Assembly Standing Committee on Public Safety

Good morning. Good morning. We're going to start as a Subcommitee. First on the list is Senator Portantino. Just want to let the Committee and the public and the Members know today that will be enforcing somewhat altered time limits for today. Witnesses will have four minutes maximum as of the daily file, split between the witnesses.

Senators per Committee, rules have five minutes to open and five minutes to close. One additional note. We'll be hearing one more measure, SB 1381, Wahab, today. This Bill was referred to our Committee yesterday for Assembly rule 77.2, and the file notice waivers were granted in order for us to hear the Bill and Committee today.

So the first bill on the docket is Senator Portantino. This is SB 1128, file item 13. Please proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would say in Committee Members, but I'll say, Mr. Chair. Appreciate you starting as a Subcommittee. I'm. I don't know if pleased is the right word, but I'm eager to present SB 1128.

And I say I don't know if I'm pleased because this is a serious subject that requires serious attention and doesn't make anybody happy to have to discuss some of the unfortunate pieces of our society. And what happens to young teenage girls is one of those unfortunate things that happens in our.

At my house, no one ever tells me to speak up. Are we good? We're good. I'll start from the beginning. Thank you, Mr. Chair. As I said, I'm here to talk about SB 1128, which would close a serious loophole and protect basically teenage girls from abuse.

It's a subject that doesn't make me excited to discuss, but it's a necessary conversation that we have to have to have, because as the father of two girls, as someone who is out there in the world, we should make sure that we do everything we can to protect these teenagers.

SB 1128 will require one tier, one sex offender registration. If an offender engages in unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor and the offender is more than 10 years older than that minor. Failing to require registration for offenders engaging in the unlawful sexual intercourse of a minor is inexplicable.

This undercuts efforts to prevent sexual exploitation and abuse of teenage girls. Existing law requires sex offender registry for multiple sexual acts, but not intercourse. That makes absolutely no sense. It does not require sex offender registry for offenders engaging in sexual intercourse with a minor, irrespective of the age difference.

Many minors engaged in these relationships are exploited, manipulated, and fall victim to trafficking and other types of abuse. This effort will protect them by giving the LA City Attorney, who's the sponsor, and others, a tool they need to protect young girls.

The vast majority of victims come from marginalized communities and, frankly, are young girls of color who are the most vulnerable in the current system. We know that trafficking is $150 billion a year, global industry.

But more than that, we're just talking about how we give law enforcement, how we give those who deeply care about these young girls tools they have to protect them long term to keep them from the continuing falling prey to, frankly, 50 year old men who abuse these young women.

California consistently ranks number one in the nation for reported these types of cases. SB 1128 is essential to protecting vulnerable youth and for holding the sexual predators accountable. So I'm pleased that the LA City Attorney is here to speak on behalf of the bill.

We also have LAPD Deputy Chief Emada Tingirides, who's an expert, and we have Director of Child Abuse Policy and Prevention, Lara Drino. So we have experts here who can share their experiences on the front lines trying to protect these young girls.

With that, when appropriate, when you have a quorum, I would respectfully ask for an aye vote, and I'll turn it over to my key witnesses.

Thank you. Please begin.

Thank you. Good morning, chair. It's a pleasure to be before you again. I am here on behalf of SB 1128. I want to thank Senator Portantino for all the work that he's put in getting the bill to this point in time. I want to point out we did review the analysis.

Much of the analysis goes to whether or not a sex offender registration is something that this body should have enacted. As I've said to many people, that's above my pay grade. I am not focused on whether or not sex offenders should be required to register as a means of regulation.

What I am focused on is our young girls. There is no excuse for having anal intercourse, oral copulation, or penetration with an object other than a penis, be an automatically registrable tier one offense and excluding penal vaginal intercourse.

Our young girls then have to testify not only at the trial, but they have to come back if there is to be judicial discretion in the registry, and that retraumatizes our kids.

I would point out that the analysis relies upon the fact that the Los Angeles District Attorney's office was instrumental in passing the original modification to the sex offenders laws. I would like to call the Committee's attention to the number of people who are supporting this bill from all walks.

So this bill is, in fact, supported by the California District Attorney's Association, the California Sexual Assault Forensic Examiner Association, the California Women's Law Center, the City of Los Angeles, not just my office.

Dignity Health, the Los Angeles County Prosecutors Association, the Peace Officers Research Association of California, and a number of organizations that work with young girls off the street. Sister Friends, the Teen Project, South Central United. I respectfully would ask the Committee to pass this bill to the floor and allow it to be voted on. Thank you.

I now would like to turn it over to Deputy Chief Emada Tingirides, who works in the area.

Thank you. Next witness.

Thank you. Good morning, distinguished Committee Members. My name is Emada Tingirides and I'm a Deputy Chief at the Los Angeles Police Department, in which I have been for the past 29 years, serving specifically the community of South Los Angeles. Today, I'm here to testify in support of Senate Bill 1128. This bill is critical for several reasons.

The first, a protection of vulnerable youth. Our young black and brown girls in South Los Angeles are the most vulnerable in our communities for sexual assaults, human trafficking and family sexual abuse.

Those who exploit these minors must be identified and registered as sex offenders to ensure that law enforcement has an investigative tool to prevent these individuals from causing further harm. By passing this bill, we are taking a significant step towards protecting these girls and ensuring their safety, justice and validation for victims.

The teenage girls need to know that their voices are heard and that the law is on their side. This bill makes it less likely that the offenders will reoffend and are held accountable, which is crucial to the healing and validation of our victims. It also has an impact on our community safety.

In the first five months of this year alone, my bureau operation South Bureau has rescued 71 juvenile victims. This far surpasses my total amount of rescues last year, which was 60. The registry will be an essential tool for law enforcement to prevent a further harms to these and other young girls.

Passing Senate Bill 1128 is not just a legal necessity, but it is a moral imperative.

Thank you. Time's up. Thank you. Other witnesses in support, please come forward.

Hello, my name is Emily Schwartz. I'm a college student and I'm here in support of this bill.

Thank you.

Good morning. Amy Bailey of the Napa County District Attorney's office on behalf of the California District Attorney's Association in support.

I'm Dr. Stephany Powell, retired LAPD Vice Sergeant. I am in support.

Marjorie Saylor, survivor in support.

My name is Odessa Perkins. I am with Empowerment dess Perkins Foundation in support.

Dr. Angela Look in strong support.

Rochelle Conner, Abolitionist with Frederick Douglass Foundation of California. On behalf of many black and brown women, we are in strong support.

Helen Taylor with the national anti-trafficking organization Exodus Cry in support.

Olivia Burnett with Exodus Cry, in full support.

Christine Diaz, in support.

Ashley Faison with anti-trafficking organization Diamond Collective, in support.

Trizana Booth with Diamond Collective in support.

Tracy Richardson, in support.

Councilperson Octavio Cesar Martinez of Whittier in support.

Brianna Moseley, survivor and advocate for those who are trafficked, in support.

Janet Jett with Love Never Fails and in support.

My name is Elizabeth Kittles. I'm a survivor leader and the co founder of an organization called Redemption House of the Bay Area. And I'm in support.

Mr. Chair and Members Andrew Antwih with Shaw Yoder Antwih Schmelzer and Lange. The Los Angeles City Council voted unanimously to support this measure.

Topo Padilla, board member of Crime Victims United, in support.

Thank you. Witnesses in opposition, please come forward. You have four minutes combined. Do you have one more witness, Mr. Hernandez? Yeah.

Thank you. Thank you. Good morning Mr. Chair and Members Ignacio Hernandez, on behalf of the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, Statewide Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, we are in opposition to the bill. What's before you in this bill is not whether or not human trafficking or violent sexual assault should be illegal. It already is. Or punished.

It already is. What's before you is not even whether or not in some cases, individuals should be registered in the situations that were described, when there's a relationship between a minor and someone 10 years older, that's already possible. There's already discretion for the judge to do that.

What's before you is that the mandate that in every single instance registration must be imposed. And that's where we have the problem with the Bill. The cases that we have seen, there are individuals where there are indicators that this person may be serial, may be a predator, may have issues, that is where registration is appropriate.

But there are also cases where it is an unlawful, inappropriate relationship. And there are no indicators that this, that the individual that they defend, it is a risk to be a predator ongoing.

To the extent that registration is required, that the law enforcement resources are necessary to monitor this individual for an extended period of time and as extensively as happens under registration. And that is our concern. We need to make sure that the discretion is there. We think there should probably be more discretion than other cases.

But for the bill in front of you, the mandate in every single case, and I know I've had discussions with the proponents of the bill, there are cases where it's rare, where this type of offense is being prosecuted.

It's actually a smaller number compared to some of the other offenses, and we think that keeping the discretion is critical. We learned our lesson, and we believe the sex offender management board should look at this issue before a bill goes forward on this. For those reasons, we're opposed.

Thank you. Margo George on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association, I would echo Mr. Hernandez's comments about judicial discretion, and this bill is unnecessary, given the fact that a judge can already order sex offender registration under 2090.06 if necessary. I think the argument's been made that this cures the disparity between this and oral copulation.

And as pointed out in the analysis, the California Sex Offender Management Board did not recommend registration for oral copulation. That was an amendment that was added very late in the Appropriations Committee in order to get the bill out. It is not based on scientific evidence or data, and neither is this bill.

The other issue I think here is the disparity in enforcement, and that's also indicated in the analysis. In Los Angeles, 63% of the cases filed against the buyers are for against Hispanics or Latinos. The population of Los Angeles is only 47% Latino or Hispanic. There is complete disproportionate arrest and prosecution of people of color.

I would just also say. One more comment is that there's an ex post facto issue here, because this is not just going forward. This is also would require people who are already convicted of this to register and that there's heightened scrutiny when that is the case.

So there's potential, since this is, as the sponsor was saying, is to help determine.

Thank you. Others in opposition, please come forward and state your name and position only.

Janice Bellucci, Executive Director of the Alliance for Constitutional Sex Offense Laws. We oppose this bill.

Mark Judkins, I'm from Los Angeles. I oppose this bill.

Shivani Nashar, Ellen Baker Center, respectfully opposed this bill.

Duke Cooney, on behalf of ACLU California Action, I'd like to line my comments with my colleagues at the diocese.

Michael Medonia, Elk Grove, California. I strongly oppose the bill.

Frank Lindsey, Grover Beach, California, board member axel, strongly opposed.

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

James Adam Sacramento. I oppose

Alexander Gittinger, licensed clinical social worker in Los Angeles, and I strongly oppose

Eleanor Miller, South Pasadena. I'm an attorney, Vice President of the Alliance for Constitutional Sex Offender Laws. I oppose.

Joe Simonson, Lompoc, California. I strongly oppose.

Sherri Moreno, Sacramento Reentry Specialist. And I oppose.

Charles Lopez, Elk Grove. I oppose.

Dax proctor for California's United for Responsible Budget in opposition.

Fred Egley, from Santa Clara, California. I strongly oppose.

Roger Hunnicutt, Modesto, California businessman. Strong opposition.

I'm David Herron from El Dorado County, and I encourage you to vote no on this bill.

Thank you. Seeing no more opposition back to Committee Members. Questions or comments from Committee Members, Mr. Zbur.

So I want to indicate that I recognize that the author of this bill is one of the strongest allies of the LGBTQ community that we could ever imagine.

But I do have some questions about the bill and some concerns, in part because we, at Quality California, when I was there, spent a lot of time working on reforms to the sex offender registry to make sure that the registry included people that were at risk, but did not include people that did not pose a risk to society.

And also with the backdrop of understanding that we actually have differential enforcement that results in when you have mandatory registration requirements, it results in disproportionate impacts to certain vulnerable communities.

And I know the opponents indicated some statistics about the Latino community, but I also think that especially when it's coming to statutory rape issues, you have much more disproportionate impact in the LGBTQ community as well.

Because when you actually have folks that are within certain age jurisdictions and a parent finds out of a minor obviously finds out that the minor was there on a consensual relationship, unstatutory rape, often the parent will result in enforcement that would never happen to a non LGBTQ person.

So the first question I actually have, if I can ask to the Chair, to the opponents, is Senate Portantino, I'll let you respond as well, assuming that it's okay with the Chair.

Sure. Can we take roll real quick?

What's that?

Take a roll real quick. Yes, of course. Yes. Please call the roll. We have a quorum.

[Roll call]

So, so, first of all, I have concerns about the bill in terms of its consistency with SB 145, which was a bill that was a very high priority for equality California, which we did a lot for the sex offender registry.

And I'm having trouble understanding how it intersects with it and whether it's undoing some of the things that we were really important to us. So one of the first questions I have, and I'd like to ask the opponents and then Senator Portantino.

Is someone who's outside the age, you know, that falls within the mandatory registration of this bill if you actually had a statutory rape charge and the defendant did not actually know of the age differences. Right.

So that they didn't know that the person was under 16, they fell within what would be captured by the mandatory reporting, and bill?

So it would be a defense at trial that they didn't know. But most cases get plea bargained, so it is likely the answer would be yes.

Right. But I mean, statutory rape is statutory rape, right? So it's basically, obviously, it's not something that has intent. So if someone did not know, I mean, is it an element that you have knowledge of statutory. Right? I didn't think it was. I thought that that's a strict liability crime.

My understanding is that you could defend on that basis, but it would be up to the jury to decide if that was an objectively reasonable, you know, assumption. What we have seen in some jurisdictions, particularly, I think it was either Fresno or Stockton, where there have been undercover agents acting as underage girls, is that.

And this was in particular in the Hispanic community, an undercover agent who clearly was not underage would say to the purchaser, it's okay, I'm under 18. You know that. And the guy would say, sure, that's fine. And then he would be arrested for this.

Got it. Okay, well, that's a different factor.

I'm sorry. There's not a clear cut answer. But there.

The city attorney could answer if that's okay. Mr. Chair.

Absolutely, yes.

Can I respond to that? Just so you know, I've been a prosecutor for over 30 years, and over half my career, I've prosecuted child sex abuse cases for the city attorney's office. We would have to prove that they knew otherwise. A jury would never convict that they. That they were a minor.

Also, if we didn't have evidence or there was an issue, we wouldn't file the case. So this would not be an issue. But if after a jury trial, the jury found the person guilty, if they are over 10 years older, then, yes, this bill would require registration.

If I can? It does. There's already registration required for oral sex, for anal sex, for penetration with an object other than a penis. This bill has nothing to do with the LGBTQ community, nothing. That those sexual activities are already mandatorily registrable.

All this does is it takes 14 to 17 year old girls and says that when you are penetrated vaginally, it is as much of a sex crime that requires tier one registration as other forms of sexual activity with a minor. That's all this bill does.

But doesn't it add a mandatory registration requirement that the other activities don't

No, it already is mandatorily registrable for sexual activity of the LGBTQ community. I'm not changing that one way or the other.

Can I just one more question. Yeah. Do you agree with that?

Yes, that is accurate. Late amendment that was added to the three, the tiering bill and appropriations. 2017. Is that the year, I think, was Senator Weiner's bill? Ignacio may have more information.

Mr. Chair, May I respond as well. Yes. Okay. Yes, please. Thank you. On that question. So, yes, mandatory registration already applies for the other offenses when it's 10 years and over.

I want to point out that in reality, having this offense available as a non-registrable offense oftentimes helps negotiate plea deals in those mandatory cases where there are facts that kind of indicate this person really shouldn't be registered. So it's almost a release valve.

So it will have impact, a secondary impact on those other cases because it will be more difficult to plea bargain those cases because there will not be a non-registrable, non-mandatory, registrable offense available. So that's the other thing we are concerned about, that you'll see more trials and convictions for the other offenses.

One last question, and to the author, why I'm concerned about this retroactivity issue. It's not.

There's no retroactive. It was never part of the bill.

So this only applies going forward. There's not. I've gotten calls from the office that basically said that there's going to be 32,000 people that are going to be retroactively added to the bill.

Mr. Chair, so let's be clear. It's not retroactive. And as the city attorney explained, it is simply closing a loophole. It is not affecting any of those other offenses.

It is simply saying that young girls should have the same protection, should have the same implications as all of those other offenses that were part of the Wiener Bill and other things. It does not touch those.

And as you pointed out, it's a community I care deeply about and would not negatively affect in any way, shape, or form. And as passionate as I am about my advocacy for the LBGT community, I am, as a dad, passionate about the 16 and 17 year old girls who are being victimized as well.

And so that's why I'm here today. And again, it's not retroactive. It's a small loophole, closing for equity purposes. And as it's been testified, the most number of victims are marginalized young girls. That's why we're here.

I want to thank the author, honest to thank the city attorney and the opponents for. For helping me think through this issue. Thank you very much.

Okay, thank you. Further questions or comments from Committee Members? Mr. Alanis.

First off, thank you to the author. As a prior crimes against children's detective, I'm very happy to support this bill. I'm glad that the questions got clarified on that. I thought I was going to have to ask that in mind also, so thank you for clarifying that for everybody.

There were some, some points brought out by the opposition that I don't know if you guys had a chance to address yet, Senator or not. Did you guys have everything else that you guys needed to. No, I think we're good. Okay, well, thank you guys again, and I'll be supporting this mother bill.

Is that a motion? Motion a second? Further questions or comments from Committee Members? Seeing none, you may close, Senator.

No, I appreciate the conversation. I appreciate the questions because it allowed us to bring clarity to this conversation, because as we all know who work in this building, people run around with putting fires out that don't aren't burning. And this is a classic case.

This is a very simple bill that brings equity to young girls, that gives law enforcement tools to protect them prospectively, and keeps repeat offenders from victimizing these young girls in mostly marginalized communities. So I appreciate the conversation and respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. We have a motion. A second. I do support this measure as well. Please call the roll.

On SB 1128 by Senator Portantino. The motion is do passed to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

Measure passes. Next measures, Mr. Becker. You have three measures. Mr. Becker, we'll start in order. Do 1133, first item number 15, please begin.

Sure. Thank you. Chair. Excited to present these three bills today, starting with the Reasonable Reconsideration Act, a Bill that takes a common sense approach to pretrial system.

In California, when a person appears before court for the first time, a judge typically sets the bail in a matter of minutes or even seconds, and without much information in front of them to inform that decision.

As a result, there are many circumstances that can arise after the initial hearing that may justify a modification of the initial bail amount or release conditions. But it's not always easy to get back into court and argue for that to happen.

And data shown that the longer someone is detained pretrial, the greater the risk of housing instability, unemployment, and rearrest. Current law does not codify the standard judges must follow when reviewing initial amounts of bail set at these review hearings, and as a result, judges take drastically different approaches across the state.

Additionally, at a person's arraignment, a judge has the option to order someone be released pending trial if they agree to abide by certain conditions. With ever increasing case processing times, it's important that judges use a statewide standard to regularly reevaluate whether restrictive pretrial conditions are actually necessary to address the perceived risks.

SB 1133 addresses these issues by strengthening existing law governing bail review hearings and creating a recurring automatic review when folks are already coming back in, of non-monetary pretrial conditions.

We believe that revisiting bail and pretrial conditions is a critical opportunity to reduce the risk of detaining individuals who are not at risk of the public but cannot afford bail. Thank you very much. And we have witnesses here, starting with my witness from Vera.

Yes, please begin. Hi. Good morning. Thank you. Chair and Committee Members, my name is Jacob Denny. I'm the associate Director of Research for Vera California. We're a local initiative of the Vera Institute of Justice. Vera has been working on pretrial policy across the country for the last 60 years with a focus on delivering both safety and justice.

I'm here today in strong support of SB 1133. This Bill is straightforward. It would improve opportunities for review of pretrial decisions. It clarifies existing procedures for bail. Review of pretrial decisions. Excuse me.

It clarifies existing procedures for bear review in appropriate circumstances and ensures that throughout the court process, there are reviews of pretrial conditions, such as electronic monitoring. While the proposed changes are modest, they're also important. A well informed bail decision is a matter of public safety.

Just 24 hours of jail incarceration increases a person's risk of being re-arrested because they can lose their job, their home, and community ties, wrecking not only their life, but also their families. Onerous pretrial conditions such as electronic monitoring, drug testing, and other conditions can do the same, making our communities less safe.

Yet across California, judges often make pretrial release decisions in a matter of minutes or even seconds with limited and insufficient information.

In many cases, those initial quick determinations do not consider all the facts of a person's individual circumstances, and as a result, that person may end up with pretrial conditions or financial bail that are not actually reflective of their needs. In the case of pretrial conditions, there is no set process for review. Today.

This is especially important for onerous conditions like electronic monitoring, which is skyrocketing in use in many California counties, despite its limited effectiveness and well documented potential for unintended harm.

By ensuring appropriate chances for judges to revisit pretrial decisions, SB 1133 will bring necessary clarity, consistency and fairness to the pretrial process, all while maintaining the public safety every californian deserves. I respectfully ask that you vote aye on this Bill. Thank you. Next witness, please.

Not a witness, but me, too. Are you ready for that? Dan Coder, on behalf of Smart Justice California, initiate justice and Californians for Safety and justice and support Margo George on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association, in support Duke Cooney on behalf of ACLU California Action strong support. Thank you.

Samelia Rogers Alabaker Center for Human Rights in Support Layla Goldberg Ella Baker, Center for Human Rights in Support Melanie Kim San Francisco Public Defenders office in support Dax Proctor, for Californians United for responsible budget in support thank you.

Witnesses in opposition. You have four minutes for your panel.

Thank you. Good morning, esteemed chair and Members. Thank you for your time. My name is Amy Bailey. I'm with the Napa County District Attorney's office, and I'm here today on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association. We are respectfully urging this Committee to join us in opposing this Bill for three primary reasons.

One, there are significant practical concerns the proponents of the Bill discussed case processing times. I regret to inform you that this Bill will significantly increase case processing times. Second, it potentially causes hardships to the very people that the proponents of the Bill seek to protect for the reasons I'll explain.

And finally, this law is not merely something that clarifies the procedures that already exist, but instead actually is inconsistent with existing case precedent and inconsistent with the California State constitution.

With respect to the practical concerns, the proponents are correct that when a defendant comes before the court, they are arraigned, and when they are arraigned, the court decides whether they should be detained or whether they should be released on bail or or if they are released, there are often conditions of their release placed.

This condition can apply in nearly every single case that comes before the court. If there is a theft, traditionally there is a stay away order as a condition of theft. If you steal from Target, please don't go to Target while your case is pending.

In duis, if somebody has driven under the influence, it is routinely the case that that person is prevented as a condition of release from driving until they are properly licensed and insured. Similarly, in cases of assault, maybe let's take an example of a PC 417 brandishing a firearm.

Let's take the example of an individual who brandishes a firearm as a threat to somebody at a Denny's. Often, they may be permitted to be released pending trial, but they would be prohibited from possessing firearms and prohibited from going to that Denny's. These are the kinds of conditions we're talking about.

This law proposes that every other month, the people must prove that those same conditions stay away from Denny's, don't have a firearm, should still apply.

This is an enormous waste of time and resources to create an automatic review process every other month for potentially millions of cases because nearly every defendant who is released has one of those minor stay away from that place or don't have a weapon. This also potentially causes hardship to the defendants in these cases.

It essentially eviscerates 977 approval. That's the case where an individual may choose to have their attorney appear for them in court and handle their case. If we were to automatically review conditions every other month, those defendants would be forced to have a court date every other month.

Losing out on precious time at their jobs, losing out on precious time with their family or their other community obligations. We are forcing defendants into court every other month because this law doesn't have a waiver provision for the bail conditions, and if bail or. Or conditions change, defendants must be present in court.

Their attorneys cannot do it for them. Finally, this is inconsistent with existing precedent. This law purports to be just a codification of the Inry Humphrey case law, but it's not. It's not a codification of that.

And the proponents state that it is difficult to get into court to be able to change conditions if circumstances change, but that's simply not true. Existing case law already supports the idea that if there is a change in circumstance, defendants are entitled to at any time come before the court and request a change in their conditions. Yeah.

15 seconds.

Thank you. This law does not add that. I'll pass.

Thank you, Topo Padilla, on behalf of the Golden State Bail Agents Association and the incoming President of the crime Victims United. I've been a bail agent for 41 years, working in the criminal justice system, advocating for people to be released on bail, but at the same time, holding them accountable.

What we don't hear in any of these cases too often.

Sorry, we had four minutes. We have strict rules today.

Can I give you about victims. I know it's one of the last words.

Victims. Thank you, victims. Thank you, victims. I'm sorry. I know it's helpful. Your witness knows you had four minutes. She shorted you, so that's on her. Please come forward. In opposition please state your name. Position only, Mister Chairman.

Members Carl London here on behalf of crime Victims United in strong opposition to this proposal. Thank you.

Thank you.

That's great. That's lovely.

Thank you. Others in opposition last call none. Questions or comments from Committee Members.

Mr, Zbur, I just have one that I'd like to ask the authorization. I mean, it seems like the main issue that the opposition is raising is one of a multitude of hearings that would be triggered by this, and I'm wondering if you could sort of address that and why, whether that should be a problem.

We're really thinking about if there's things that we're going to have to be doing in terms of funding, if you could just address that issue.

Yeah, I appreciate that. I think the opposition may be referring to an old version of the Bill, because I think certainly if we were asking everyone to come in every month, or that would be certainly a lot. What the Bill specifically says.

It says in the analysis it's an automatic review on the section at the next regularly scheduled court date. So a court date is already scheduled? Regularly scheduled court date after the 60 day period during which the defendant has been in compliance with all the non monetary conditions.

So as you can imagine, given the current budget situation, the focus was on not creating additional budgetary pressure. So that piece, and there's some other pieces that were taken out, but that piece is specifically saying if you're already, if you have a regularly scheduled appearance, then you will review this after 60 days.

So that would be my main comment, I think, to clarify that maybe have some other.

Yeah, we believe that this won't create any additional burdens to the court, as the Senator said, we adopted an amendment after conversations with the Judicial Council and the courthouse who had concerns about burdens. So this would get tacked onto existing hearings. We believe, honestly, that this would take maximum two minutes.

If you've been to many of these criminal court hearings, these things are very quick. To the District Attorney's concerns about presenting new information. That information has already been, or those cases have already been made by district attorneys on why these conditions are important.

They can make the same case again and a judge can decide on the extra conditions, conditions of all released conditions mandated by law. Right. So protective orders, stay away from alcohol, things like that would not be subject to review under this law because they already. They're mandated under law.

They would not be subject to. They would not be.

May I briefly respond to that?

Is that okay? Yeah, that's it. Yes. Yes. Just one quick question.

Thank you. I think that's a misstatement. Although it may apply to future court dates, it also require triggers, an automatic review every 60 days. Regular court dates are often not every 60 days. So we're talking about something that's going to be happening multiple times a year in a case where those are not the regularly scheduled court dates.

And frankly, the fact that the District Attorney could just present the same arguments they presented at the first hearing, I think, in my view, highlights the wastefulness of this Bill because it essentially requires a court date for us to repeat ourselves. And I think that's wasteful.

May I just. You want to Mister? Sure, if that's ok. The language of the Bill says after 60 days at the next court hearing, every 60 days after that. So if you don't have a court hearing within 60 days after the next one you have, it would get tacked on. So it creates no additional court dates.

That's very clear. It says regularly scheduled. They have to be going in for other reasons. I respond from a victim standpoint. Thank you, Miss Wilson. Thank you.

I think we're fine.

Thank you.

I have some similar thoughts. I mean, not similar thoughts, but I was wanting the clarification that we heard in opposition. And so I do want to make sure I understand that.

So I'm just going to restate it because there was a lot of back and forth that you're saying that once they have a court date where they're given these non-monetary bail, these conditions of release, that if they are complying with them for a 60 day period, meaning there has been no infraction related to the conditions that at the next scheduled court date for them, not a random court date, but the next time they're in court, there is an automatic review.

And the assumption is, unless the prosecutors come in to say otherwise, the assumption is they'll be released from those conditions.

Yes, there's a presumptive release from conditions, but the judge can still make any determination. So judicial discretion is still in place.

So even if the prosecutors are silent to it, the judge can say, I still want these conditions of release to be in effect.

Yes, for sure. Yeah.

Okay. And so the review is because people are not getting reviewed and having to keep these in perpetuity for however long it takes for trial and things of that nature.

Yes, there are, you know, and studies have shown there are, you know, significant ramifications in people's lives that have these conditions. And given what's happening in the court system, they're many times just not getting reviewed. And so this says, again, only after 60 days, only if you have a regularly scheduled appearance, then it will get reviewed.

Okay. And then there has been this question from the opposition about the victims and their role in it. Are victims required to be at these types of hearings? Is that where you think it's a pressing matter to this cause? I'm struggling to see how the victim plays into this particular part.

Thank you for that question. And victims are all too forgotten about and not really heard from. Yes. Victim has that right to be there and should have the right to be there. And every time they have to go back there now for these scheduled court dates, they have to go in and see what is new.

And we just think that that is wrong because there are very little about the victims in here. Yes, we would have the right to go to these hearings and to have to be traumatized over 60 days. Ma'am, courts work. They actually do work. They might not be the most efficient, but they do work.

Let me interrupt for a moment. However, if the 60 days. If it's at the regularly scheduled court date, it seems like there would not be an advance. It's not being scheduled because of the 60 day requirement. I don't see that in the law.

And I just want to confirm it's not being scheduled because of the 60 day requirement. It's just saying that there's a presumption that at that regularly court date, if it is beyond 60 days from the last review, that there has to be some level of presumption that it still needs to exist.

It just automatically can't exist in perpetuity. Is that a correct assumption? Yes. Okay. All right. I'm satisfied. Thank you. Okay.

Thank you. No further questions or comments. Do we have. No. You'd like to close, sir?

No. Thank you. I appreciate opposition. I think there have been a lot of changes to this Bill. I'll make sure we're all addressing kind of the current version, but it's been pretty scaled back. But it's really focused on this piece again, only if there's a regular scheduled court date every six days.

I think we covered a lot of the. The issues, and I think it's important. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. We have a motion on this. A motion in a second.

Please call the roll-on Senate Bill 1133 by Senator Becker. The motion is do pass. [Roll Call] Next measures on call.

Okay. Thank you, Mister Becker. Your next measure is item number 16, SB 1161.

Thank you, chair. This Bill will make subtle but much needed changes to the welfare institutions code to ultimately streamline both access and ceiling opportunities for eligible youth in the the juvenile justice system. It's called the juvenile justice omnibus reform Bill. Cause there's a number of small changes.

I won't go through a lot of these, but it's areas including access to juvenile records, record sealing when charges will not be filed, availability of informal probation, access to institutional records, preservation of foster care benefits for non minors dependent youth.

In order to prove, and all this to improve the clarity and efficacy of the welfare and institutions code, I have my witness here, Stephen Hirsch from the Sacramento County Public Defender's office.

Thank you. Please begin. Good morning. My name is Stephen Hirsch and I'm a public defender here in Sacramento county representing youth. I'm testifying today on behalf of the Pacific Juvenile Defender center, the sponsor of SB 1161. PJDC, is a statewide Association of defenders and advocates working to improve California's legal system for youth.

The goal of SB 1161 is simply to clarify, modernize and improve the welfare and institutions code. Senator Becker's Bill makes practical, common-sense improvements in several areas, including record sealing, access to juvenile records, the availability of informal probation, and the effect of appeals on ongoing cases.

Time does not permit me to describe all of the individual issues addressed by SB 1161. So I will give you just one illustrative example of the type of common sense fix that reflects the spirit of this Bill.

So, under current law, there are former foster youth between the ages of 18 and 21 years old who receive what are called extended foster care benefits to help with housing and other basic needs.

Sometimes a judge will want to dismiss the underlying juvenile delinquency case for a youth receiving such benefits in light of their successful rehabilitation and completion of probation. The problem is, under current law, there is a lack of clarity on whether such a dismissal of the underlying case might actually also terminate the youth's foster care benefits.

SB 1161 provides clarity on this issue. It clarifies that a successful dismissal of a case will not result in such a youth losing their foster care benefits. SB 1161 includes about a dozen other similar common sense and rational fixes to the welfare and institutions code.

In workshopping these ideas, we met with and received helpful feedback from the Judicial Council as well as the California Judges Association, all before SB 1161 was introduced. The spirit behind the Bill is collaboration, refinement and modernization, all consistent with the rehabilitative purpose of the juvenile court. SB 1161 has broad support, and we respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. All right, other witness and some support. This is a me too portion. Name, organization and position.

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

Duke Cooney, on behalf of ACLU, strong support. Thank you.

Similia Rogers, Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in support.

Shivani Nashar, Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in support. Melanie Kim, San Francisco Public Defender's office in support.

Jacob Denny from the Vera Institute of Justice in support.

Thank you. Are there any others? Just seeing there's a little traffic jam over there. Okay. Seeing none.

Moving on to opposition testimony for minutes. Thank you, chair and Members, again, Amy Bailey. On behalf of the California District Attorneys Association, I'll keep this one short, but we respectfully oppose this Bill. The law currently goes to great lengths to ensure the confidentiality of juvenile records.

Yes, it's a cumbersome process on everybody involved in the criminal justice system, but that is for good reason. We have to petition and be able to articulate good reason to access these highly confidential records. The issue with this law is that it eliminates the requirement that the juvenile's defense attorney follow those same procedures.

It strikes at the heart of the law, which protects the confidentiality. And while I understand that confidentiality provisions can sometimes be cumbersome, they are there and they are important to protect juveniles from potentially having hardships or negative effects of their records being released. And so we would ask respectfully for you to oppose this Bill as we do.

Thank you.

Thank you. Moving on to Members of the public and opposition.

Me too. Name organization position. Good morning, chair and Members Daniel Sanchez, on behalf of the chief probation officers of California, and I do want to be sure to note that we do not have a position.

We've been engaged in very productive conversations with the sponsors and the author around some of these confidentiality elements and a few technical aspects of it, generally supportive of, obviously, the goals of record sealing, but want to make sure we're doing it in a way that operationalizes this and is very meaningfully protecting those existing confidentiality measures. Thank you.

Thank you.

Gave you the leeway of the, there was so much time left over from the four minutes, and I don't see anyone standing, so I will bring it to Committee Zabur so what are the, I mean, to me, when I look at this Bill, it seems obvious that a juveniles defense attorney should be able to have access to their records.

I mean, it's like part of being able to have a defense against charges. So I don't understand. Lawyers are officers of the court. They have ethical duties to their clients. I don't understand why we would treat them in the same way we would some other Member of the public in accessing the juvenile's records. So I just.

I really don't get that.

I'd be happy to clarify that, of course, as the case is proceeding, the juvenile case is proceeding, the attorneys representing that juvenile and the prosecutors prosecuting that juvenile have access to the records in the way that they need to be able to mount a defense or prosecute the case.

The exclusion that's included in this law is an exclusion that prevents the defense from having to seal the records after that case has concluded or become or finished in some way. That's the part that we're concerned about.

Just by way of example, even in my office, juveniles against whom we've prosecuted, even I, as a person not in the juvenile unit, I don't have access to those records, and I would have to petition the court to get access for them, even though some other attorney in my office might have them.

That's because there are very strict confidentiality requirements after the case is concluded to protect the juvenile from future harm related to that case down the line. So the exception is in sealing it after the case has been finished, after the defense has been mounted. So certainly they maintain access during that time.

The question is whether they should be required to seal, as everyone else does after the case is concluded.

May I ask, Senator Becker, do you have any response to that? I mean, I can see, having been a practicing lawyer for years, obviously with ongoing matters with a trial, you would see why you would want.

I could understand why a defense lawyer would want to have, not have to actually give up records that were part of a case file, but I'm just wondering if you can sort of respond to that.

Yeah, I mean, I'd say that. And first, I appreciate that we have been working with probation officers and others, and we want to try to make this commonsense reforms. It is a, would you want to comment on the ceiling piece?

Yes, I would love to comment on that. So first, I think it's important to clarify that the position CDAA is taking on defense lawyers needing to seal their records under 781 and 786 is not actually the prevailing view across the state.

So PJDC has sort of pulled our membership, and in most jurisdictions, the law is already interpreted to exclude the defense lawyer from having to seal their own clients' records. So that would include Los Angeles County, Sacramento County, Alameda County, San Mateo County, Santa Clara County, Contra Costa, Yolo, Riverside, many others.

The prevailing view across the state in most jurisdictions is that the defense attorney is already accepted from the sealing orders for a variety of good reasons. Defense attorneys have an ethical duty to maintain the client's file. It's actually the client's property.

We also have an ethical duty to, in any type of criminal matter, essentially retain the client's file for the life of the client due to the unforeseeable nature of how some of the information could become relevant due to changes in the law in the future, due to writs, due to appeals.

Furthermore, the ceiling, the purpose of sealing is to protect the miner from prejudice that could occur as a result of information in the file getting out. The defense attorney is in a unique position vis a vis every other party in the process whereby we essentially already. Our file is already sealed, so to speak.

It is not accessible to other parties, to the public through any 827 request or other mechanism. And we have a duty to never release any confidential information of our client and to essentially do no harm to our client. So just. Just to clarify, I think that view of attorneys being subject is a minority view in reality.

And all the Senator Becker's law is doing is clarifying for those small minority of counties that are ordering defense attorneys to seal records, that that's not actually the proper way to interpret this law. And I would just note San Diego County is the only county I'm personally aware of in which courts make this order to defense counsel.

I want to thank you, both the opposition and Senator Becker. This was really helpful. I mean, to me, this is about actually putting defense lawyers on an even, on an even level with the prosecutors. And I think that you can't adequately defend a client if you don't actually have access to the records.

And you need to have those things to think about sort of ongoing matters related to a case. And lawyers are subject to ethical duties about ethical duties of maintaining confidentiality of their clients. I think that would extend to record. So just want to thank you both for helping me think through these issues.

Thank you. Are there any other Members of the Committee? The Bill has been moved by Nguyen and seconded by Zbur. Seeing no further comments, I think that. Well, we'll just call the roll. Thank you.

On Senate Bill 1161 by Senator Becker. The motion is do pass to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

All right. Is there a third for Becker? Oh, item number 18. Thank you. Item number 18. SB 1254. You may proceed at your convenience.

Thank you, Members. This is SB 1254. This allows and assists incarcerated folks applying for Calfresh benefits up to 90 days before they're released to better prepare for their reentry. And again, just to clarify, this Bill provides individuals with Calfresh only upon their exit from a facility.

And you all know about Snap, known as Calfresh in California, largest federal food assistance program in the country. And again, these are federal dollars we're drawing down. As you all know, we've had issues in California with our percentage folks eligible who actually access these essentially free dollars from the Federal Government.

And right now, under federal law, incarcerated individuals become ineligible to receive Calfresh benefits after 30 days of confinement. However, the USDA provides for waivers to deviate from that current provision, which 12 states have already done so. In fact, Orange County has a pilot program since 2021. They do it for everyone leaving.

They start the process 30 days before someone exits. And we've talked to the sheriffs there, and they're supportive, and that's going well.

Given that, I'll let my witnesses talk really about more about the need to do this, but I'll just say again, this builds on existing work in connecting individuals with state services in an effective manner, decreasing barriers, reentry, and helping address the issue of food insecurity. With that, respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Moving on to witnesses. You have four minutes between the two.

Good morning. My name is Cameron Mims Jones and I'm a senior mic. oh, I'm sorry. You can move it to. You got it. Good morning. My name is Cameron Mims Jones and I'm a senior advocate with nourish California. Our mission has been to ensure equitable access to food, health and well being for over three decades.

Our minoritized and historically under resourced communities, already hit hardest by mass incarceration and a legacy of systemic racism, also bear the public safety burden. 1254 was developed alongside those communities who have said, enough is enough. We want solutions developed with our impact in mind.

Acknowledging the moment we are in and the sentiments expressed by our communities across the state is imperative. Bold and innovative approaches are urgently needed to address the genuine public safety concerns we all face today. At the same time, we must invest in consistent resources for individuals transitioning back to community from incarceration.

The lack of these resources has created significant challenges that we can no longer afford to ignore. SB 1254 comes from a restorative framework, an upstream policy aimed at the enduring impacts of incarceration by enabling incarcerated individuals who will be eligible upon release to begin the process before returning home.

This initiative would address not only immediate needs, but foster long term well being. California has seen calfresh as a lifeline, and it helps millions put foods on the table it's our most effective anti poverty program, and it is administered by our counties.

We recognize that communities thrive when access to nutritious and culturally relevant food are prioritized and insured. There are diverse experiences on this topic within our communities, so 1254 was developed to engage interested parties in meaningful dialogue. This Bill will enable us to correct and to identify best practices to effectively support our reentry process.

I, respectively ask for your vote on 1254, and my esteemed colleague will speak.

Good morning. A lot of you guys know me. I've came in here several times, and I usually share my personal story, but today I'm going to talk about my work at LSPC. I'm the reentry coordinator for NorCal. For all of us are none, and that's primarily four chapters.

But we see many people that are coming from the California Department of Corrections that Alameda County, particularly where I'm stationed, has no resources for these people, for specific, specifically for food as immediate relief. And what we're finding is that on average, best case scenario, seven days.

Worst case, we've seen 21 and upwards people waiting to access emergency food services through the current Calfresh program. So for me, this is personal because obviously I just came home after serving 25 years about three years ago. So fortunately I was blessed.

I had family surrounding me, the women and men and, yes, children, because the State of California is still incarcerating children and paroling children from adult prisons are coming into our office asking for relief. The burden is being bared by cbos primarily.

And for those of us that are involved in this work on a daily basis, it's heartbreaking, and I obviously ask for your I vote respectfully.

Thank you. Moving to Members of the public who would like to offer me two support, name, organization and position.

Danica Rodarmel, on behalf of Initiate Justice in support. ACLU California action strong support. Thank you.

Melanie Kim, San Francisco Public Defender's office, in support.

Simile Rogers, Al Baker, Center for Human Rights in support.

Layla Goldberg, Ella Baker, Center for Human Rights and Support.

Margo George, California Public Defenders Association and support. Thank you.

Molly Sheehan with the California Catholic Conference in support. Thanks morning.

Faith Lee with Asian Americans advance and Justice Southern California we're in support. Kathy Mossberg, with the California Association of Food Banks, in support. Jim Lindbergh, Friends Committee on Legislation of California, in support.

Trin Vaughn, with justice and aging and strong support. Thank you. Yolanda Navarretti, outside organizer with initiate justice and initiate justice action. We are in strong support. Thank you.

Dax Proctor for Californians united for responsible budget in support. Good morning. Carlos Santana, on behalf of the California Immigrant Policy center and support.

Thank you. Opposition. Let's come forward.

Thank you. You have four minutes, Mister chair Members. Corey Salzillo, on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association, in opposition to the Bill. As we noted in previous committees, we understand and appreciate the goal of easing reentry of formerly incarcerated persons.

But this creates expensive challenges without funding or the guarantee that the program will actually be approved by the Federal Government. In order for this unfunded mandate to be even implemented, state officials would have to seek and receive a federal waiver. There's no assurance such would occur.

It might happen, it might be likely to happen, but there's no guarantee. And the work that will be done in advance has to be done further.

Our state and local correctional systems are already in the middle of a year long, excuse me, years long, years long process to implement the second part of the Calaim jihad, or justice involved initiative, which, as you know, requires the provision of inreach services to county jail inmates within 90 days of release.

This new program will not be rolled out in counties any earlier than October 12024 and at that point, it will only be in a handful of counties, and very few, if any, counties will be ready or willing to proceed at that time.

So layering on another program that will require resources that are currently unaccounted for, both in funding and staff capacity, capacity could hamstring local correctional efforts even now that the bill's requirements do not commence until Callaim is implemented. So for those reasons, we respectfully ask for your no vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Others in opposition, please come forward. Seeing none questions or comments from Committee Members. Some more?

Reyes, the financial concern, that's a valid concern. How are we going to pay for this? But I think the idea of setting somebody up, they're going to be released. To have them set up so that they can, upon their release, begin to receive calfresh, I think is just a humane thing to do.

And I think it helps to set people up. I think it's a very good Bill. With that, I would move the Bill.

Thank you. We have a motion a second. Seeing no further questions or comments. Mister Becker, you may close. Thank you.

Yeah, we have made substantial changes along the way. This Bill also, as I didn't go into great detail, but does create a work group looking at the reentry process. And we have representatives now from the sheriff and others in consultation from the previous hearings.

It doesn't take effect, as you mentioned, till we do some of these other pieces, you know, with respect, you know, at that case, you know, I've been told and we talked to Orange County pilot. You know, this really.

Then should just be a few, a few extra questions on a form to get people signed up with that I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you. We have a motion a second.

Please call the roll on SB 1254 by Senator Becker. The motion is do passed to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

Thank you. The measure is on call. Next author is Senator Alvarado-Gil. Oh, I'm sorry. I apologize, Miss Blakespear. I didn't see her. And Mister Becker, shadow.

Item number 10, SB 1002.

Item number 10, SB 1002.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you for coming.

Please begin.

Okay. Thank you. Chair and colleagues, I appreciate the opportunity to speak in support of my bill, SB 1002. Despite California having the best gun safety laws in the nation, we still have areas where we need to improve. Specifically, we need to address implementation gaps.

This is places where existing laws aren't working quite, quite as well as they should. This bipartisan measure addresses one of the most pressing implementation gaps in ensuring our laws that prohibit people experiencing mental health crises from having guns actually work. To be clear, we are not talking about people who are experiencing a minor depressive episode.

We are talking about individuals who have been involuntarily hospitalized, deemed not guilty by reason of mental insanity, placed in a conservatorship, or judged to be a danger to others or themselves due to their mental illness. According to the California Department of Justice, nearly 4800 Californians remain armed despite being prohibited from having guns due to mental health concerns.

This problem may grow as counties implement SB 43 from last year, expanding the parameters under which individuals can be involuntarily committed due to mental health. From 2012 to 2022, California averaged over 120,000 mental health holds of adults a year. We are extremely vulnerable to someone slipping through the gaps in our system.

A person with a mental health crisis and access to a gun is at risk of killing themselves or shooting others. We want to reduce that risk as much as possible. SB 1002 strives to plug these gaps and make our community safer by implementing several changes.

First, it provides compliance timelines and sets up a system with overlapping checkpoints to ensure success.

People who are involuntarily committed to a healthcare facility will be informed multiple times that they have 72 hours from discharge to get rid of their firearms and ammunition by several means, including sale to or temporarily storing with a licensed dealer or turning them over to law enforcement.

Second, it provides local law enforcement with the information they need to follow up. This will improve voluntary compliance and enforcement when needed. I also want to emphasize what the bill does not do. This Bill does not create any new firearm prohibitions. Instead, it's focused on improving the outcomes of existing laws.

With me here today, I'm honored to have Fernando Meza on behalf of the San Diego Sheriff's Department, and Chair, if he.

Yes, please go ahead.

Good morning, Chair and honorable Public Safety Committee Members. My name is Fernando Meza and I am property investigator for the San Diego County Sheriff's office. On behalf of the San Diego County Sheriff, Kelly Martinez, who was the bill's sponsor, we would like to thank Senator Blakespear for authoring SB 1002.

This bill closes critical implementation gaps within existing firearm prohibitions for people experiencing mental health crises. From 2014 to 2023, the Sheriff's Property Investigations Unit, a team of four, reviewed more than 56,000 involuntary detention cases per year. Of those cases, nearly 4007% involved a record of a firearm that was identified through investigation and research.

Currently, when interacting with prohibited persons and educating them of the law and their rights, there are times when we are met with reluctance and or confusion. Unfortunately, law enforcement has no mechanism to reference or physically point to a document when contacting individuals.

In addition, the patient notification of firearm prohibition and right to hearing form doesn't list law enforcement as a relinquishment option despite it being available, causing more confusion when we contact them.

Senate Bill 1002 will close implementation gaps by allowing law enforcement the ability to request the signed patient notification form and establish a hard deadline for a prohibited person to surrender any outstanding firearms through the available relinquishment options. The end goal is to prevent the escalation of a threat, serious harm or death or commission of a crime.

70% of gun violence in San Diego County is attributed to suicide. Disrupting access to firearms during these times of crisis reduces that risk and saves lives. When the prohibited person is better informed and law enforcement is better informed, there will be a better outcome.

That is why the San Diego County Sheriff's office is proud to sponsor this important legislation that will help streamline and clarify the relinquishment process, making everyone safer. In closing, we respectfully ask for the Committee's aye vote and I welcome any questions.

Thank you. Others in support please come forward.

Rebecca Marcus on behalf of the Brady campaign in support.

Morning Mr. Chair and Members. Cory Salzillo on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association in support.

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

Chair and Members Cassandra Marr, on behalf of Giffords, in support.

Thank you. Opposition, please come forward. Seeing no opposition, questions or comments from Committee Members? Seeing none. I support this bill. We have a motion and a second. You may close.

Thank you. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Please call the roll on.

SB 1002 by Senator Blakespear. The motion is do pass to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

Measures on call. Mister Zuberbert. Doing the measure now, Miss Wahab? Yes. Okay, Senator Wahab, Senator Ashby and Assemblymember Zubair like to jointly present SB 1381 again. You have five minutes combo for your opening and close. Thank you.

Please begin, Mister chair Members. I'm here today as a joint author along with Senators Wahab and Ashley on SB 1381.

As you know, the Legislature has advanced a broad, comprehensive strategy and package of bills that offers balanced, effective and smart solutions to retail crime and endeavors to preserve criminal justice reforms that have been effective at keeping our communities safe.

The legislative package, together with this legislative Proposition, provide a comprehensive approach to the problem of retail theft and the pervasive danger presented by fentanyl in our communities.

Discussions regarding the key areas in this legislative Proposition have been led by the governor's office and the legislative leadership and involved a variety of stakeholders, and the Governor and legislative leaders believe this provides a balanced approach. This measure will hold fentanyl dealers accountable, curb theft at shops and businesses, and increase access to drug treatment.

A brief summary of the measure it holds those who steal repeatedly accountable. It aggregates thefts amounts by empowering law enforcement to combine the value of multiple thefts, even from different victims. It cracks down on fentanyl lasers by introducing stiffer penalties for knowingly selling or providing drugs mixed with fentanyl without informing the buyer.

It holds fentanyl dealers accountable by establishing a statewide fentanyl admonishment requirement, making it easier for prosecutors to ensure drug dealers who repeatedly sell deadly amounts of fentanyl can be charged with murder if a death occurs, and it increases resources for drug treatment by expanding mental health and drug addiction treatment programs in communities. Improving public safety.

I'd now like to turn it over to my joint author, Senator Wahab.

Thank you, chair colleagues and Members of the public. As you know, the Governor has worked with the Legislature to develop Proposition two or SB 1381 SB 1381 is a balanced approach to targeting guilty perpetrators without resulting in mass incarceration.

This proposed ballot measure will create new penalties for repeat serial retail theft offenders and fentanyl dealers, as well as provide additional tools for felony prosecutions while increasing drug treatment. We all agree that something needs to be done to address the increase in both shoplifting and fentanyl overdoses.

As a representative of the Bay Area, I strongly believe that more needs to be done. According to the Department of Healthcare Services, compared to 2019, overdose death rates spiked by 42% in 2020, and by 2021 this number increased by 70%.

The Department of Justice reports that property crime rates have increased by nearly 7% since 2021, adding to the challenges with our small businesses and retailers already face in this pandemic, post pandemic world.

SB 1381 addresses these concerns, but ensures that hard won policies this Legislature has passed regarding prevention and anti recidivism are preserved and by and provides an increase in investment toward mental health and substance abuse treatment.

I do want to state that SB 1381 complements the Legislature's current comprehensive bipartisan Bill package, the Safer California package, to address property crime and the fentanyl crisis, and it maintains the work we have done to protect our youth.

While this ballot measure does create new penalties, it is not punitive and it allows the Legislature to amend at a future date with more additional data. When it comes to what is going well and what is going wrong, anything outside of this measure does not do that. In fact, it restricts the Legislature's hands.

It ties our hands to do anything more for the people we represent. That is why this ballot initiative is important. I would like to thank Governor Newsom and our legislative leadership for spearheading the effort on this initiative, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

I do have two witnesses with me testifying in support, Ryan Elaine with the California Retailers Association and Daniel Conway with the California Grocers Association. I'll yield my to Senator Ashby.

SB 1381 balances our shared desire for community safety, but also holding offenders accountable. The Bill gives law enforcement and Das the tools that they need to prosecute property crimes, as well as enforce stricter punishments for traffickers who knowingly sell or mix fentanyl.

This measure strikes an important balance between ensuring criminal penalties fit the crimes committed and keeping our communities safe from theft and lethal drugs, while also not regressing back to ineffective policies that previously over criminalized California's low-income communities, particularly people of color.

We all care a lot about small businesses, but we also care about not reverting back to days of mass incarceration and a failed war on drugs.

As my colleagues have already laid out, SB 1381 does a few things, but one of the most important is that it expands mental health and drug addiction treatment programs for our communities, which further improves community safety while prioritizing the overall health and well being of Californians. Colleagues, we just spent weeks negotiating a budget cutting billions of dollars.

The initiative in front of you today not only strikes a balance on crime and accountability, it also addresses costs.

The war on drugs proposal has been priced out by the LAO at hundreds of millions of dollars annually for incarceration, not treatment, not care courts, not mental health services, state prison colleagues, let's give Californians another option, one that holds people accountable, addresses petit theft with priors. Let's make it illegal to mix fentanyl with other things.

Let's move resources to treatment. Let's help our small businesses and retailers and protect kids and neighborhoods. Without spending hundreds of millions of dollars and without re implementing failed policies that filled our prisons and did not reduce crime, we can certainly do better. I urge an aye vote on SB 1381.

Thank you.

Thank you. Witnesses and support, you have four minutes. Combo. Perfect.

Thank you. Good morning, chair Mccarty, Committee Members, my name is Ryan Allain, and I'm here on behalf of the California Retailers Association and strong support of SB 1381.

For years, the California Retailers Association asked this body, through our sponsorship of legislation, to pass effective solutions to provide tools to combat retail theft issues specifically focused on repeat offenders and help fix the unintended loophole of Prop 47 pertaining to the lack of ability to aggregate the $950 threshold that we see repeat offenders take advantage of.

Unfortunately, we were met. Our requests were met unanswered. Until this year and until today. Preventing retail theft and protecting retail employees and customers is a top priority for all retailers throughout California.

But the increase of retail theft and the damage it causes communities dictates that something needs to be done to ensure there are consequences for criminal behavior, giving retailers, law enforcement, and prosecutors the tools they need to deter and prevents it from escalating even more.

Retailers will continue to invest in protecting employees, customers and assets from crime, but criminals understand the loopholes in current law, loopholes like the removal of penal code 666.1, petit theft with the prior, or how the current law makes it almost impossible to aggregate crimes up to the $950 threshold. SB 1381 would fix that.

Today in California, retail theft pays, and it pays well. It's viewed as a low risk, high reward venture with little consequences. But now it is time to change that narrative.

We have been encouraged by the conversations this body has had to move the needle and provide real reforms to deter retail theft in California, reforms we have not seen in decades.

Senate Bill 1381 is an important part of this broader retail theft package, a package that represents the biggest set of reforms in the California Legislature has considered in decades, and if passed, will provide much needed tools to the retailers, law enforcement, and prosecutors, resulting in safer stores for our employees, safe shopping experiences for our customers, and safer communities for the neighborhoods which we operate in.

Now is the time to act. Now is the time for this body to lead. This issue is far too important. I respectfully ask your. I vote on SB 1381. Thank you. Two minutes for you.

Thank you. Chairman Daniel Conway with the California Grocers Association. I just want to echo the comments of my colleague here and really reflect on, on the leadership that's gotten us here today.

I think for a lot of us, looking at where we've come with this legislative package and now with SB 1381, it's shocking, just the progress that we made in less than a year. And so, again, for you, Chairman, you and your Committee deserve a lot of acknowledgement and appreciation for that.

But I also want to acknowledge the work that the Governor and legislative leadership and you all have done just even in the last few weeks to bring us all together.

I think this particular piece of legislation is consistent with CGA's perspective, which is Prop 47 was well intentioned, and there was a number of reasons for enacting it at the time. But as we've all come to acknowledge, there's certain things that need to be refined at this point.

And we think this Bill does a great job of empowering voters to once again go to the ballot and do the right thing for themselves and for their communities. So thank you all for your leadership and look forward to working with you moving forward.

Thank you. Others in support, please come forward and state your name and position. Only.

I didn't want to split it up. I'm being looked to start so little closer to you. The mic. Sorry. Thank you, Mister chair Members.

Corey Salzillo, on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association, respectfully to the authors and the Governor who tried to put something together, although I would say this really falls respectfully, as too little, too late, the serial theft provision of SB 1381 falls well short.

It includes a three year washout, which means for any crimes, you would have to be able to find them, charge them, prosecute them, all within three years. Makes it very difficult to use.

SB 1381 lacks a number of things that other measures that are already on a ballot would deal with, including those who have significant quantities of fentanyl, those who possess fentanyl, armed those who cause great bodily injury by furnishing others with a controlled substance. None of that exists.

SB 1381, from a procedural perspective, this has language that says a conflicting measure on the ballot that receives fewer votes would not become law. So this basically creates an either or choice between other measures that may have already qualified for the ballot.

And for months, proponents respectfully have said that we don't need to address our out of control theft crisis by amending Prop 47 by going back to the ballot. But yet, here we are. It begs the question, what has changed?

So we're appreciative that there is some, I think, real recognition of the challenges and the fentanyl crisis and the theft crisis we face. But this Bill, frankly and respectfully, isn't it. Our communities continuously fall victim to runaway crime, and our population is being poisoned.

And respectfully, this Bill fails to address those problems and puts another measure that has a higher chance of success in doing so at a higher risk of failure. So, respectfully, we'd ask for your no vote. Thank you. Thank you.

Amy Bailey California District Attorneys Association we also must respectfully oppose. While it is a laudable goal, we do think that this law requires further refinement. We have several technical objections, and I would encourage the Committee Members to please read the letter that we submitted, but I'll just highlight two of them.

For now, I will focus on what I think is a major change in this law from current jurisprudence, and as a prosecutor, makes it difficult, will make it difficult for us to be able to prove these crimes in a court of law to a jury.

It adds the requirement that the seller must know that the substance he's selling is fentanyl. It is already a requirement for controlled substances that the seller must know that they have a controlled substance, but the fact that they must know that it is specifically fentanyl is an added element that will be difficult to prove.

In addition, the buyer must not know that they were purchasing fentanyl. That's another element that's very difficult for the people to prove. So, and finally, the language also requires a, quote, mixture of controlled substances, including fentanyl, in several provisions.

And that presumably would require at least two substances in addition to fentanyl in order for this law to apply, which is unlike underlying statutes where this new provision would not apply to either transportation or importation. And if we have to prove the mixture, then we are at risk of not being able to prove those elements.

Thank you, Mister chair Members Ignacio Hernandez, on behalf of the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice Statewide Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, we are opposed to the Bill as it's currently drafted. Let me make clear.

We believe that the debate on smash and grab and fentanyl has resulted in a ballot measure that's already qualified, that is draconian and an overreach. We do not agree with it.

We think there's a lot of problems with it, but due to kind of the, and we appreciate the efforts and the work that the author of the Bill, the co authors, the joint authors have done on this issue.

But we realize we're in a really tough position because the four corners of this Bill is still very problematic for us. We have problems with the advisement. I've sat in this room many times testifying against blanket advisements for murder charges later on for other cases. We think it sets a terrible precedent.

We think that the extension on some of the penalties are also unjustified. I don't want to compare the two, but certainly we do not like the existing ballot measure. So we understand that the Legislature is in this really in a conundrum of what to do. So we do understand that and respect that.

We think that there are pieces of this Bill that are a more balanced approach than the existing ballot measure, but we still need to go on record to say that some of the things that are in this Bill are still problematic for us.

Just as a policy within the Four Corners and as an Association, we haven't had enough time to internally assess what we will do in light of both measures. But just on the four corners of the policy today, we just have to state our opposition, and I want to thank the authors for the Bill.

Thank you. Others in opposition please come forward.

Duke Cooney, on behalf of ACLU California Action do not currently have a position on the ballot measures written, but we do want to express that we do have concerns with it. Thank you.

Alicia Benavidez, on behalf of drug policy alliance similar to the ACLU. Just wanted to note that we're currently concerned with position and due to the criminalization, focused options are being presented to voters.

Instead, we should be focusing this as a public health crisis, that it is also noting serious concerns about the devastating impact that enhancements have continuously had on communities of color. Thank you.

Marco George, on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association, we do not have a position. We appreciate the authors of the Governor. We are concerned about the constitutionality of the pretrial detention section. Thank you.

Hi, my name is Jacob Denny with. The Vera Institute of Justice. We oppose this Bill because it increases incarceration, which will not change people's behavior or reduce crime. Thank you.

Danic Rodarmel, on behalf of Initiate Justice in opposition. Good morning. Lieutenant Julio Deleon from the Riverside Sheriff's office. In opposition, Dylan Lasowski with the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department, in opposition, Kelly. Walters from legal services for prisoners with children and all of us are not in opposition.

Ryan, Chairman, in opposition to SB 1381, on behalf of the Riverside Sheriff's Association, California Narcotic Officers Association, California Reserve peace officers, deputy sheriff's associations of placer and Monterey counties, and the police officer associations of the following cities, Arcadia, Burbank, Claremont, Corona, Culver City, Fullerton, Murrieta, Newport Beach, Nevada, Palos Verdes, Pomona, Riverside, Santa Ana, Uplandhouse, the La School Police Association, La School Police Management Association, and the California Coalition of School Safety professionals, all in opposition. Thank you.

Samelia Rogers, Alabaker Center for Human Rights and Respectful opposition.

Melanie Kim, San Francisco Public Defender's office and respectful opposition.

Tim Taylor with the National Federation of Independent Business and strong opposition. Thank you.

Dax Proctor for Californians United for responsible budget. In opposition.

Yolanda Navarretti with Initiate Justice Action strongly but respectfully opposed.

Morgan Geier, Placer County District Attorney in opposition.

Good afternoon. Sorry I missed the Metoos. In support, this is Brenda Bass on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce and Support. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. No more opposition. Questions or comments from Committee Members. Miss Reyes.

This has been a tough year trying to deal with so many issues that the community has called us about. Retail theft and the crime rings and retail theft, the fentanyl the deaths of so many of our youth, calls from family Members, from parents, and trying to do the right thing by the communities that we represent.

I'm really proud of the number of bills that have been introduced to deal with these issues, both from the Assembly and from the Senate, trying to do the statistics that we hear after Prop 47 is that crime was down, but there were two areas that were consistently remaining an issue, and that was fentanyl specifically and retail theft.

And so a number of bills sitting here in this Committee for the first time that I had the, I suppose, privilege of listening to firsthand and voting on trying to find the best way to protect our community.

I appreciate it so much having the California retailers and the California grocers speak in favor of this particular measure, because a lot of what we were doing on the retail theft bills was trying to answer their concerns about retail theft and these crime rings.

And I appreciated Ryan Lane's comment that this is the biggest set of reform in years and recognizing the impact of what you all are introducing here. And he also talked about making sure that through this, that we have safer stores and safer shopping.

I've heard from so many shoppers and so many retailers and grocers about the dangers in their stores, from the California grocers.

I appreciated the comment about the shocking, it's been shocking the progress that we've made in just one year, especially most recently being able to bring the groups together to be able to put together this piece of legislation in response again to what the community is saying.

Sometimes we introduce legislation thinking that's going to take care of the issues. And I appreciate the comment from the sheriff's Department, from the Sheriff's Association that we've been saying, that groups were saying we don't need to reform Prop 47, and here we are.

Well, I appreciate that you all stepped up, that you recognize that perhaps now we do need to do a little bit more with regard to Prop 47. And this is what this is. This is a reform to Prop 47.

The number of pieces of legislation that have been voted on will be headed to the governor's desk in conjunction with or in partnership with this particular measure, which isn't just saying, here's the law, we're passing it, and that's it.

What you're saying is, okay, voters, we know we have to deal with this and we have to do it in a measured way that provides for the accountability, but also make sure that we provide the protections that we need, whether it's mental health, so many things that are included in here we're saying, voters, we're giving this to you.

We want for you to look at this, to evaluate it, and to vote on it. The groups that most were affected before and wanted reform on Prop 47 with the retailers and the grocers, and I am so, so pleased to see that they have both testified here on your behalf in favor of this measure. Thank you.

Thank you, Assemblymember Wilson.

Thank you, Mister speaker. Thank you to the authors for being willing to work in this space. We know from, you know, criminal justice reform has been hard, challenging to do. And I sit with my hat always on as chair of the California Legislative Black Caucus.

And our caucus, you know, has taken a position collectively as no on this, on these types of measures, because we've found that the criminal justice system is not yet blind, that somehow there has still been a disproportionate impact of black individuals in this system.

And laws such as this somehow seem to find the way that we are still disproportionately impacted. We only make up a little under 7% of the entire state. But yet, and still, when you look at our criminal justice system, we find ourselves disproportionately represented there.

And, you know, a lot of what is going to be on the ballot this year sets us back in so many ways to the days of old, which we have fought hard to overcome. And if the voters would choose that, I firmly believe it would take generations, you know, to undo.

And so considering that it's not just as simple as a binary black or white choice on this, there's a whole bunch of gray.

And recognizing that as legislators, we don't have the position to be black or white on this issue in the same way that a voter has, that we have to, as legislators, give an opportunity to our voters to choose the way they see best forward and deal with the consequences of it.

And that is a scary thought, knowing that the black community has definitely been disproportionately impacted by the laws that have come out of the State of California as it relates to the criminal justice system.

And so I just wanted to note that, and I'm not sure what the comment was before I was presenting in another Committee, so didn't get to hear it, but I just wanted to note the fear that exist within our caucus on behalf of black Californians as it relates to laws of this nature.

At the same time, I individually recognize, like, I know that there's a legislative process to things. There's things we have to do as legislators.

And also recognizing that there should be consequences, that we can have consequences to criminal action, while at the same time having empathy, recognizing that a lot of times criminal action is not based in evilness, but in based out of necessity, desperation and things of that sort.

We do have a duty as legislators to protect, you know, our businesses, to ensure that they can offer goods and services to people, because without those goods and services, we cannot have a high quality of life. And that's extremely important to me.

So I just wanted to note that for the record, I'll be supporting this today in light of those comments and recognition that we are giving this to the voters to choose really, what is the lesser of two evils.

But I just think it should be said that we have to do our part as legislators to think through the work that we do here and recognize that there needs to be additional protections in place to support the most vulnerable people among us, to ensure that people of color are not disproportionately impacted, and that our criminal justice system truly can be blind to the fact of the color of your skin, your socioeconomic level, and treat everyone fairly.

And that's work that we have to do, and we are falling short of that work.

Thank you, Mister Lackey.

Yeah, thank you. Retailers, mom and pop stores, jewelry stores, and throughout California, they're being robbed at unprecedented rates. We all know this. We all know this. We all shop, we all go to the grocery store, and now we see something we've never seen before. We have simple products that are locked up because theft is out of control.

It's absolutely out of control. And it wasn't out of control prior to this Prop 47 initiative. It's very interesting to me that we have heard over and over and over again, Prop 47 doesn't need to be amended. And the proponents of this Bill were in that clamorous.

All of a sudden now we have this last minute surge, this brilliant proposal that is phony. I'm sorry to be emotional, folks, but this is an emotional issue for me. This is so powerful to all of us. I don't care what color you are. This impacts you negatively right now. We're all hurt by this.

Why are we presenting something that's phony? A very good friend of mine has stated very, very accurately, this proposal demonstrates that naked politics, not principled policy objections, are at the heart of this proposal. Shame on us. This is going to pass.

I know it's going to pass, but not with my support, because it's phony and it's designed to cause confusion. That's not fair. That's not fair. This is not a right or left issue, folks. It's not. It impacts all of us. But we're making it, we're trying to make it a right left issue. That's not right.

It's not right. And I, I'm sad to say that if you can't tell, I'm very frustrated by this and it will not get my support. No questions.

Okay. Other questions? Yeah, I have a few questions for either the Das or the sheriffs. You can start coming up. But, but before that, I just want to say I will vote for this measure. I do support this.

As you said, Mister Lackey, some of question whether or not 47 needs to be on it or not or we need to put 47 reforms on the ballot. I've always said that we do, but with reason, with balance and common sense.

And when we started this process six months ago, a year ago, we said we want to bring more accountability to our public safety laws, our drug laws, but not overcorrect, not overcorrect, not go back to the nineties for 25 to life for a slice of pizza. And this is attempting to do that.

And I am pleased that we are going to the back to the ballot because one thing that we heard, and I heard crystal clear at our very first Select Committee hearing that I serve on a retail theft down at the Hollywood civic Center. Is that what it's called? City hall.

City hall, exactly. Is that not all retail theft is even. And we see lots of TikTok videos and this and that. But the organized is very different than people hitting our small grocers. Not the grocers with respect to grocers, but the corner stores, the convenience stores.

And the only way that you can address what's impacting the latter is by going back to the voters and adjusting Prop 47. And so I do support that. And one thing that I thought the other proposal does go too far with two reasons. One, what does accountability look like?

Is it state prison where it's 130 grand a year per inmate? Does that make sense to send somebody for 50 or whatever? I'm going to talk about in a second, the threshold or our county jails. I think we need to make a policy decision. What does accountability look like?

We can say we support accountability, but what it looks like is the key. And I think this focuses on that balance, on the issue with the washout. I think this is something we had to address. Look, I was a knucklehead when I was 16, 17, 18 years old as well.

And so if I did something stupid when I'm 18 and 19 and now I'm 52 and that's my third offense. Does that make sense going back three over the lifetime? So I think having a Shorter period is, that's what we're focusing on. Repeat offenders means you're repeating, by definition, not repeating over 30 years.

It's repeating within a short period of time. So, I know there's concern about three years and I'll get to that in a second, but I think that does bring balance. I know there is some concern that we don't have adequate accountability as far as drugs.

I think it's strong here where we're going after drug traffickers and what we're doing there. I think there's still something to be said. We don't have accountability measures to get people into treatment. Like drug court model like you go to treatment or you serve incarceration or accountability, whether it's state prison or county jail.

I think that issue still needs to be addressed.

Having some type of accountability, whether it's flash incarceration, county jail, if you don't go get drug treatment because the status quo is not working, I'll take you on a walk right now in K Street mall and I'll show you 10 people where it's just not working right now, where the voluntary going to treatment is just not working.

And even though we're expanding more money in the Prop 47 fun to do more treatment, it's not nearly enough. Not enough. People are checking the box saying they want treatment. So this, that I will say is a shortfall in our answer, whether it's this Bill or ballot measures or what have you.

The bottom line is California writes policy to address the problems. And I don't think we're properly addressing getting people into treatment and having incentives to get them there, including sometimes making a choice treatment, accountability. That being said, I do want to focus on the washout and this monetary value seems to get a lot of attention.

And both of you testified. I think it was Mister Salzilo said that. And so my understanding is that this, it's a three year period with a dollar 50 threshold. And the threshold is the, this is a totality, right? Yes. Of all of them combined.

And you're saying that that's not practical and that's going to be hard to reach that threshold. So can you elaborate why you don't think that would be workable?

Of course, the issue with the threshold is that for prior offenses, for all theft offenses except one in the penal code, there does not have to be a finding of value.

And so for us to go back and reach back on prior theft offenses, we will not be able to charge those as priors for this purposes of this law, because for all theft defenses except grand theft, one of the penal code sections, we don't have to prove the amount.

And the case law as it stands currently prevents judges from reaching back into old cases and fact finding and essentially finding the value of the theft at the time. And so for that reason, the threshold makes it sort of impossible for us to use the priors.

And then with respect to the three years, we agree that it is too short. I understand and appreciate your concerns about reaching back forever. And of course, I think there's a way to strike a balance there.

But three years is too short in practicality, in view of the failure to appear rate in court, in view of the amount of time that cases take to resolve, three years is simply just not enough time for us to actually meaningfully address prior ability.

So it's the arrest and the conviction over three years. You said that. Are you concerned that you wouldn't have enough time to adjudicate and finish those trials over that window? And what's the number that you would think is acceptable? Is it the time or is it the dollar amount or the application?

It's both. And because the value is difficult to prove unless the person was prior convicted of grand theft. So it's almost tantamount to having the law say, only if you've been convicted of prior grand theft will it apply. That's sort of the way that it will work in operation. And the three years is too short.

Specifically, in view of the failure to appear rate that we have in the length of time that those accord for and three years is not an unreasonable amount of time. I have several cases on my caseload right now that are from 2020 or 2021. That would be outside of the washout period at this point.

Yeah. So if there's a 711 right over here on J Street. So if somebody walks in there every day and steals 12 pack of beer, which is, I don't know, 15, $20. So that's obviously under dollar 50. So that. So each offense is not over 50. So those offenses would not be held. Accountable on the third day.

They would.

No, they wouldn't be able to be held accountable because they would be amounting to petit theft in each instance. And petit theft doesn't require a value amount.

And so if they all resolved and then two years down the line, that perpetrator begins the same conduct again, and we want to use the prior ability of those prior crimes, we wouldn't be able to because there's been no proof of the value.

Even though we can say, you and I can say, oh, we know beer is $15, the court is prevented from doing that. Backwards fact finding. They're not permitted to do that. And so, all we know is that this person committed petty theft and we will not have a way to prove the value.

Yeah. So I think we have some objections here. So I'm trying to be hypothetical. Thank you. As far as, you know, if you go in every day, $15, at what point can you aggregate that over? So let me have. The Senators wanted to object. We'll come back to you.

Thank you. There's a couple of things. One, this proposal also includes a more limited standard on aggregation to allow prosecutors to allow or to add the values over the same washout period. We are providing surgical tools to address repeat offenders again.

So three years and again, if they are serial criminals in the sense that they are stealing every week. Right. If not every day, this would specifically focus on that. And aggregation, just to be very specific, obviously, is allowing 50 years is actually a very Low threshold. Right. Dollar 50. Sorry.

And I do want to highlight a couple of things that were stated by our Assembly Member colleagues here. First and foremost, the Senate and the Assembly has been working for over a year on fentanyl and retail theft, both houses. And we, for example, myself, has sat on a fentanyl working group to address the concerns that we have.

Fentanyl is a synthetic drug that has made its way in California, and it's very, very difficult to understand for the average person in the fact that its high is a lot more potent than any other hard drug. Number one.

Number two is the fact that we met with Das and law enforcement and even border patrol as well as health experts as to what should we do for fentanyl. Fentanyl is a serious issue that is crippling our community with over 70,000 deaths in a single year.

We have seen this and the safer California package, and I just want to be very clear, because the rhetoric here is that we haven't done enough, and I think that's absolutely false.

We have been continuing the work with stakeholders at the table, both criminal reform justice groups as well as law enforcement, that see things at a deeper level. With that we have. The Safer California package that I will say has over a dozen bills that focus on different levels of fentanyl substance abuse treatment and holding perpetrators accountable.

The dealer as well as the individual consuming the drug. Right. We also have focused on retail theft. People are saying that, zero, it's taken this many years. Prop 47 has been around for 10 years, and it takes a number of years to see the effects of certain laws in place. And to assemblymember, you are absolutely right.

Communities of color have been deeply impacted. And it's not just communities of color. Across the board, lower socioeconomic individuals have been faced with harsher difficulties in life to begin with on every single spectrum. Right. Whether we're talking about education or jobs or so forth.

And I wanna say that we have been working with stakeholders in a good faith effort. We have worked with the grocers and the retailers and so forth. Our safer California package is a bipartisan effort.

It does have the support of these industry groups, and today even this Bill has the support of the people that have complained that this has become a problem, retail theft and fentanyl. And we are seeing that criminal justice groups are concerned, as they should be, with anything that's on the ballot. Right.

And we are giving this back to the voters to decide.

And the difference between our Bill and the DA's initiative, and I want to be very clear, because this is the back and forth, is the fact that we still allow for the Legislature to make sure that we can amend bills as they need to be, as things change. And I will say that laws change as society changes.

And it does take time to understand the effects of each of our laws.

And to be very, very Frank, when we're talking about politics, the DA's initiative says, and I'm paraphrasing, in the event this act and another initiative relating to the same subject appear on the same ballot, the measure with a greater number of votes will prevail and the other ballot measure will be null and void.

And I want to highlight that because that's what we're talking about. That is what is common practice. This Bill also protects minors, which is not in play. In the other initiative, we are specifically addressing the concern that if adults are committing these crimes, we are holding them accountable.

And we are not imprisoning youth who do, as you stated, make mistakes. We are actually increasing penalties and enhancements, specifically with two new felonies. And we are doing this in a very tactful way. We are threading the needle of a very sensitive subject without causing additional harm.

We have talked to the stakeholders, we are making sure that we're addressing the community needs and we have taken their input. And that is the job of the Legislature. And I'm very proud to say that we have worked very hard in the last year to make something right.

And I will say the fact that we have created the safer California package is that. But this goes further to address the concerns out of the rhetoric that we are hearing. That is simply false. I read that property crime has increased only by 7% pre pandemic.

So I want to highlight that because there's a lot of false narratives out there. It's fear mongering. And again, we are potentially going to see the effects of whatever initiative wins and what it does to communities and specifically communities of color. So I really want to highlight that and I will turn it over to my colleague, Chairman.

I'll just add briefly, she's gone over everything very well. A couple things I just want to point out to the speakers specifics. I actually think the opponents here have pointed out the validity and rationale and need for this initiative. Because this initiative is designed to create a meaningful alternative.

It's not intended to confuse, it's not intended to replace. It is intended to provide a meaningful alternative. It is very different than the initiative that has already qualified, and there is a lot of conflating happening here. But, for example, in the initiative that is already qualified, there is no look back, period.

So your petty thefts of prior are over your lifetime. In the initiative that we are bringing forward, it is a three year window from conviction, by the way, so somebody often doesn't get convicted until later, which means her 2021 case, if she had started it last year, would qualify as a prior.

Petit theft with the prior is not a new crime. It's a crime we're bringing back. I used to work in the courts here, as you know, I represented people who were being convicted of 666.1, which is petty theft with a prior, and you are always provided the prior.

Our Bill is different from the existing ballot because it makes a $50 minimum. You can't go to prison for stealing three candy bars three different times in your life with no margin of error.

On the look back, this Bill instead says these things had to happen within the last three years and they need to at least have equated to more than $50 total. I think that's more than fair. I don't think we need to send people to state prison for looking at candy bars.

She conflates the issue of a new felony that we add that does not exist in their initiative, which is when you mix fentanyl. And we all know this, every one of you knows this. You've heard this many times.

We have all heard about families who have lost a young one because somebody gave them something they thought was a Tylenol, but it was mixed with fentanyl. Their Bill doesn't address that. Ours does. It's a new felony. It's a new felony.

And so there are many good things about this initiative, which is a very meaningful alternative for people in the State of California.

Thank you. I just want to go back to you. I know, Mister Selzit, you wanted to opine more on the medical.

Yeah, I think one of the joint authors did answer it, but it's clear that in Section seven of the Bill, specifically section 666.1, sub a, paragraph one, subparagraph b, excuse me, c.

The value of the property taken unlawfully received or that otherwise provided the basis for the conviction, each of the fences is above the amount described in 490.1. That amounts $50. So your example of the case of beer doesn't qualify unless it's like a really expensive case of beer that exceeds $50.

If the intent was not to mean that there is a bottom threshold on that theft defense that can be priorable under this new crime or this returning crime, then it would be unnecessary surplusage. So it means something.

Okay, thank you, Assemblymember Wilson with a quick follow up, then we want to move on and vote on this measure.

Just a quick follow up. If the other initiative didn't exist, and this was a standalone initiative that was brought by the Legislature, would the opposing group be in support?

I'm not sure we can answer that question in a vacuum, because the other initiative does exist, and there have been several discussions, as the chair or the author said, over several months. And if. If the timing were different, if something.

I'm just talking about the merits of the Bill. I'm not talking about. So absent the other initiative, the merits of the Bill, having sat on public safety just the second half of the session, the things that they're talking about as it relates to other bills that have been put forward, I've seen you all support.

So I'm just asking the merits of this particular Bill. Absent, if this was the only thing absent that, would this be typically something you all would support, or there's flaws in it, that you feel there are flaws in it, you wouldn't support it.

Want that there are through the chair. There are significant flaws in this. The look back period in the petit theft of the prior, the new fentanyl crime under hail from safety Code 11352 requires three different knowledge requirements that will make it nearly impossible to prove.

So this notion of accountability, if you cannot use the criminal sections that are created. It's not useful towards creating accountability.

So my answer is, I can't tell you for sure, but I find that we would have serious concerns about this being offered as a way to remedy both the fentanyl and the theft crisis, even if a standalone measure.

Thank you to the chair. Yes, just, I think our position would be similar, not without significant refinement, because I think there are provisions we just simply wouldn't be able to use.

Thank you, Mister Zubair. Yeah, I mean, I'd just like to close by, really echoing, I think, what both of my colleagues here articulate. So this is our close. Here we go.

I'm sorry. This will make this as our close. Go ahead. This is the close.

Okay, good. And I'll let them add on as well what both my colleagues articulated. So I think articulately the difference between this is that we actually, it is the product of engagement with all of the stakeholders.

And that meant not only the retailers, the grocers, law enforcement, and I know not all law enforcement is with this, but we actually have some law enforcement with it who have been, we've been talking to.

It included the folks that, it includes the things that the grocers and the retailers and the small businesses asked for when they, when we were engaging with them.

What it, and one of the things they told us is that the biggest issue they're facing is the repeated retail theft of the people that are doing this over and over and over again in a short period of time. And so ours is a more targeted approach.

The three year look back period is something that if this is intended to catch those serial thieves, you should be able to catch those folks. The other issues with respect to the $50, first of all, the aggregation provisions don't apply to the $50, don't apply to that.

And frankly, when you're talking about having to make proof in court, prosecutors should have to actually prove things. When we're actually thinking about sending people to prison for many years and actually asking them to prove the value of goods at dollar 50 is not the same thing as having to prove intent. It just isn't.

There's lots of ways to prove that. And it's basically we need to actually, if we're not going to actually put people in prison for doing minor things, we actually have to have safeguards around these bills. I think the last thing that I'll say is this isn't intended to cause confusion.

It's giving the voters another alternative, an alternative between one that actually is going to cost our communities billions of dollars over a 10 year period.

Funds that we could be putting into mental health diversion into our schools, into social safety net programs, all the things that we want to do to uplift Californians or actually putting them more into our prisons. And so, yes, this is a more measured approach, but it's one that is, I think, effective.

And I think the proof in the pudding is the folks that have been coming to us asking for the reform are supporting this measure, the grocers, the retailers, and many people in law enforcement as well. So with that, I want to thank my co authors.

I just want to turn it over to them in case they have anything else they need to add.

Yep. I'll be brief and then let Senator Wahab close us out.

The biggest difference between this initiative, which we are providing as an alternative to the existing, already approved initiative on the ballot, is hundreds of millions of dollars and a finer, more surgical approach at protecting our communities, addressing the needs of grocers and retailers and small businesses, and going after fentanyl dealers, people who are preying on our kids.

I think Assemblymember Wilson asked an extremely poignant question. As my dad used to say, I was born at night, but it wasn't the last night.

You know darn good and well that absent that initiative being on the ballot, the same people who are in here opposing this Bill today would be supporting it because they would want us to address fentanyl, they would want us to address petit theft, and they would want us to do exactly what we are doing.

And I'm sorry that we weren't able to work out something together. I will say this, it was not for lack of effort on behalf of the Legislature and the administrative body.

Thank you. You know, I'm going to say a couple of things just to clarify exactly what has been happening. I did state that we have worked for over the past year on legislation that addresses both retail theft and the drug crisis of fentanyl. And we have done our jobs.

We have initiated more than a dozen bills with bipartisan support to accurately and inclusively address both issues. With that said, I do want to highlight that we have had our door open for every single type of stakeholder, criminal justice reformists, law enforcement, as well as the Das.

And this initiative that is largely in opposition to what we are proposing today. We met with the district attorneys and they gave us a set of demands that our leadership has reviewed and met them halfway and continued to have those conversations.

And they were instructed not to come back to the table in fact, having a scheduled meeting and not showing up for it, that is not good faith effort.

And the honest truth of this is the fact that we're talking about this Bill and these industries, and you have the retailers and the grocers in support of this particular Bill because it is the right Bill to move forward. And yet when we're talking about the Proposition that is competing with this effort, who's getting paid for that?

That's millions of dollars right there to tell the public that we need more done. And yet we have a Bill package that would be in effect today if we could. Right? And we are working towards it.

And I will say this particular Bill addresses a couple of different things and it's a lot of information for the average person to digest in a very short time. But I want to say we are tackling petty theft with a priority in a way that does not harm children.

We are talking about aggregation to make sure that we are looking back in the last three years, has this person committed another crime? If they did it five years ago, it's not held against them. Right. We are being as fair as possible.

We are talking about a fentanyl advisement and really holding the real perpetrators accountable, not a college kid that doesn't even know where they got it or what they're consuming. We are increasing the fact that we have a drug felony being created again for this particular issue with a punishment of 45 or six years.

And I want to say that we are investing more in our local law enforcement and drug treatment and substance abuse treatment. We are doing our jobs in our Bill, and it's very clear we're addressing the needs of the public.

And I will agree with the Assembly Member when I go to Safeway and I see literally shampoo and toothpaste behind a locked glass case. Where's the justice? Where's the quality of life for the average resident?

So, as chair of public safety, I do believe that this is the best option we have moving forward with our safer California package. We are addressing the needs of Californians. We are addressing the 40 million people that we represent. And with this particular thing, our hands are not going to be tied.

We can come back and do more. We can make refinements. Whereas the opposing measure does not allow us to do that. We should not vote for it. Thank you.

Thank you. We don't have a motion on this. We have a motion. Motion and a second. Yes, a motion, a second.

Please call the roll on SB 1381 by Senator Wahab. The motion is do pass to the floor. [Roll Call]. Okay, thank you. Quick timeout here.

Thank you. No, I appreciate it. Thank you so much. You're laughing. I gotta go back.

Madam pure leader, you know, I'm very passionate.

Okay, we're going to hear next, Mister Jones. Senator Grove, We're going to have Mister Jones go first because we have our caucus lunch and we think your Bill is going to have ample participation. So we think we'll hear one more Bill before lunch. So Mister Jones. Item number 12, SB. Okay, then we're gonna, we're gonna recess then to lunch. So we're gonna lunch right now. Either way, caucus lunch so we can hear your Bill or no Bill. Thank you. Okay, we have file item number 12, SB 1074. Please begin.

Thank you, sir. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Members of the Assembly Public Safety Committee, it's an honor to be with you this morning while it's still morning. Senate Bill 1074 provides additional oversight to the process by which a sexually violent predator gets placed back into the community. A sexually violent predator, known as an SVP, is an individual convicted of a sexually violent offense and diagnosed with a mental disorder that causes them to be danger to others and with a high likelihood to reoffend.

When an SVP is determined to be ready for release from civil commitment under the Department of State Hospitals, a process known as Conditional Release Program, or CONREP, begins. Currently, the Department uses a contractor to execute the entire CONREP process, taking little to no personal responsibility or oversight.

This Bill will make two important updates to the CONREP process. First, SB 1074 will hold the Department of State Hospitals responsible for ensuring that Department vendors consider public safety in all placements of SVPs. 2nd 1074 requires the Department to take a bigger role in the CONREP process by mandating the Department to approve any lease before it is signed by the vendor. This will help curb the issue of the vendor committing to a lease before a judge has approved the placement, leaving taxpayers stuck with the payment even if the placement is denied. I think I heard a motion, so I'll cut my open short and let the witnesses. First, we have Placer County District Attorney Morgan Gire.

Good morning. Courts release sexually violent predators to Conditional Release Program. It's based on a finding that they're no longer dangerous. Importantly, while under supervision and treatment in the community is ongoing. Placement is the first critical feature of supervision and often dictates the success of the treatment of the SVP, which means the community will be safe and the SVP will have the best chance of success. Public safety has to be a top priority in placement.

Despite participation in the housing community, stakeholders are often left in the dark about placement locations. SB 1034, codified in Welfare and Institutions Code 6608 requires meaningful and robust participation in the housing search. Reality is that we don't learn of the process, the criteria, or any of the locations until meetings are called, often at the last minute with little notice by Liberty Healthcare. Locations are selected, secured and paid for with little to no notice, leaving those charged with assisting uninformed.

The lack of attention to public safety creates doubt, uncertainty and mistrust in the SVP process, particularly in affected communities that don't understand the process and resent being told taxpayer dollars are being spent to house an SVP in their neighborhood. The Department of State Hospitals defers entirely to Liberty Healthcare, and the lack of management and oversight of the program frustrates the process of vetting locations. Welfare and Institutions Code 6608 requires the SVP be placed in the County of commitment. In theory, the team is supposed to work together.

In reality, Liberty Healthcare keeps the process opaque with little or no information revealed until a location has been selected and with little time for other Housing Committee Members to determine the safety and security of the residents in which the SVP is to be placed. This casts doubt about whether Liberty's priority is public safety or simply expediency.

SB 1074 will clarify that a priority for DSH and Liberty is public safety and prevent leases from being executed simply to get the the SVP placed quickly rather than safely. This Bill is a modest measure to help restore responsibility to DSH, prioritize public safety, and restore some faith in the process to our community while ensuring the best chance for SVPs to succeed and not to reoffend once released.

Thank you. Next witness.

Thank you Mister Chair. Next. We have a motion and a second. Next is Erica Farmer. She is a constituent witness to this process and wants to share her personal story real quick.

Good afternoon and thank you for having me today. My name is Erica Farmer and I am here before you to beg for legislative change to help protect our communities, our families, and most importantly, our children. My life was turned upside down this past Father's Day when it was brought to my attention that two sexually violent predators would be moving within a few hundred feet from my away from my family home.

As a mother and caregiver to children who fall within these predators victim types, the news has been gut wrenching to say the least. Since the news two weeks ago, I have been introduced to an extremely flawed program where one main player, Liberty Healthcare, is the expert witness, the judge and the jury. Please help me understand.

The only company that holds a multimillion dollar contract is the same company who provides evaluations on whether SVPs should be released, where they should be released, and manages the failure and success rate of the program. Is it not a huge conflict of interest that the main financial beneficiary has control over the entire process?

As a taxpayer funding this program, shouldn't we require more transparency as to how the money is being spent? Just recently, upwards to $4,000 per month was being spent on a local house just to hold a home until confirmation of placement could be made, in which the case the placement was denied. What a waste. Now I ask all of you to put yourself in my position for a moment. I want you to imagine telling your children they can no longer play outside because sexually violent predators can watch them from their home.

I want you to imagine having to explain to your child they can never have another birthday party at home because no one will attend knowing full where there's a child predator living next door. I want you to feel the worry I do for the kids getting off of the school bus that walk down the road. Will they make it home safely once the SVPs are placed? Can you guarantee their safety as if those kids were your own? My children and I have already fallen victims to the current Conditional Release Program. Our lives will never be the same.

And while I wait in fear, I will let you know that not once have I been contacted by anyone inside of Liberty Healthcare ensuring me and my children's safety is of any priority to them. What a slap in the face for a program that my tax paying dollars is funding. So I ask all of you, will you take a second and help support Bill 1074 that will put public safety back into the forefront. Do my kids and I matter at all in this process?

Thank you. Others in support, please come forward.

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

Thank you.

Amy Bailey, California District Attorneys Association in support.

Kelly Coelho with B and C Investigations, in support.

Ryan Sherman with the Riverside Sheriff Association and Placer County Deputy Sheriff Association, in support.

Annabelle Velasquez with Empower and Resilience from Placer County, in support.

Rachel West with Empower and Resilience Project, out of Placer County, in support.

Hi, Paula Gardener with Survivors Way.

Hello. Alexandra Hanson with Victim Advocate Angels, in support.

Branson Farmer, Stanislaus County resident, in support.

Matthew Avila, Stanislaus County resident, in support.

Thank you. Opposition, please come forward. No opposition, questions or comments from Committee Members. Mister Lackey?

Yeah, I just wanted to thank the author for finally presenting something to us that's victim centric and asked to be a co author.

Great thank you.

Okay. Yes, Miss, Assemblymember Reyes.

I do want to thank the author, and I thank you also for working with the opposition. I think it's so important to work with those who have a differing opinion and to be able to come together to have them come off as opposition. But most especially, I do want to thank your witness. Thank you for coming and providing testimony. That's always the most important part of the Bills that we listen to, to know how they affect, how our laws have affected the lives of a person, of a human being and how what's being proposed is going to help. So thank you for being here.

Yeah, we did miss, the opposition couldn't get in in time, but they are here now. Would you like to state your position?

Yeah, thank you. Sorry we missed the quick call for opposition. Amelia Rogers, Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, in opposition.

ACLU California Action in opposition. Thank you.

Vice Chair Alanis.

I just want to thank the author for bringing this Bill, as you guys may know, is actually happening on in my district right now as we speak. So this is very valuable Bill for us and also making sure that we keep people accountable, especially those that we've employed to make sure that they are monitoring and overseeing and just basically finding out, like, what is really going on and what are we paying for. So thank you, Senator, for doing that. And thank you, witnesses, for coming forward. Look forward to voting for this Bill.

Yes, thank you. I support this measure, and I know you brought this issue up. There's obviously, there's an issue and a problem, but the remedy is always the issue, and the devil's in the details. And you persistently came back and you worked with the Committee and the opposition to narrow it. And please, to support this measure today. We have a motion and a second. Please call the roll.

On SB 1074 by Senator Jones. The motion is due passed to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call].

That measure's on call. With that, the lunch hour, our caucus hour as well. We're going to recess for 1 hour. We'll come back at 01:00. We'll be in a different room. We'll be across the hall in room 127. So we'll recess for 1 hour. Thank you.

This one, too, but on. Yeah. Okay. We will reconvene our public safety hearing. Next on the list is Senator Grove. We have SB 1414, file number 23. Please begin.

Thank you, Mister Chair. I'm here today to present SB 1414 regarding the solicitation and actual purchase of children for sex. Members as you know, I introduced Senate Bill 1414 with the intent of making solicitation or purchase of minors a sex for sex, a prison felony.

However, Senate Public Safety Committee forced amendments without my consent and watered down SB 1414 by making it a wobbler, which can still be reduced to a misdemeanor. To be clear, I believe that adults who attempt to or actually buy children for sex in the State of California should go to prison on a felony charge.

Hostile amendments reduced the punishment to a wobbler for those who would purchase sex from kids that are ages 15 and under, excluding 16 and 17 year olds, even from the wobbler protections. As a point of clarification, a wobbler can be charged as a jail felony or reduced to a misdemeanor.

Please bear in mind that if we don't have stricter punishments for the negotiation stage during the solicitation or the purchase, the next opportunity we have to levy stronger penalties is when the act is being completed.

I've come through hundreds of text messages from our law enforcement partners on solicitation of minors, and I feel that I can read this one or partial ones of this one in public at least. It's the least egregious one that I've read.

A 30-something-year-old medical student who wants to have a bb, which is bareback bf, which is butt, and I'm not going to say the last word with a 17-year-old girl and wants proof, photographic evidence that he is sloppy seconds. This is more.

There's more to this negotiation with the engagement of the price and everything, but the language is too inappropriate to read in the public. But some members think this information that's engaged in is appropriate for minors. These exchanges are graphic, sickening, and evil, and the last step before the child is sexually exploited by an adult.

Recently, the Sacramento County Sheriff's Department performed a sting operation. One adult man showed up to the hotel expecting to meet a 10-year-old child. He had straps in his pocket to tie the child down, child-size lingerie, sex toys, and lubrication.

Again, I'd like to reiterate that we have to attempt to stop these perpetrators before they actually complete the act to devastate a child's life forever. It's unbelievable that we fight in this building to protect minors up to the age of 21 from tobacco use, vaping, alcohol, and even tanning beds.

But some members don't want to include protections for all minors. Individuals who try to buy sex from kids deserve to go to prison. They deserve to sit there and think about what they've done and hopefully, at minimum, keep them away from the children whose lives they seek to destroy.

This reality is even the reality is that even if we reclassify as a prison felony, the defendant is still eligible for probation and the majority of sex offenders are not serving their full prison sentences as is. KCRA right here in Sacramento investigates. Put in a records request for the California Department of Corrections in 2022.

246 inmates were in prison for human trafficking, pimping, or pandering, and were released. All of those inmates, out of all of them, the 246, only two that were charged of trafficking a minor served their full sentence. Only two.

When talking about the very serious, very prevalent issue of adults purchasing sex for children, I wish that we could focus less on protecting the criminals and more on the victims. It should not be this hard. It should not be this political. Crafting good policy that protects children should be a slam dunk for both sides.

This Committee, along with Senator Wahab, proposed to only include 16- and 17-year-old children in a wobbler provision if they can prove they are a victim of human trafficking. This requirement is utterly ridiculous.

It says they have to be bought, sold, trafficked, and then to get prove they're trafficked and then go back to go to the purchaser to initiate the

Okay one more minute,

Whole negotiation process and started this process. My bill language puts the blame squarely on the buyer.