man. Who's a switcheroo. I'm a Marine Corps veteran and I'm also the program and development officer for the Veterans Transition center of California. We provide rehabilitative programs for veterans who are incarcerated, paroled, and homeless.

I just want you to imagine for a moment that you're a military Member and you're returning from service, you've seen combat, you've seen something traumatic in the military, and so you're back in the civilian world and you don't have the skill set to deal with the problems that you face. So you turn to substance abuse.

You react violently in an environment that triggers you into a relapse of the conditions that you face while in the military. These are harsh realities faced by many veterans, including myself. And unfortunately, California has roughly 6000 incarcerated veterans in CDCR right now.

So right now, veterans serving determinative sentence in CDCR, they're not required to participate in any rehabilitative programs to be paroled. None, unlike those who serve indeterminate terms, who must participate in rehabilitative programs to be found suitable. So the statistics, they tell a really stark story.

Recidivism is approximately 1% for indeterminate the sentenced person versus a staggering 50% for determinate. SB 1025 aims to change this. It strips away the option of merely serving as sentence and being released, replacing it with mandatory evidence based rehabilitation.

So currently, taxpayers are paying around 100,000 per year for a 50% chance that a veteran might not reoffend through incarceration. Alternatively, we could be investing roughly 30,000 per year in rehabilitation programs prior to incarceration that have proven to be 99% effective.

Quite honestly, the current return on investment, both for the public and the offender, is not very good. This bill offers a path to bolster public safety with fiscal prudence, while reducing the rates of incarceration and helping veterans with substance abuse and mental health problems. For too long, we've been slapping band aids on wounds that demand stitches.

We hope to stop the bleeding, but it's not happening. But this bill provides those stitches. My name is Thomas Lamphere, but for 29 years of my life, I was known as J26950. I'm Marine Corps veteran with PTSD in the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitations.

I know firsthand what works inside prison for rehabilitative program and what works outside of prison for rehabilitative programs. This is what I do. We have a saying in the military that we don't leave anybody behind. And I ask this Committee to remember that because it matters. It matters a lot to all us veterans.

So behalf of myself and the veteran community that I represent, we ask you to support this bill.

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

Good morning. My name is Glenn Valiant. I'm proud father of a formerly incarcerated army veteran. I'm here in support. Thank you.

My name is Alexander Valiant, formerly incarcerated veteran. I'm in support of this bill.

Good morning. Randall Hager for the California Psychiatric physicians of California in support urging yours. Thank you.

Good morning. Marco George. On behalf of the California Public Defenders Association and strong support.

Thank you.

John Drebinger with the Steinberg Institute in support.

Clifton Wilson, on behalf of the California State Association of Psychiatrists and Support. Thank you.

Duke Cooney. On behalf of ACLU, California action and strong support. Thank you, Senator.

Good morning. Eric Henderson. On behalf of smart Justice Vera California and initiate justice in support.

Thank you. Anyone in opposition, please come forward. Seeing none questions or comments from Committee Members. Mister Lackey?

Yeah. Thank you, Senator. I recognize that military veterans with PTSD and other problems stemming from their service face very unique challenges, and it's often preferable to get them treatment rather than incarcerate them, which is often, unfortunately, how we treat these challenges.

But this being said, in a few previous measures that this body has supported, it provided that defendants who are granted mental health diversion be protected from owning or possessing a firearm during the period of diversion, because they are a danger during that period of time to themselves and others.

And while the previous bills do not relate to veterans, I think the same concerns that motivated the previous bills apply here as well.

So I would feel a lot more comfortable supporting this Bill if you would actually commit to amending, to ensure that the same provisions apply, that a person who commits serious or violent crimes should not have firearms, at least during the diversion period.

And I know that this issue was raised with your staff and with the sponsor, and I just wanted to confirm that you're committed to making that change.

Yes

Thank you. I'll definitely be happy to support this bill then.

Thank you. We don't have a quorum yet, but you can close and we'll take note.

Thank you very much. I don't think I could say it any better than our combat veterans. So let's keep veterans out of prisons and into treatment and back on the road to productive lives.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Senator Bradford, please come forward. SB 1020, File Item Number One. File Item Ten. Please begin.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm here to present SB 1020, which is a straightforward, common sense measure that will encourage law enforcement--or prohibit, I should say--law enforcement agencies from utilizing shooting targets that look like any ethnic group.

In a multitude of studies published by the American Psychological Association, researchers have established that participants would shoot at armed targets quicker if they resembled African American compared to their White counterparts, and participants also were less likely to shoot at unarmed White targets compared to African American ones.

These response times show subconscious racial bias which leads towards an increased risk of deadly harm towards certain ethnic groups. We just saw just a little over a month ago in Florida where police knocked on the door of a military air force man.

He opens the door with his weapon at his side and he was shot within three seconds. Five times. Dead on the scene. And it never drew his weapon, just in an open carry state, stand your ground state, and that individual was African American, and he was shot within three seconds opening his front door.

Use of these shooting targets only reinforces the inherent racial biases that White individuals are less dangerous than anyone else, but law enforcement agencies across the nation still use ethnic shooting targets, and whether intentional or unintentional, it is harmful. This bill is a common sense measure stated that will ensure implicit racial biases are not present in our law enforcement officers and that all people are treated fairly and equitably. Testifying today in support is Margo George from the California Public Defenders Association and Glenn Backes from the Ella Baker Center. And at the appropriate time, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Your witnesses can begin. You have five minutes.

Good morning. Margo George, on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association, in support of SB 1020. I think somewhat shockingly, police departments around the country have been discovered to be using not only depictions of Black and other minorities as targets, but in some cases, actual photos. The analysis talks about an incident in Georgia and Metro Atlanta, where the Police Department posted pictures of officers shooting at photos of Black men.

It was posted on Facebook in June of 2023. Earlier the year before, in Michigan, the Farmington Hills Police Department, which is a suburb of Detroit, boy scouts visiting the department on a field trip took photos of officers using targets with depictions of Black men. I think most shockingly is the incident from North Miami Beach, where the police were using actual mugshots of African American men as targets at a shooting range for police targets.

And this was discovered when, after they had finished their practice, the Florida National Guard came to do their practice, and one of the officers with the National Guard said, 'oh my God. Why are they using my brother's photo as a target?' So this not only reinforces racial bias, implicit racial bias, but it also has an effect on the people whose photos are their family members are being used.

As a public defender, I saw a number of situations where officers were more cautious, more willing to give the benefit of the doubt to an armed White person than they were to an armed Black person. So I think this is a common sense and efficient method to deal with an issue that is reinforcing racial bias and ask for your support.

Thank you. Others in support, please come forward.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Elizabeth Espinosa, on behalf of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Nicole Kurian with the Office of Los Angeles Mayor, Karen Bass, in support.

Clifton Wilson, on behalf of the California Faculty Association, in support.

Eric Henderson, on behalf of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, in support.

Thank you. Do we have opposition here to testify? Please come forward. No opposition here to testify. Questions or comments from committee members? Seeing that we don't have a quorum just yet, but you may close.

Thank you.

As stated, this is a common sense measure that will make our general public not only safer, but law enforcement as well. As an individual who's come from a family, a long background in law enforcement, and have childhood friends who have served as well, the biases clearly exist. I even had an academy date to go into LAPD, and during that process, I saw the biases that existed just going through that process. So I'm not doing this in a vacuum. It has clearly been demonstrated on a regular basis.

Take note.

And as stated by Ms. George, we just saw just a little over a year ago when we had the incident on the Oregon Washington border where armed militia stood on the border with AK-47s assault weapons and not a shot was fired, but during the 2020 civil unrest after George Floyd's killing, individuals were shot and killed simply by having a pole or less than lethal weapons. So we saw the clear biases that existed, whereas again, you could be armed and not shot, but unarmed and lose your life. So at the appropriate time, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Noted. Thank you. Next author, we have Senator Wahab, File Item 13: SB 1317. Okay. Can we please take the role to establish a quorum?

[Roll Call].

We have a quorum here. Senator, please begin.

Thank you. Chair, colleagues, and members of the public. SB 1317 extends for five years, the sunset date for seeking court orders to administer involuntary psychiatric medication to those, excuse me, to those with severe mental health disorders who are detained in a county jail.

Existing law authorizes psychiatrists in county jails to obtain an involuntary medication order for persons in custody who are a danger to themselves and or others, who are suffering from grave disabilities, who are unable to give consent, and whose situation is so dire that it's absolutely necessary for the safety of the individual.

The process has already been in statute for 12 years. This bill ensures counties have the tools to address the mental health treatment needs of vulnerable individuals in county jail settings. SB 1317 would require counties that elect to use this authority to submit specified reporting information.

Testifying today with me is David Campos, the Deputy County Executive for the County of Santa Clara, as well as Randall Hager, Legislative Advocate, Psychiatric Physicians Alliance of California.

Thank you. Five minutes for you combined.

Thank you, Chair McCarty, honorable Members. David Campos, on behalf of the County of Santa Clara. Just to provide some context, Penal Code 2603 was first enacted in 2012 and was limited to individuals serving sentences in county jails. This bill at that time, left unaddressed the needs for individuals awaiting arraignment, trial, or sentencing.

Then in 2021, the Legislature, five years later, the Psychiatric Association and the LA County Sheriff's Office sponsor AB 720 to expand that section to all individuals in a jail setting. This is simply about giving counties like Santa Clara County a tool that they've had for 12 years.

The County of Santa Clara is committed to diversion to the greatest extent possible. We are using this tool as a very last resort, and we would love to live in a reality where that's not needed, but that's not the reality in which we operate.

The county actively engages with our public defender's office, and we know that we're going to hear from some of them, and we are committed to continuing to work with them to address the concerns that they have. But this is a very important tool in our toolbox.

We believe that counties throughout the state need this to address the needs of this population. The reality is that the administration of involuntary medication is a last resort intervention that is sometimes necessary in instances when a person is experiencing an acute crisis, is decompensating, and is unable to take care of themselves or grant consent.

Thank you.

Mister Chairman, Randall Hager, for the Psychiatric Physicians Alliance of California. We brought this bill 11 years ago. I worked this bill. It was absolutely essential that we have a tool such as this. There are tools such as this for individuals who have already been sentenced.

There are tools for individuals who are in the community and need medication in facilities. There are tools for people in prison, and there are tools for people who are incompetent to stand trial. At that time, there was no tool for people awaiting sentencing.

It's very, very critical that we have a tool like this to assist people who are, who have decompensated to the point that they are yelling and screaming at all hours of the day and the night. They can't follow direction in jails. They're suffering mightily from the symptoms of maybe schizophrenia.

And this is a population that is very unlikely to accept medication in that state. They don't recognize that they're ill and so not going to say yes. And medication is the first step that they will have to step on the road to recovery and to maintain a better status within the jail setting.

My psychiatrists have to deal with this all the time. It really is unthinkable that we would not renew this really, really critical tool for psychiatrists and for the custody staff, and the mental health treatment teams within the jail setting. Thank you.

Thank you. Others in support, please come forward.

Dillon Lasovsky with the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department in support.

John Drebinger with the Steinberg Institute in support.

Andy Liebenbaum with the County of Los Angeles in support.

Brandon Epp on behalf of Los Angeles County Sheriff, Robert Luna in support. Original sponsors of the bill.

Good morning. Lieutenant Julio De Leon from the Riverside Sheriff's office in support.

Hello. Wade Brynelson, Family Advocates for Individuals with Serious Mental Illness in Sacramento County, in support.

Clifton Wilson, on behalf of the California State Association of Psychiatrists in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Opposition? Do we have opposition who would like to testify? Please come forward.

Good morning again. Margo George. On behalf of the California Public Defenders Association. We too do not want our clients to suffer needlessly in the jail. We just ask that the safeguards that are noted in the analysis be included in the bill. The same safeguards that are already in operation in Santa Clara County.

Unfortunately, they are not in the rest of the state. The last 12 years has taught us. Thank you.

Thank you. Others in opposition? Seeing none. Questions or comments. from Committee Members? Mister Zbur.

I was just wondering if you're amenable to taking the amendments that are requested by the Public Defenders?

The safeguards?

The safeguards.

Yes. So, I represent Santa Clara County as well as Alameda County. Santa Clara County is genuinely a model regarding social services. So, I'd be more than happy to include that in our bill moving forward. And obviously, take them.

I think it's a great bill. Just wanted to get that clarification. So, thank you.

Thank you.

Is that a motion, Mister Zbur?

Okay, we have a motion and a second. Would you like to close, Senator?

Yes.

Respectfully, ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Please call the roll.

Item number 13, SB 1317 by Senator Wahab. The motion is do pass to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll call]

That measure passes. Oh, let's go back and do the consent calendar. Let me read the items for the consent calendar. Okay. SB 899 Skinner, SB 910 Umberg, SB 926 Wahab, SB 933 Wahab, SB 950 Skinner, SB 965 Min, SB 989 Ashby, SB 1019 Blakespear, SB 1069 Menjivar, and SB 1518 the Senate Committee on Public Safety.

Do we have a motion for the consent calendar? We have a motion, and we have a second. Please call the roll.

For the consent calendar, [Roll Call].

Okay, let's look for some motions on prior presented bills, but without a quorum. Let's start with item number two, SB 902 Roth. The motion is second. Please call the roll.

Item number two, SB 902 by Senator Ross. The motion was do pass to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call].

Okay, let's do file number 10, SB 1020 Bradford. Looking for a motion. Motion. A second. Please call the roll.

For item number 10, SB 1020 by Senator Bradford. The motion is do pass to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call].

Okay, next measure. File item 11, SB 1025 Eggman. We have a motion. A second. Please call the roll.

For item number 11, SB 1025 by Senator Eggman. The motion is do pass to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call].

Okay, final one, SB 1317 Wahab. We have a motion in a second, please. No, we did that one. Yeah, we did that one. Yeah. Yeah. Oh, yeah. We already did that one. Yeah, duh. She was just here. We did. Yes.

So, we're just waiting on Stern?

Yeah, it.

Okay, our last bill, item number 14, SB 1400. Mister Stern, we're ready for you. No, all good.

Thank you, members, for hearing what I think is one of the most important public safety measures of this session.

I know there's been a lot of efforts in press on some other issues, but when it comes to the mental health crisis and its manifestation in our jail system, it is acute, it is taking lives daily, and it is affecting the welfare of the most vulnerable people in the state and in our communities.

And I am partly responsible for this. I passed, I wrote a bill in 2021, SB 317, that put some really important reforms in our -

Senator, we're going to give you a chance to start over. So, the whole world can hear you again.

It's okay.

My bad. Go ahead.

It's okay.

Just saying that we know we've been debating a lot of other issues around theft, fentanyl, but this bill is about what I think is maybe a less focused on, but equally important part of our public safety situation in California, which is those who are severely mentally ill, who are committing misdemeanors and crimes, and who are basically getting recycled through our jail system on a daily basis and sent back out onto the streets without care.

We know our justice system is struggling to take care of these people and find alternatives to just having our jails become mental institutions.

And I helped architect in 2021, an effort to get away from what I consider a very inhumane past and a very poor band aid and stopgap for how our mental health care system has been failing people, which is to let them sit in jail while their trials are pending.

Those who are committing misdemeanors are found incompetent to stand trial, what we call missed for short. Those individuals previously had no alternative but to sit in prison and wait for their trials to be heard or their cases to be heard.

So, we reform that to allow for credit where folks are waiting to stand trial and they could get credit, safer behavioral health treatment, a lot of the kinds of beds and facilities that we put forward in Prop one, for example. However, we have not had those beds in the meantime.

And as an unfortunate and unintended consequence of my own legislation, from 2021, thousands of these missed defendants have simply just had their cases dismissed without treatment, without care, certainly not in jail, but definitely back on the street.

And the recidivism rates are quite astonishing. In LA County, where I think we're seeing the crisis most acutely, you're talking about over 1500 missed cases being dismissed last year. And for those who were in jail, we've seen recidivism rates up to 40%, spiking, largely because of a lack of medical care while they're in custody, and they've been decompensating while their trials are pending. So, if you have psychotic affective disorder or severe schizophrenia, and you're no longer on your meds and you're in jail, things get really bad.

We've unfortunately allowed for this default to dismissal to occur. And so, this bill is really - it's been a 3-4-year saga to try to fix some of the holes in what I think was a very important piece of legislation and a very good step, but a gap in our reforms.

And so SB 1400 tries to solve that by taking that sort of default to dismissal option off the table and by building what we think is a really exciting model to allow for more of that alternative treatment while folks, trials are pending to push people into behavioral healthcare, the kinds of beds that we found in Prop one, and to hold a process where diversion towards that kind of treatment is still a possibility, so that we're not filling up our jails and using them as mental hospitals, but that we're also not just simply sweeping the problem under the rug.

I recognize that there are still challenges ahead. There's a - it's an odd, diverse set of stakeholders here who have competing views, but concerns, and I really respect that. Whether the DAs or Disability Rights both have criticisms of the current system and of our bill.

The DAs are worried about if we're restoring people to competency for a felony, and then dismissing a misdemeanor that's safe for vehicular manslaughter or some other serious misdemeanor, that that's a problem. And Disability Rights is worried.

You'll hear from them, probably, that, you know, we're going to be overly restrictive, and that we may go back to a system where we're simply confining people against their will, who really should be treated through the public health system, not through public safety. We don't have that luxury right now.

And when we have multiple repeat recidivists, we are creating a prison to street pipeline that is eroding our communities, that is sentencing these people to death on the street as opposed to in jail. And it's gotta change. So, I really appreciate your attention. I would urge your aye vote today.

I do appreciate the Chair and the committee's iterative process and just trying to think this stuff through. We know that there are gonna have to be a few more refinements as we go forward here. But this is hard stuff to solve. And so, I'm admitting my own inadequacies here in what I try to do with reform.

And I hope that we can sort of just have that humble and very practical and real conversation about how to make things better because it's not working right now. With that, ask for your, I vote defer to my lead support.

Yes. Please begin.

Mister Chairman and members of the committee: Randall Hagar for the Psychiatric Physicians Alliance of California, as well as the Treatment Advocacy Center in Arlington, Virginia, which fights for the lowering of barriers and access to care. The treatment advocacy center has a straight support position.

We have a support, if amended position, and I'll explain that as I go along here. But the Senator is absolutely right. This is really about preventing people who are released from our institutions, from being turned out into the street, without linkages, without connections, without program support, support just simply released. And we can't allow people to do that.

There's a common misconception that people who have misdemeanor incompetent to stand trial status are somehow less sick. But both the felony and the misdemeanor folks may be psychotic, and it doesn't mean that they don't need the same consideration as the felony fists.

So, what we're really talking about here today is trying to find a way forward so that we can take and make use of available programs in the community. I help establish the Assisted Outpatient Treatment law, Laura's Law. That's a good one. We have care courts now. We have conservatorships. We've always had those.

But those are going to be many of the options for individuals. Rather than just dumping them on the streets, we need to take advantage of those programs. So that's the support part from the treatment advocacy center.

What we as psychiatrists in the Psychiatric Physicians Alliance would like would be to prevent tragedy by giving people medicines, by being able to provide medication, whether in jail or even out on the streets when they have the mis-status. This would be so important.

As you heard me testify in the earlier bill, the population probably will be individuals who do not realize that they're sick.

If they're not thinking that they're sick, they won't accept medication voluntarily, which means that it's really necessary to have a tool where you can actually stabilize them, reduce the psychotic symptoms, get them behaviorally more compliance, that they are not continually tripping one kind of statutory violation after another.

And so, these individuals really do need that extra, I think the status, we have informed consent procedures, as I mentioned in the prior testimony for all kinds of locations. But again, this is one of those gaps where we're not providing that opportunity for people.

So again, if you're in a community institution, if you're in a prison, if you're awaiting trial, you have access to informed consent procedures. But for this population, no.

So that's what we're asking, is for an amendment that would provide a procedure that's in accord with all our due process that we find in all the other statutes that govern all the other individuals. Thank you.

Thank you. Others in support, please come forward. Seeing none, we have opposition. Let's come forward. Can you move over that seat, Mister Hagar? Going over.

Good morning. Duke Cooney from ACLU California Action. We appreciate the discourse and the dialogue that we've had with the Senator. He has worked with us throughout this process, and we do appreciate that. We do have a few outstanding concerns with the bill.

We are asking for an amendment to require judges to dismiss the misdemeanor charges against the defendant, who is deemed IST when the defendant is not eligible for mental health diversion and does not qualify for the services enumerated in the penal code section.

As the Senator mentioned, with the passage of SB 317, we saw a more efficient and effective process for handling misdemeanor incompetent to stand trial cases. Under this new system, judges can more swiftly and safely ensure that people charged with those misdemeanors are found incompetent to stand trial receive meaningful mental health treatment.

And SB 317 has been an important factor in the state's effort to respond to the crisis of long wait lists, delayed access to the types of services and treatment that these folks need, and under 317, a person who is charged with a misdemeanor and deemed incompetent to stand trial, the judge may either dismiss the charges or conduct a hearing to determine if the defendant is eligible for mental health diversion.

If the court finds someone ineligible for mental health diversion, the court may order modification of that treatment plan, refer the person to assisted outpatient treatment, or refer to county conservatorship investigator.

But should dismissal no longer remain a requirement as proposed by SB 1400, a person who is deemed incompetent to stand trial and charged with a misdemeanor and is not diverted to resources or services will languish in county jail without the meaningful treatment. And that, unfortunately, is our biggest issue with the bill as written.

And there are substantial financial costs with that sort of outcome. Human costs. Folks who have this serious mental illness have worse outcomes in jails. They languish there for extended periods of time. They experience abuse and otherwise see their mental health condition deteriorate as time goes on.

For us, lengthy jail stays are one of the worst outcomes for people with serious mental illness. SB 3117 only went into effect a few years ago, and we have seen no indication that dismissal should not remain a requirement when all other options have been considered.

And for those reasons, we remain opposed to SB 1400 unless amended to allow for a dismissal of misdemeanor charges. But again, we do want to thank the Senator.

Margo George on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association. I would echo Mister Clooney's comments. I want to thank the Senator for his groundbreaking legislation in this area. SB 317 re represented a significant improvement, and I think want to applaud him for attempting to improve it further.

Thank you. Next.

The problem with the provision of taking out the dismissal is because what will happen is that someone, they will, and some of this already happens, they try to ascertain if they're eligible for mental health diversion. If they are not, then they go to either assisted outpatient treatment or care court or conservatorship.

But when none of those options are viable, the person just sits in county jail. And we heard earlier this session from one of my colleagues from the San Francisco public defender's office about in their mental health treatment court, court that ISTs are being held until the end of what would otherwise be their maximum sentence.

The judges are not dismissing the cases willy nilly, and they will not. I'm not sure what is happening in Los Angeles, but all of this is really about the scarcity of resources, and we need more resources.

When California made a decision to deinstitutionalize the mentally ill, the jails became the default housing for them, and we don't want to go back to that. I think the suggestion to expand involuntary medication, it may work in some counties, like Santa Clara County, where they have adequate safety safeguards.

They do not in the rest of the state, and this would endanger people's health and lives. So, we'd like to work with the author to further refine the bill. But the last resort is that if nothing else works, the person's case needs to be dismissed because they cannot be tried, they cannot plead out because there's incompetent.

So, they are just released with this charge hanging over them, potentially for years.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Others in opposition, please come forward.

Michelle Roberts, on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association. In opposition until amended, though, we are very grateful to be working with the author's office

thank you.

Good morning. Eric Henderson on behalf of Disability Rights California and opposition.

Thank you.

Questions or comments from committee members? Mister Alanis. Mister Zbur.

So, I'm having a little bit of trouble following the difference between what's being advocated and sort of what's in the bill. So, with respect to the ability to dismiss, what is different either in the bill or in your intent than what's being advocated here?

Appreciate the question. I'm not sure that we're that far apart. The amendment we took prior to leaving the Senate, working with ACLU, in fact, and public defenders as well as some of the DAs, including our own LA County DA, you'll find in the very, very last page of the bill.

It's in Section 2F and it says nothing in this section limits a court's discretion pursuant to Section 1385. Section 1385 is about the ability to dismiss in the best interests of justice.

So, we still feel that we preserve that sort of backstop if there's nothing else out there that that could work for this individual, that if the judge finds it's still in the best interests of justice and of the defendant, and that's usually negotiated directly with prosecution and the defense that they still can dismiss.

So, we haven't, I wouldn't say we've entirely removed the unilateral dismissal option cause that Section 1385 dismissal is still there. Whether that needs to be refined, yeah, I think is an open question, but that's what the bill would currently do.

So, you still preserve that ability to dismiss if all else fails, if it's in the best interest of justice. I think I'm getting that right. Is it best interest of justice? Yeah.

Yeah. So, it sounds like, I mean it sounds like there's a nuance. I mean what I'm hearing is that what's happening is if you can't find the help that someone needs or they're not either not eligible or it's not available, that what's happening is just being released without a dismissal.

So, does that mean that a charge is hanging? How long would sort of a charge sounds like there's a charge hanging over that individual's head for some period of time. Can the opponents answer question?

So, the effect is that in some counties the judges would be willing under penal code section 1385 to dismiss the case in probably more liberal counties. In less liberal counties the judges may be loathe to do that.

So, what will happen is if someone has a free-floating charge out there, it will make it more difficult for that individual to get into a treatment program or to get housing or avail themselves of other opportunities. So, it's just sort of like, it shows up on your rap sheet and it's never been adjudicated.

You've been arrested, you went to court for it, but it's still there. So that's the problem. Also, the problem is, without the mandatory dismissal coming after the other options, there's no incentive for the parties to really find a solution outside of the jail, because the person.

Well, we know they'll just sit there so we don't have to worry about them. So, we really need to have that incentive built in, is our feeling.

Well, you know, I'm so. I want to, first of all, thank the author. I think that the goals that the author has are good ones and getting people into the treatment that they need. It sounds like you're not very far apart from each other.

I'm going to support this today to give you some more time to work on that and appreciate you're doing that. Thanks.

Okay. Thank you. And can you also respond one more time to the suggestion about the dismissal of misdemeanor charges and where you'd like to go forward?

Yes. So again, Section 2F, the 1385 dismissal, we think is still an adequate backstop for when it's in the best interests of justice.

But the concern about this sort of the free-flowing charge, if you will, or the charge hanging over a defendant's head, if they're trying to, say, pursue housing or care, I think what I'd say is, if that truly is going to be a barrier to getting into housing or getting into treatment, we want to make sure we fix that.

But I'm reticent, I guess, just at a fundamental level, the reason we're pushing this bill is to beef up the diversion opportunities on the front end and to really make diversion and reentry opportunities available, not just in, say, LA County or Sac County, but across the state.

So, we actually think that'll push the more conservative counties, if you will, to go into, away from jail and into diversion. But I'm reticent to sort of still leave that back door in there entirely. Maybe I'm over LA focused, but the way it's gone, at least in LA to this point, and I know we haven't had LA testifying here, but just the basic stat.

In 2022 to 2023 and the two years after SB 317 was passed, the six month rearrest rate doubled for missed defendants whose cases were dismissed to 32%; just before the passage, it was at about 15%, 15.9%. And then those who are basically having their missed referrals accepted by diversion and reentry are declining.

So, we're getting, in fact, fewer people into ODR than we want to. And so, I guess a little difference of opinion about what the thrust of the bill should be. But I'm open to refining that best interest of justice dismissal option, should it be a barrier to housing and care.

And then in terms of just being very clear so you guys know what you're voting on, I also, I know CDA didn't articulate their views, but some members have said that's been a concern for them, too. And I am interested in working with the DAs as well on their issue around the felony cases that are restored.

And they're sort of outlier examples of certain missed cases, as well as our lead support, who also has some misgivings about the medical care issue and not to say imposing, say, unilateral, involuntary treatment options at all, but affording the same medical care options through the hearing process that others are afforded to make sure that while people are either in jail or ideally in behavioral health treatment, that those folks who are already incompetent stand trial and have severe mental illness can be found by the court to be eligible for some kind of other medical care.

Thank you, Assemblymember Reyes.

Yeah.

Well, I appreciate that you are the author. It makes a difference. And I, from the, even from the opposition, it sounds like the conversations have continued and you're close. It does appear, even in the way that it may be unintentional but to hear that the bill removes outright the ability to dismiss misdemeanor charges is something that, if that is the way it's being interpreted, then it is something that has to be addressed.

The committee does say that it doesn't outright, and you've talked about this also, that the judges just have to take extra consideration to alternative diversions before outright dismissal. But it sounds like there's sort of a disconnect here.

I appreciate that you want to beef up or push diversion away from jail, but it still sounds like there is a problem, and I will be supporting it. But I do want those conversations to continue. Is this single referred to us?

I believe so, yes.

Okay.

You can have my commitment on that.

Thank you. That's very important to make sure that we do address it. It's rare that we see both the DA and the public defenders opposing a bill, but for different reasons.

I don't know if I'm doing something wrong or right. Thank you.

Questions or comments? Yeah, this is a complicated issue, and I don't think it's all cooked today, but we have other opportunity to work on it and I think you've articulated where you want to go and there some shortcomings as well.

But you know, we want to, you know, give you the opportunity to keep working on this and engaging as you go to the Appropriations Committee next. And you know, you've worked on this over a number of years.

And so, as Assemblymember Reyes noted, you know, we trust your commitment to, to come with a solution that will address the issues outlined before us here today. With that, do we have a motion? A motion; a second? Would you like to close.

Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Call the roll, please.

Item number 14, SB 1400 by Senator Stern. The motion is do pass to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call].

That measure passes. Let's go back and do add-ons and lift the call on one measure.

For the consent calendar. [Roll Call] For item number one, SB 899, by Senator Skinner, this measure was on consent. Item number two, SB 902, by Senator Roth. The motion is do pass to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call] For item number three, SB 910, by Senator Umberg.

This measure is on consent. For item number four, SB 926, by Senator Wahab, this measure is on consent. For item number five, SB 933, by Senator Wahab, this item is on consent. Item number six, SB 950 by Senator Skinner, this item is on consent. For item number 10, SB 965, by Senator Min.

This item is on consent. For item eight, SB 989, by Senator Ashby, this item is on consent. Item number nine, SB 1019 by Senator Blakespear, this item is on consent. For item number 10, SB 1020, by Senator Bradford, the motion is do pass to the Appropriations Committee. This item is currently on call. [Roll Call]

That measure passes.

For item number 11, SB 1025, by Senator Eggman. The motion is do pass through the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call] For item number 12, SB 1069 by Senator Menjivar, this item is on consent. Item number 13, SB 1317, by Senator Wahab, the motion is do pass to the Appropriations Committee.

[Roll Call] For item number 14, this measure was just heard. For item number 15, SB 1518, by the Committee on Public Senate Committee on Public Safety, this measure is on consent.

Okay, thank you that concludes. We will hold a bit more for Assembly Member Wilson. Yes. Did you have a change? Yeah, you're good. We will adjourn this hearing. Thank you.