Assembly Standing Committee on Public Safety

Before I begin in a moment, we're going to get right into the business today, but I wanted to express my appreciation to all of the Committee Members and of course, to the leadership for the chance to serve as chair of Public Safety.

And before I turn it over to our Vice Chair for a quick remark, I just wanted to express to my cap to the Capitol community what I see as the two critical missions of this Committee in the year ahead. In everything that we do, we should be striving to answer two fundamental questions. How we deliver a safer California for everyone. And how we promote equity and fairness in our criminal justice system.

So to all of the authors at will today and in the days ahead, be appearing before the Committee, I only ask that you do your best to address those two critical questions as this Committee strives to find that right balance and create good policy for everyone. Everyone who calls California home. With that, Mr. Vice Chair, would you like to say anything.

Chair Schultz and the rest of the Committee, I think we're gonna have a good year here. Great conversations, and I really appreciate everyone that's here today and what we're going to be doing for public safety in the future. Obviously, Mr. Lackey and I have.

Well, I guess Mr. Lackey's been here much longer than I have on public safety, but definitely looking forward to having my experience of being able to share it with most of you to help with our education of what's coming before us.

Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. Look forward to working with you. With that, it appears we have a quorum. Let's go ahead and call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. With a quorum present, we'll go to our first order of business. Colleagues, there are some General rules of conduct before we start the hearing.

Please note that in order to facilitate the goal of conducting a legislative hearing and as we proceed with the witnesses and public comment throughout the hearings today, I want to ensure that everyone understands that the Assembly has rules to ensure that we maintain order and run an efficient and fair hearing.

We will not permit conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of today's legislative proceedings. Please be aware now that violations of these rules may subject you to removal from today's proceedings or other enforcement actions. Second. We will move forward with our first item of business today, colleagues, which is the adoption of the 2025.

2026 proposed Assembly Public Safety Committee rules. Is there a maker of the motion? Okay. All right. Motion by our Vice Chair. Second by Assemblymember Lackey. Madam Secretary, please call the roll on the Committee rules.

[Roll Call]

Thank you, Madam Secretary. Rules are adopted. Next, we have the adoption of the proposed consent calendar. We have the following items on for consent. I'll read them out loud, although you all should have a copy in front of you. We have Assembly Bill 31 by Assembly Member Ramos. Assembly Assembly Bill 32 by Assemblymember Soria.

We have Assembly Bill 285 by Assembly Member Ramos. And we have Assembly Bill 321 by myself as chair. Do we have a motion? Do we have a second? Okay. Motion by our Vice Chair. Second, by Assemblymember Sharpe Collins. Please call the roll on the consent calendar.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Consent calendar has been adopted. Good work, everybody. Good start to the year. Now to the regular order of business. We are hearing today's measures in sign and order with standing Committee Members presenting their bills towards the end of today's hearing. We appreciate everyone's patience.

As a few housekeeping reminders, authors will have five minutes to present and main witnesses will have a combined time of five minutes per side, as that is the Committee's standing practice. First up today we have Assembly Member Davies. Assembly Member Davies here. Not seeing Assembly Member Davies, Norta. Okay, do we have Assembly Member Sanchez present?

Wonderful. Please come forward, Assembly Member, item number 12. This is item number 12. AB355. Okay, Assembly Member Sanchez, you can begin whenever you're ready.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. I would also like to thank the Committee staff and the opposition for working with me on this Bill. I'm proud to present AB 355, which would provide clarity as to the illegality of using AI generated images for extortion purposes.

The development of artificial intelligence is moving at a record pace, and so are the dangers it poses to our most vulnerable populations. Of particular concern for these populations, especially minors, are sextortion cases involving AI generated images.

Sextortion involves coercing victims into providing sexually explicit photos or videos of themselves, then threatening to share them publicly or with the victim's family and friends if their demands are not met.

In 2023, the FBI issued an alert to warn the public of the growing use of AI by malicious actors to create manipulative images and videos for the purpose of ensnaring victims in sextortion cases. These crimes can result in victims harming themselves or even suicide.

From October 2021 to March 2023, the FBI and Homeland Security investigation received over 13,000 reports yes, 13,000 reports of online financial sextortion of minors. The sextortion involved at least 12,600 victims, primarily boys, and led to at least 20 suicides.

That's why I've partnered with the Orange County Sheriff's Department to introduce AB 355 and help equip our prosecutors with the tools they need to crack down on sextortion cases. This is a reasonable measure that will make it easier for prosecutors to successfully convict criminals using AI to extort their victims for money or sexual images.

I respectfully ask for your aye vote on this measure and testifying with me today is Brenden Billinger with the Orange County Sheriff's Department.

Good morning ladies and gentlemen. My name is Brenden Billinger and I'm an Orange County Deputy Sheriff's investigator with over a decade of experience and specializing in complex criminal investigations. My primary focus has been working within the Special Victims Detail where I've handled numerous cases involving exploitation, including online sextortion.

My role requires me to analyze digital evidence, interview victims and suspects, and methodically piece together the facts to uncover the truth and bring justice to our survivors. In January 2024, the FBI issued a warning of the growing threat of sextortion. In my experience as a Special Victims investigator, I have witnessed a substantial increase in extortion cases.

Perpetrators are increasingly using evolving methods to manipulate and exploit their victims. What was once a crime of involving direct contact or coercion has now shifted into a digital realm. Offenders can hide behind their screens and utilize technology to create fake AI generated explicit images featuring the faces of our neighbors, friends and family to further their illicit desires.

The availability of AI tools and AI generated images to create this type of material has been well documented in recent studies. The Stanford Internet Observatory found more than 3,200 images of suspected child abuse material in a giant AI database.

Lion users on a single dark web forum shared nearly 3,000 AI generated images of child sexual abuse material in just one month. According to a recent report from the UK Internet Internet Watch Foundation. A recent example of this issue occurred in February of 2024.

Students at Beverly Hills Middle School use AI to generate nude images of classmates and share them with others. This demonstrates both the ease and likelihood that images can be generated for the purpose of extortion. Advances in technology have made it much easier to manipulate photos, send them to others or post them to Internet sites.

These crimes can lead victims to self harm and have led to suicide. As mentioned, from October 2021 to March of 2023, the FBI and Homeland Security investigators received 13,000 reports of online financial sextortion of minors. This involved 12,600 victims, primarily young boys, and at least 20 suicides.

In my experience, I've observed how victims and their families endure lasting trauma after being targeted. Some have faced relentless online harassment and social isolation, while others have experienced severe anxiety and depression. For many, the fear of these images could resurface at any moment and cast a constant shadow over their lives.

AB 355 is a necessary response to increase the prevalence of sextortion combined with access to AI technology. As technology develops and programs make AI generated images more accessible, it is important that the law recognizes the impact a fake explicit image can have on the victims and ensure violators face consequences.

As an investigator and the Orange County Sheriff's Department working on these cases, I urge you to support AB 355. This is more than just a law. It's an opportunity to stand up for those who have been unknowingly attacked and victimized. By passing this Bill, we will propose a powerful message.

Using AI in a sextortion manner is never okay and should always have consequences. We need to stand up for those survivors and give hope for justice. Thank you so much.

Thank you both for the presentation. Are there any witnesses in support of this Bill? Okay, I see at least one.

Lieutenant Julio De Leon. I'm here on behalf of Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco in support.

Good morning. Patrick Espinosa on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association, in support.

Okay. Thank you Assemblymember Ramos for the motion and I do hear we have a second. However, we do need to continue taking any opposition testimony, so we'll hold that motion for now. Is there anyone else from the public in support of this Bill? Seeing none. Are there any witnesses in opposition to this Bill? See at least a couple people. Whenever you're ready, you may begin and your time will start then.

Good morning, Chair and Members. George Parampathu, Legislative attorney with ACLU California Action. Extortion is a troubling Problem I rise in opposition to AB355 due to constitutional concern. First, this Bill might violate due process rights. The U.S. Supreme Court has often emphasized that criminal statutes must give fair notice of what is prohibited.

AB355 fails to provide this notice because it does not define what technologies are AI, nor does it explain what sort of AI content is disfavored. For example, does it only cover tech that can generate images from prompts? Or does it also cover all the algorithms that Photoshop uses to edit images?

And does this Bill only cover content relating to what is already listed in the extortion statute, or does it cover all AI content? The answers to these questions will be up to the personal whims of prosecutors and courts. This sort of arbitrary enforcement is precisely what the vagueness doctrine is meant to prevent. Relatedly, AB 355's over breadth is impermissible under the First Amendment. It is not ... into sex source in situations.

Most notably, the bill's broad wording may open the door to politicians pushing for the prosecutions of voters who want to create AI political content that is fully protected on the First Amendment but happens to rub a politician the wrong way regardless of the likelihood of conviction. This would certainly chill public debate. As such, AB355 fails the requirement that regulations of speech be specific and narrowly tailored. For these reasons, I urge a no vote. Thank you.

Good Morning. Glenn Backes for the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights. The Ella Baker center advances economic and racial justice to ensure dignity and opportunity for Low income people and Low income communities. People of color. You will often see us this year opposing bills to increase the burden of mass incarceration.

And you will see us advancing bills to make communities whole and safe. Extensive research has shown that long sentences don't deter crime or make victims whole. That's the conclusion of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Also recommend to this Committee the 444 page report of the National Academy of Sciences that finds that long sentences don't deter crime, but they do harm to families, create economic distress for children, destabilize communities and fail fail to enhance public safety. As my colleagues pointed out, the Bill is too vague to be considered appropriate for law.

We asked the Committee not to support it and not recommend it to the full Assembly. The Bill before you today would say extortion would include a threat to post, distribute or create AI generated images or videos of another. That's it. That would be proof of extortion.

The Bill doesn't say what kind of AI would be illegal and worthy of punishment of 23 or four years in jail. It's too broad, too vague, and therefore might invite unjust application by one or more of the thousands of prosecutors in the state. We can say that a DA would never do that.

They would never use it inappropriately. But a DA might use a broad and vaguely worded statute to leverage a plea deal that is unfair or unjust, to stack this charge with other threats and this threat of four years on top of others in order to get a good plea deal out of a person. Current law is adequate.

Current law says that extortion includes the threat to impute to him or her a deformity, disgrace or crime. Current law covers disgrace that is adequate to deal with the threats as described by the author and the proponents. So with respect, the language is too broad, should not pass today and should not be recommended to the full Assembly. Thank you.

Thank you very much for your comment. Is there anyone else from the public in opposition to this Bill? Seeing that there are, please come up and state your name, organization and your position.

Natasha Minskir, Smart Justice California Opposed

Leslie Caldwell, Houston, California Public Defenders Association. Opposed

Melanie Kim, San Francisco Public Defenders Office Opposed

Danica Rodarmel on behalf of La Defensa and Initiate Justice. in opposition.

Ignacio Hernandez on behalf of the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice Statewide Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in opposition.

All right, thank you all for your testimony and comments before the Committee today. Colleagues understanding that a motion was made, we will get to that momentarily, but now is the time and place for questions or comments from Committee Members. There any questions from Members of the Committee? Yes, Vice Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, opposition. I'm just a little curious on AI. How many kinds of AI are there?

You're asking me? think that is part of the problem, the fact that it is not defined. You have an idea what AI is? I have an idea of what AI is. The thousands of prosecutors have an idea what AI is. We need a definition in the law so that all the prosecutors and courts have one definition of what AI is, then we can answer your question. How many AI are there? It depends on the definition.

And the Bill doesn't answer the question of what kind of image. If there was, if someone said, Glenn, we're going to post an image of you palling around with Vladimir Putin that would, under the definitions in this Bill of which there are few or none be considered extortion.

There's no definition that it harm a person or even in this Bill be posted. But it's a threat to create any of a breadth of potential images, including those that would make me look like Superman or Lois Lane.

If I may also add, I'd just like to point out that while we're focusing on the extortion statute itself that says, you know, you actually have to receive consideration for your threat, this Bill would also expand the attempt of extortion. And that's where it gets a little bit more vague, because that's when a prosecutor.

Prosecutor can, you know, make an argument that, zero, even though there was no consideration given, that person was attempting to extort them with some sort of speech that is protected by the First Amendment.

I have nothing further.

I have a quick question.

Thank you, Assemblymember Lackey.

Yeah. Could you help me understand an AI generated sexual image that would be considered acceptable?

I don't have the definition of obscenity in front of me, but obscenity is not protected by the First Amendment. And I would go based on what the definition of obscenity is.

I think we all know what it is.

Thank you. Thank you, Assemblymember Lackey. Any other questions or comments from Members of the Committee? I have one. Assemblymember Sanchez, as the author of the Bill, you've had a chance to hear some of the critique and criticism from the opposition. Do you have any response for the Committee to consider today?

I do. Thank you for the question. I absolutely. I know that our office is actively working with the opposition to address any and all concerns on the vagueness, and I continue to look forward to working with you as well.

Thank you. Does that bring any other questions or comments from Members of the Committee? Seeing none I have here in my notes. We had a motion by Assemblymember Ramos, a second by Assemblymember Lackey. The chair is recommending an aye, and I will note that I'm recommending an aye for today's purposes only. I strongly encourage the author to continue working with the opposition to see if we can add clarity to the Bill. With that said, let's call the roll on AB 355 by Senate Member Sanchez. The motion is do pass to the Appropriations Committee.

[Roll Call]

That measure passes. Thank you. It passes. 70. Thank you very much, everyone, for coming. Very good. Assemblymember Ta. Are you ready to go? You have your witness.

Come forward and get situated. Thank you, colleagues. Just to orient you all, we'll be taking up item number 10. This is Assembly Bill 327. Primary author is Ta. Assembly Member Ta, when you are, when you and your witness are ready, you may begin. You will have up to five minutes.

Yes. Good morning, Chair and Members of the Committee. I'm here today to present AB 327, measure to protect innocent victims from increasing revenant act of swatting. I want to begin by thanking the committee staff and the Chair for their cooperation in this bill. I'm happy to accept the committee amendments.

These amendment will clarify this bill will apply only to adult repeat offenders. Swatting is when someone makes a false claim of an emergency in order to cause a massive emergency response. This often result in a SWAT team being sent to a location thinking that there's a threat, active shooter, or hostage situation.

When a first responder show up to the site of a false report, people lives are at stake. Facing the possibility of a bomb or an active shooter, first responder might break down doors and enter with weapons drawn. Consequently, innocent people are put directly in harm's way.

This diverts public resources away from real emergency where people are actually in danger. We've seen a drastic in reach of swatting in recent years in which public officials both side of political aisle have been targeting, including our lieutenant governor. Schools across our state have been shut down because of this serious crime.

According to the Educators School Safety Network, swatting account for 63.8% of all violent incidents in school and has increased 546% from 2018 to 2023. After I introduced this bill, several school districts reached out to my office and thanks my team for running this bill.

AB 327 will address this serious crime by making swatting wobbler, which can be prosecuted as either a misdemeanor or felony depending on the circumstances. AB 327 will also ensure that victims are compensated for any property damage, such as destruction of their front door during emergency responses. I'm honored to introduce my witness, Mary Hyatt with California Civil Liberties Advocacy.

Good morning, Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Matty Hyatt from California Civil Liberties Advocacy. I know that not used to seeing civil liberties groups on this side of the table when we're working on these kind of bills, but this problem affects everyone across the political spectrum.

So we are in strong support because this is not just a dangerous prank. I remember kids doing this at my school. I remember it happened at my sister's school. But it scared a lot of people when it happened. They took it very seriously. Yeah, some of my friends laughed about it afterward.

They said they knew it wasn't going to happen. But the problem is that swatting weaponizes law enforcement against innocent people. And I'm concerned about Fourth Amendment rights here. They may not be affected directly, but when swatting happens, law enforcement go into people's homes, and we have the plain view doctrine.

So usually civil liberties groups, we're concerned about these kind of things. So we have that problem. But then we also have, you know, you know, the traumatization, like I mentioned, to school children, public servants. Let's just go down the list of a couple of things. Here we have Emily Gorcenski, the activist from Charlottesville, Virginia.

She was swatted in 2017. Clara Sorrenti, a transgender activist and online streamer. She was swatted in August of 2022. Boston Mayor Michelle Wu, Christmas Day 2023. Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows, December 29. She was swatted after she made the legal decision to remove Donald Trump from the state's ballot.

Our own Lieutenant Governor Eleni Kounalakis, she was also swatted. I think this building. Weren't we swatted? I wasn't here that day, but I think it was swatted. What was it? May 16. We had the anthrax hoax, and then we also had the bomb threat December of last year. So I think we're seeing a problem here.

This is both a civil liberties issue and a public safety issue. And then to add to that, let's talk about taxpayer rights, so taxpayers are footing the bill for these hoaxes. A single swatting response can cost anywhere from 10,000 to $100,000 per incident. So if we're concerned about wasting law enforcement resources and redirecting them to programs that would be more for restorative justice and for... What else do I have here? I guess what I'm trying to say is that usually our organization has been in support of restorative justice programs, and we still are.

And I know that those are going to be the arguments that we're probably going to hear today. And I usually would be making them myself, but I'm concerned because this is targeting people on both sides. I think Marjorie Taylor Greene was also swatted.

So, I mean, this is like, this is a nonpartisan issue, and I don't see how restorative justice is going to fix it by having the offender sit down with the perpetrators. We had a kid from Lancaster, Alan Filion. I hope I'm pronouncing that right. Over 375 swatting incidents nationwide. He's 18 years old. He pled guilty.

He's going to sit down with 375 people that were swatted and say, I'm sorry? So we're just a little bit concerned that these incidents are getting out of control. We live in a very highly charged political environment and this affects everyone. Everyone in this room could be swatted, including me.

I haven't been swatted yet, but I've been the subject of some political, some interesting situations, let's just put it that way. And so I see that this bill is necessary. We're not criminalizing people for first time offenses. A juvenile makes a prank call, okay, they're going to get a slap on the wrist. It's a wobbler. We're not making everyone a felony. It's not across the board. This seems like a bill that strikes a very good balance between public safety and civil liberties. So we urge an aye vote.

Thank you both very much for your presentation. Next we'll move to witnesses in support of the bill for a total of five minutes. Are there any witnesses in support of this bill? Okay. At this point, is there anyone else from the public in support of the bill? If so, please come up. State your name, organization, and position.

Mr. Chair and Members, Randy Perry on behalf of PORAC in support.

Morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Ryan Sherman of the Riverside Sheriff Association in support. Also in support, the following groups. I'll just go through this once for today. California Narcotic Officers' Association, California Reserve Peace Officers, Placer County DSA, and the Police Officer Associations of Arcadia, Burbank, Brea, Corona, Culver City, Fullerton, Murrieta, Newport Beach, Nevada, Palos Verdes, Pomona, Riverside, and Santa Ana. All in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Patrick Espinoza on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association in support.

Thank you all very much. Next, we'll move to witnesses in opposition to this bill. Do we have any witnesses in opposition? For a total of five minutes. Please feel free to get situated and your time will begin whenever you start.

Good morning, Chair Schultz, and to the Committee Members. My name is Matt Gonzalez. Been an attorney for over 30 years. I'm a former member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, and I currently serve as the chief attorney of the San Francisco Public Defender's Office, a post I've held for 14 years.

Under current law, violent swatting is already punishable as a felony. The lesser crime of making the harassing 911 calls or false reporting of an emergency is a misdemeanor punishable for up to one year in the county jail. The main question here is why isn't this misdemeanor tool sufficient to combat the offending conduct that we're talking about?

The study used by the sponsor in support of the amendment, he's referenced it today and it's in the committee analysis, has since noted a significant decline in swatting or false reports from previous years. We're back to 2016 levels, and in 2022-23 there's been a 23% decline in these types of calls.

Importantly, the study didn't indicate if the perpetrators were even adults. Most are youth, certainly under 21, I believe, and or suffer from mental health issues. Increasing the punishment is not going to deter these individuals. But more importantly, the misdemeanor tool that we currently have is sufficient to deal with these situations.

A first offense could get you, let's say, probation and some jail time, maybe 30 days in the county jail, maybe an order to undergo treatment to try to address the problems you have. If you were to commit the offense a second time, you could do 60 or 120 days in jail or up to a year in the county jail. If you have multiple offenses, and we're talking about misdemeanor offenses, those could run consecutively, each a year in the county jail.

I'll just note that in San Francisco in the last three years, we could only identify three misdemeanor cases where 148.3 is alleged to have occurred. Last month an individual, Alan Filion, who was referenced earlier by the sponsor, was responsible for hundreds of swatting calls. He was 17 years old when he did that, 18 years old when he pled guilty. He was charged in federal court and received a four year sentence.

Current law is not just the California statute of violent swatting being a felony, harassing calls being a misdemeanor, but 18 USC Section 1038 for a false call or hoax can get you a five year sentence in the federal law. If great bodily injury results, you can get a 20 year sentence. If death results, you can get a life in prison sentence for your first offense. So we believe that there are many statutes that adequately deal with this offending conduct. Thank you.

Good morning. Lesli Caldwell-Houston. Am I on? For the California Public Defenders Association. I labored as an attorney in public defender offices for nearly 40 years. My last 10 years were spent as the chief defender of Solano County, the department head. We respectfully oppose AB 327, as it flies in the face of evidence and studies. The proposed bill makes these offenses punishable as felonies.

Increasing the severity of punishment does little to deter crime. According to the National Institute of Justice, laws and policies designed to deter crime by focusing mainly on increasing the severity of punishment are ineffective, partly because the criminals know very little about what sanctions may be coming, and partly, and I can definitely testify this after 40 years of representing people charged with crimes, they don't think about the sanctions before they do what they do, commit the acts that they do.

So it's not a deterrent. More severe punishments do not chasten individuals convicted of crimes, and prisons often exacerbate recidivism. Jails may be good for punishing criminals and keeping them off the street for a period of time, but jail sentences, particularly long sentences...

Ma'am, I'm sorry to interrupt. We are at five minutes. I'll give you a moment or two to wrap up.

Okay. Are highly unlikely to deter future crime. Let me just finish by saying, while AB 327 wastes scarce public resources and does nothing to address the underlying root causes of crime, it further commits precious public resources to increase punishments. For these reasons, we request your no vote.

Thank you very much. With that, is there anyone else from the public in opposition to this bill? I do see a rather lengthy line. You know the drill, but please come up. State your name, organization, and position, please.

Danica Rodarmel on behalf of Vala Defense and Initiate Justice in opposition.

Alexandra Trantham, deputy... Or I'm a public defender from LA County Public Defenders Union in opposition.

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

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

Simelia Rogers, Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, in opposition.

Dax Proctor, Californians United for Responsible Budget, in opposition.

Jim Lindburg, Friends Committee on Legislation of California, opposed.

Ignacio Hernandez on behalf of the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice in opposition.

Thank you all very much for your time today and making your position known to the committee. Colleagues, at this time, we move to questions and or comments from the Committee Members. Would anyone like to begin? Vice Chair, you want to help me out or I can jump in?

I'll jump in.

Okay. Thank you, Vice Chair.

They're warming up. So, Mr. Gonzalez, real quick. You decided to talk about federal statutes and penalties. So do you feel that it's fair to just maybe just have them go with federal court where they're going to get 20 years or life? Or do you think we should make our own penalties on it where it's less?

Well, I think, I think in the instance of a violent swatting matter, we have the felony tool in California. For the individual that was referenced who was prosecuted in the federal courts, had he been prosecuted in the state courts, I think he would have been charged for multiple felonies.

So he would have actually, you know, stacked consecutively, been facing quite a bit of time. Had they only brought misdemeanor offenses here in California, I would be surprised by that. But had it happened, he easily could have gotten those four years in the county jail.

Okay, and then for the other opposition, you talked about the National Institute study. I've been on this committee for a while, and I keep getting told about studies here, studies about groups I don't even know about. When was that study done?

You know, I can't give you that date off the top of my head. It is cited in our letter to the committee.

Okay, well, then I'll have my team look at that. I have found that a lot of studies don't always have the backings that I normally want them to have, and so I don't always go by studies here. As far as... Sir, you were talking about, how much does each swatting incident cost?

Depending on the jurisdiction, it can be anywhere from 10 to 100,000. It depends on the law enforcement's abilities, it depends on their funding, and it depends on the response to the threat.

Okay. I'm just, I'm just curious. What's going on in my head right now is also the opposition talked about waste of public resources, and I think that would be a waste in itself right there by us preventing and determining.

I wanted to oppose this bill when I first looked at it, but after looking at it pragmatically, it actually makes sense. And as I said, everyone in this room could be swatted, including me, if they don't like... If someone's watching this hearing right now and they don't like something somebody says.

Gotcha. And one more thing, Mr. Gonzalez, you talked about treatment for problems for, like, the young man that we're talking about. How long would it take for his treatment to have...

Well, just to be clear, I don't know enough about that individual case. But when we see cases in the misdemeanor courts, there are often issues that we try to address as a condition of probation. So you can, you could fashion something that includes treatment with jail time. How long would it take? I don't know. You know, it may be something that you're not going to cure during the length of probation, but we often strive to do that. And at the end of a probationary period, we're connecting people up with continued resources.

Okay, well, obviously, those that know me, know me. I definitely want people to have consequences for their actions, but I'm also big on rehabilitation. And I normally find that when we shorten our time for the time that they have that they are to get fixed or rehabilitated, usually we cut them short because we cut these sentences short.

Then by then their behaviors or whatever got them there are not able to get the counseling or the help that they do. So I feel like we're doing a disservice for them sometimes with that in itself. And then back to you, sir. Did you have anything else to add about the federal cases?

One concern that I have as a proud Californian is that the federal government is kind of being dismantled right now as we speak. And certain laws may be on the chopping block, certain institutions may be on the chopping block. The Supreme Court seems to be signaling over the last few years that they're punting a lot of these issues to the states. So maybe California needs to have their own protections. Maybe we need to have our own law on the books.

All right, thank you. And I just want to thank the author for bringing this back. I know last time it got through committee 8-0, through our committee as well, and I was proud to support it. Chair, I'll be moving this bill as well. As prior law enforcement being on swatting incidents, the resources that I had to use as the supervisor, the watch commander on that day, when I could have been using them somewhere else was just a big waste. And so I thank you guys for addressing this.

Great. Thank you very much. Assembly Member Lackey.

Yeah, I don't really have any questions. I just have a comment that it seems like we're living in a time when extremes are what get attention. The clear black and white circumstances. Either this is just a misunderstood circumstances by a young person wanting to prank versus circumstances that are very extreme and have caught injury or even loss of life. And I think this is a reasonable approach for the gray.

And anytime we can give the court options and the judicial system an option to be more fair, I think it should. It deserves our support. And that I see that as this is what this is as was expressed by the two witnesses. This is not a partisan thing. This is reasonable. And so it will definitely get my support.

Thank you, Assembly Member Lackey. Any other questions or comments from my colleagues? Okay, I have a few. First of all, directing it to one of our opposition witnesses. Could you remind me the name and circumstances of the gentleman you were referring to that I think you said had a few hundred swatting incidences before turning the age of 18?

Yes. I believe his name is Alan Filion. So it's A L A N, F I L I A N or O N.

Thank you for that. My question is, and this is to you, but also very much the author could answer it as well. The bill, as amended, should it pass out of this committee. In Mr. Filion's case, if all of those occurrences occurred before the age of 18, they would not be subject to charging it as a felony, as a wobbler. Is that correct?

Yes.

Okay. Now, the other thing that you referenced, and I do think it's a good point, sir, and I'm saying this part out loud for all of my colleagues as they're getting acclimated to the subject matter. You mentioned that there is already a mechanism to charge a felony. And I think what you're referring to is Penal Code Section 653. Is that correct, sir? Or which one were you referring to?

It's 148.3, but it's subsection B.

Ah, thank you. Okay, pulling that up here. Okay. Yes. Okay. Thank you very much for that, sir. I have a few more comments, but before I get to that, any other questions for Members of the Committee? No questions. All right. This will be a fun year. Kidding, y'all. This will be good. This will be good. So I think what would be most appropriate.

Why don't we take a motion and a second, and then I'll add any comment before we call the roll. Okay. So we have a motion from Alanis, a second from Lackey. Yeah. Before we call the roll. Madam Secretary, I'll just mention that I am, the Chair is recommending. And I'm sorry, I actually misspoke. I will give the Chair's recommendation. I'm also going to give the author a chance to close. The chair is recommending an aye at this time. I do find that it actually creates parity with other provisions of the law, including 653 that I was referring to.

I'm a big believer in prosecutorial discretion reviewable by the court, and I think that that's maintained even in the passage of this. I do want to commend the author for taking the amendments that concerns that I and committee staff had regarding the treatment of juveniles. So I appreciate you working with committee staff to further refine the bill that even had passed out of this committee last year. And with that, Assembly Member Ta, I'll give you a chance to close.

Yeah. I really appreciate your leadership and your comments. So I introduced this bill last year. The reason I introduced the bill because my office, we've been contacted by many, many school districts in our area, and I believe in other areas. So we all understand that swatting right now is becoming a legal issue for everyone, for the government and for private and for everyone.

So that's the reason why I think that my bill is really, really fair and my bill is really, really help the school district because we all understand that our children, they need help and we cannot continue to waste our school resources. And swatting is really, really wasting our school resources. So that reason why I introduced the bill. But I really appreciate your help, your support. So I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Assembly Member Ta. And I will just state for the record, I do find that this bill as proposed would create parity with 148.3, Subdivision B, as well as 653, which I previously mentioned. And the last thing I will add from personal experience is that to the sponsor's point, swatting can be an incredibly dangerous situation when armed officers are showing up to a location believing that someone may be armed, and it can have quite literally deadly consequences.

I think that where we have recurrent conduct and people continuing to put folks in harm's way, I think at least giving the prosecutor and the courts the ability to look at all attendant facts and circumstances in deciding whether it's more appropriately charged as a misdemeanor or felony, I think that strikes a fair balance. So Chair is recommending an aye. With that, let's call the roll.

On AB 327 by Assembly Member Ta, the motion is do pass as amended to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call] That measure passes.

Okay, measure passes. Thank you all for presenting and for your testimony today, both in opposition and in support. Bear with me one moment while I see what we have next in the queue.

Assemblymember Hadwick, are you ready to go? I'll take that as a yes. So colleagues, we're going to be taking up item number eight. This is Assembly Bill 297 Assemblymember Hadwick, once you and your sponsor are ready to go, your time will begin and you'll have up to five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would first like to thank the Chair and the Committee staff for working with my staff and collaborating so well. Some of the deadliest and largest wildfires in state history have been caused by arsonists. The 2021 Dixie Fire, the second largest in the state, burning almost a million acres, was in my own district and was part in part by done by arson.

This list also includes the Park Fire in Butte County, Cedar Fire in San Diego, County, the Old fire in San Bernardino County, the Station Fire in LA County, and the King Fire in El Dorado County. It is clear now that arson and deadly and destructive wildfires affect all of California, not just my district.

Arson was one of the causes of many wildfires in the 2021 that made up the worst wildfire seasons in California's history. While damage to people and property caused by arson must be punished, harm to our environment must be considered as well.

According to the University of California Los Angeles, greenhouse gas emissions from the 2021 wildfire season completely wiped out all of the progress that we had made in California to reduce emissions from 2003 to 2019.

Furthermore, the costs to remove dead and dying trees, reforest and remediate burn scars are expensive and expensive the most for under resourced rural cities and counties. Beyond this environmental impact of fire, the economic costs associated with fighting fires is staggering. The US government spent over $3 billion on firefighting efforts in 2021 alone.

Currently, the crime of aggravated arson factors the cost to suppress fires. This enhancement for arson does not factor in the size of a fire or the cost to suppress it. Assembly Bill 297 requires an arsonist who burns 500 or more acres of forest land to be subject to a sentence enhancement.

This Bill cracks down on arsonists and protects the environment by punishing arsonists who have burned vast amounts of our forests. AB297 will discourage arsonists and bring relief to fire threatened communities in California.

The measure is supported by California District Attorneys Association, California State Sheriff Association, the Los Angeles School Policeman Management Association, Los Angeles School Police Officers Association, National Crime Insurance Bureau, Peace Officers Research Association of, California, the Placer County Deputy Sheriff's Association, and Crime Victims United. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

And I am joined today with Pat Espinoza representing the California District Attorneys Association.

Good morning. My name is Pat Espinoza appearing on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association. And we can be thankful that very few large scale fires are committed by arsonists over that result in over 500 acres of damage.

So what that tells us is that this will have a very limited focused approach and the purpose is to give a sentencing judge more options. Already we know that there is a standard sentencing range triad for those who commit the crime of arson. There is an enhancement. This enhancement is on the books.

However, we want to add a sixth category. The existing applications of the enhancement are for arsonists who have a prior arson conviction for some arsonists who. For arsons that commit great bodily injury or fires that result in multiple damage to structures.

However, what's missing is this notion that there could be damage to the environment that we view as significant. And with this AB2 I'm sorry AB 297 will do. It will, it will add a additional category to that existing sentencing enhancement. And specifically when there's damage to forest land in excess of 500 acres.

Now what this does not do is it's not mandatory. It gives the judge the options. It doesn't mean that the judge must impose that. But that along with the-

The sentencing standard for the underlying crime with enhancements gives the judge the option to determine does this punishment appropriately send the message and have accountability for the potential for a large scale fire in the tune of 500 acres plus.

Significantly this week in the County of California, CAL FIRE San Diego made an arrest of arsonists for arson that was committed on January 21st in San Diego County for the Pala and the Lilac fires. And those were significant fires but those fires combined amounted to about the estimate is 100 acres. And so there is a- The opposition says, well, what about the incarceration costs that this sensing enhancement will create?

What we know is because these are focused because these are just basically the worst of the worst who commit these large massive forest land fires that we do not expect a large application but a targeted approach so that when someone does do damage to California by wildfire that the judge has the appropriate sentencing options. And for that we would urge an aye vote.

Thank you very much for the presentation and the testimony and support. We'll now move to any other person, any other Member of the public in support of the Bill. You know the drill. Please come up. State your name, organization and position.

Mr. Chairman, Members Randy Perry on behalf of POR EK and support.

Good morning, Mr. Chair. Members Cory Salzillo on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association, support.

Morning, Mr. Chair. Ryan Sherman at the Riverside Sheriff Association in support and the other groups previously mentioned. Thank you.

Thank you all very much for taking the time to have your voices heard. We'll now move to witnesses in opposition to the Bill for a total of five minutes. Do we have anyone to testify in opposition? Looks like we do.

Good morning, Chair and Members. George Parampathu, legislative attorney with ACLU California Action rising in opposition to AB297 existing law severely punishes arson of forest land with a prison term up to six years. Despite research showing that sentencing enhancements do not deter crime.

AB 297 would increase the punishment for first time offenders up to an extra five years for a total of 11 years in prison. And this for fires that do not cause great bodily injury to anyone. Study after study has made it clear that bills like AB297 will not increase public safety.

Even the federal Department of Justice has said that increasing the severity of punishments does little to deter crime. What we do know is that a criminal conviction cuts a person's lifetime earnings in half and makes them 10 times more likely to end up homeless. Their families suffer too, from losing a breadwinner and a crucial caregiver.

Nearly 65% of families with an incarcerated family member are unable to meet their basic needs. AB 297's increased punishments simply double down on this broken system and distract us from other actors who may also be liable for these fires, such as faulty utility companies. I urge you to turn away from over criminalization and vote no on AB297. Thank you.

Thank you. Are you testifying as well?

Yes.

Okay. Whenever you're ready.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Brooke Longuevan, President of Local 148, the Los Angeles County Public Defenders Union, here in opposition to AB297. As already stated, arson is already punishable in state prison up to six years. Even more with additional existing enhancements.

Notably, felony arson of forest land does not require that an individual intend to burn or destroy forest land or to even start a fire. As a public defender, I have seen that individuals with mental health conditions and those who are unhoused are disproportionately represented in individuals convicted of arson.

AB297 will waste California's resources by increasing prison sentences largely for those communities who may or may not have intent to cause harm, damage property, or even start a fire. As an Angeleno, I have seen firsthand how quickly fires can spread and the extreme devastation it causes.

However, I have also seen how large wildland fires can happen due to accidents, cooking fires and sparks from space heaters. Sending our community members to prison for even longer sentences will not keep us safer from the threat of wildfires.

California should direct its limited resources to corporations that actually have the ability to prevent the start and spread of wildfires rather than funding the increased cost of incarceration. I urge you to vote no on AB297. Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony as well. Is there anyone from the public in opposition to the Bill? Seeing that there is, please come up. State your name, organization and position. Ignacio Hernandez, on behalf of the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice and opposition.

Natasha Minsker, Smart Justice California. Opposition.

Tyena Vargas, Initiate Justice Action. In opposition.

Roxanna Gonzalez, Initiate Justice Action. Opposition.

Celia Rogers, Ella Baker Center for Human Rights. In strong opposition.

Dax Proctor, Californians United for Responsible Budget. In opposition.

Melanie Kim, San Francisco Public Defender's Office. Opposed.

Danica Rodarmel, on behalf of La Defensa and Initiate Justice in opposition.

Tom Tran for Asian Prisoner Support Committee and Ella Baker, Center for Human Rights. In opposition.

Jim Lindberg, Friends Committee on Legislation of California. Opposed.

Leslie Caldwell Houston California Public Defenders Association. And an individual who lost my home in the Oakland wildfire in 1991, which was started by a homeless cooking fire and the aunt of a young man who lost his home in Altadena. And your position may have been started by a power company. We are opposed.

Thank you, Jerome. On behalf of Legal Services for Prisoners with Children in opposition. Thank you.

My name is Nedric Miller. All of Us or None Sacramento. And we oppose.

Bernie Singh with All of Us or None, I strongly oppose.

All right. Seeing no other comment. Thank you all for taking the time to come down and make sure that your voices are heard as well. Colleagues, I'm going to try to clean it up a little bit as I get my sea legs here. First, we're going to go to questions and comments.

Once we've done that, I'm going to give the author here a chance to make a closing statement in response to any discussion we've had. Then I'll make my recommendation and at that time, we'll go ahead and see if there's a motion on the floor.

So with that, questions or comments right out the gate, would anyone like to begin? Yes, Vice Chair.

Seems to be a pattern. Let's go right now to Mr. Espinoza. You were talking about the individuals. Can you please just bring up mental State of the arsonist in General. In general, could you please bring up what the mental state normally is of an arsonist?

Generally we have to prove that it was intentionally set fire for the crime of arson. There's also the 452 which is a recklessly set fire and so intentionally set the fire.

So would that include like a space heater? Having a space heater? Maybe they're a homeless person trying to cook?

No, that would unlikely be an intentionally set fire. I guess under some circumstances one could, but generally the answer I think would be no.

What would be more of an example of somebody who's intentionally setting a fire, get a lighting device and set something on fire, throwing a flare out into a dry grass or maybe gasoline and that kind of thing. Okay, so the opposition you were talking about, how this didn't create or this Bill doesn't address great bodily injury to anyone.

What is your value on people with the environmental reasons that were brought up, like with when we do have fires and people breathing it in, getting smoke inhalation and those kind of things, is that not a value as well?

First, just to go back one step to help answer the question from before, I think the public defender might also have a thought on the intent standard. I would also throw in that there's a study from 2024 that says that 90% of arsonists are people with mental health issues.

So it is hard to say at that point what the actual intent is going to. Your question, obviously it is important to protect the environment. Our view is just simply that throwing somebody in prison for 11 years isn't going to bring back any trees.

And so the punishment of six years in prison is already enough and is a deterrent. And there are already enhancements for say a second time offender or somebody who injures a cop with their fire.

And so murdering somebody also doesn't bring back the person, but it still gives them the same time. So the public defender. Ma'am, you did talk about space heaters. I'll give you a chance to defend yourself on that one.

Just in general.

Yeah. You mentioned space heaters as if that was something that can cause a fire and be included in the Bill that's before us.

Yes. So I think it's important to note that there's a difference between a specific intent requirement versus something being willful. So. So under current law, under 451, the element that has to be proven is that it's willfully done, not that you specifically intended to do it, which are two different things.

So if you often prosecutors will make the argument that something is done willfully because you willfully turned on your space heater in an area that maybe you should have known could have started a wildfire, which is different than turning on a space heater and shoving paper into it in hopes that a fire will ignite.

So those are two different scenarios. Often what we see when they're charged is that it is an accidental spark or an accidental situation.

Either someone's cooking a spark flies out and lights something on fire that then is argued is willful or malicious just based on the nature of it happening in the first place, not because that person specifically intended for a fire to erupt. So that would be a different situation than what the code actually already says, which is just that it be willful.

And so does this Bill add on to that what you brought up?

So the Bill already, the Bill basically just adds an additional section. So the code already basically doesn't require that the prosecutor prove that there's a specific intent. What this Bill does is just add. Adds another section that can be punishable under currently existing law.

So it's basically just adding another avenue for this current lack of specific intent to apply to.

You also mentioned that we already have six years as punishment.

Yes.

So are you saying with that comment it made me feel like as if you're saying we're adding more time.

Yes, this would be a sentencing enhancement that would add additional time to whatever the base triad would be.

Okay, sir, do you have an answer to that one? A response?

No, that's exactly. It's just an add on punishment. So it doesn't, it's not a separate crime. It would attach to a crime. So the crime would have the mental state and you know, the mens Rea. And then the enhancement would just give the additional sentencing options if those facts are exist within the sentencing.

So in this case by adding the, you know, the damp resulting damage to be in excess of 500 acres, then that gives the judge the more sensing options. But it doesn't impact the mental state which is part of the core crime to which it attaches.

And if I can ask one more question of you, one of the ladies who spoke a little bit past her time to give her Me too was talking about the Eaton fire and how somebody caused it with the space here or however it was down a campfire, would that apply?

Because I want to say that involved structures the Eaton fire.

I don't know how the Eaton fire was started. I guess that'd be. First you have to Determine was the 451 crime of arson committed. My understanding on the Eaton fires, there's questions on was it started by someone other than an arsonist and it involves structure.

So would that apply to this Bill?

Mr. Chair, if I may

MR. Alanis, I see someone else who'd like to answer your question. Is this an open question to all of the panel? No, this is just for Mr. Espinoza.

This Bill just adds one part of the enhancement that is damage to forest land.

Forest land? I think something with structures as brought up earlier.

Right. Structures already exist. If it's multiple structures, this current enhancement already covers that conduct. So this is just adding to those existing enhancements within this enhancement options to say if it's forest land and exit damage and destruction in excess of 500 acres.

Okay. Just wanted to make sure the forest land. So if I was an attorney, I'd be. Strike that. We had nothing to do with it. It was structures. Carry on. Thank you, Mr. Chair

Thank you, Vice Chair. Who'd like to go next? Assemblymember Sharp-Collins.

So, as as previously mentioned, most arsonists need. They need the mental health support. Right. And so they're often unfit to stand trial. So I'm trying to understand exactly what is the Bill going to do besides add another section which in my opinion is going to increase our prison population and roll back the rehabilitation efforts with these enhancements.

So what exactly is the Bill going to do? Since most people are unfit to stand trial, so they're going to state hospitals versus going to jail. So I need some clarification on that.

Can I take that one? So the criminal justice system already accounts for those that have those mental health scenarios. They have to be proven that it's willful and malicious. This adds. And. And if this adds the damages of our forests because we. We don't consider those in that additional sentencing.

So the Dixie Fire was almost a million acres. I drive through that every. Every time I go home from my district and you're driving through what looks like a graveyard or the moon to reforest that, it's going to be 30 to 40 years. So often these communities that suffered all of that trauma are their people. Their.

The arsonist would be out of jail in four to six years. And they haven't even recovered from what? From their community hasn't recovered. The Dixie Fire. The entire community of Greenville burned down. That was from a college Professor that was an arsonist that made a choice to start that fire in multiple places.

That is what this is for. To show that we care about our natural resources, we care about our Environment and burning up our forests is not acceptable and we want them to be held accountable.

Thank you, Assemblymember. Are there other questions or comments from the Committee? I have one. Assemblymember Hadwick. I believe that one, not, not the only, but one of the inspirations for this Bill was the Dixie Fire. And specifically a gentleman by the name of Gregory Maynard, if I'm not mistaken.

Could you tell the Committee a little bit about that backstory and how it motivated you to bring the Bill forward?

So my district is plagued with fire every year. I am really encouraged from the convers since the LA fire happened. The recovery process takes years. And I don't think people really understand how that affects a community, both emotionally but also financially. What I have in my district, I represent 11 counties. What we have is natural resources.

It brings people in for tourism, it brings jobs for logging, government work. That is what makes our district run. And when fires continually burn, we lose that.

So the Dixie Fire was the largest in or the second largest other than a complex fire, but the largest single fire in the state with the most damages, including burning down complete communities. It took almost four years for. For Greenville to get power. They were still on generators. They've built a handful of houses.

The, the school closed last year. This is. These are things that are not going to come back. Their. Their world is never going to. So I don't. I do not believe that six years is enough of a punishment for that.

Thank you. And Assemblymember Hadwick, if you can refresh my memory, I believe that Mr. Maynard was in that instance, intentionally setting fires behind the firefighters as they attempted to battle the blaze. Is that right?

Yes.

He was charged by the United States Attorney's office, I believe. So I'll represent who he was and I believe as of February of last year, after pleading guilty to three counts of arson, he was sentenced to five years and three months in federal prison. Okay, thank you. Any other questions from the Committee or comments?

All right, I'll get to you guys. Hold on. I want to give Ms. Assemblymember Hadwick a chance to close. Then my recommendation, then your motions. Assemblymember Hadwick.

I think AB297 has merit and I, I think that the. I hope that the message from this Committee is that we care about our forests in California. We. We will not stand for someone purposely maliciously and willfully burning down our natural resources and causing more damage to our environment. So I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much, Assemblymember Hadwick. I won't speak at great length often on this Committee.

But I think that I owe it to the author of the Bill and to the sponsor and to everyone who came in support to give at least one explanation for why I'm recommending a no as Chairman, I do want to say out the gate. Assemblymember Hadwick, I know you care deeply about your district.

I appreciate your passion for this. I'm sorry we don't see eye to eye on this one. But I want to say thank you to the sponsor, to the author, to everyone who came to testify. With that said, I do think the public has a right to know why I'm recommending a no.

So if you'll all indulge me for just a moment. I did ask about Mr. Maynard, who was sentenced to five years, three months in federal prison specifically because while not the only, but a source of inspiration for bringing your Bill forward, I will represent to you that existing law in State of California certainly provides adequate punishment.

In my view, certainly five years and three months. And I'll get more specific. Depending on the facts of a case, an arson conviction carries anywhere from 16 months to nine years in state prison. A person convicted of arson of forest land is already subject to six years in state prison. That's subsection C of penal code section 451.

Arson that causes great bodily injury is punishable by imprisonment for up to nine years. That would be subdivision A of 451 if there's more than one victim that suffers great bodily injury, or if the Arson Arson proximately caused structures to burn. As you were suggesting, Vice Chair, the defendant is already subject to a five-year enhancement.

The same enhancement applies if the defendant has a prior felony conviction and the penalty for aggravated arson in the State of California is 10 years to life. So I bring all that up to say that as I sit here today making a recommendation to the Committee.

While I appreciate your passion and I understand you are simply trying to serve your community, it remains unproven to me that the existing penalties under state law are inadequate and or that additional penalties would actually further deter such conduct.

The other thing I'd like to say for the record is I do have concerns as a practitioner about what I view as the vagueness of the proximate cause requirement. I can tell you from experience that proximate cause is a challenging concept to apply in courts. It's often difficult for juries to understand and to apply.

And this potential for confusion and uncertainty, in my estimation, exacerbates the risk of disparate outcomes in our criminal justice system. Which is something I seek to avoid. So I appreciate your work on this, I really do. I hope we can continue the conversations about how to preserve our environment and have a robust criminal justice system.

But with that said, I am recommending a no as Chairman. With that, I believe we have a motion to move from Vice Chair a second by Assemblymember Lackey.

Let's call the roll on AB297 by Assemblymember Hadwick. The motion is do passed to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

Okay, that measure fails. Thank you for your work.

However, Assemblymember Hadwick, can I motion for a reconsideration and work with opposition?

Is there any objection by the body? No. Then we'll grant the reconsideration.

Thank you.

Unanimously.

Thank you.

Thank you. All right, thank you all for bearing with me as I figure out this process for the first time. With that, I believe the next item we have up is item number five by Assemblymember Laurie Davies. This is Assembly Bill 229. Colleagues. Assemblymember Davies, when you're ready, you may begin and you'll have a to five minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Go back. I already just moved your speaker, so congratulations on that. We'll go with the. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members, today I'm here to present AB229. I first want to thank Committee staff for working with my staff and stakeholders on this measure. Members.

Under existing law, a victim of sexual assault who is exposed to the defendant's bodily feels fluids can ask a judge to obtain a search warrant directing the local health officers to test the defendant for HIV and disclose the results to both the defendant and the victim.

Under existing statutory structure, these results may not be shared with anyone other than those tested, and these results may not be used in trial to determine guilt or innocence of the defendant. This law was purely to ensure if there was an underlying case of HIV, those affected can begin treatment.

AB229 is a simple expansion of this testing to include testing for sexually transmitted diseases such as syphilis, chlamydia and gonorrhea. For example. Members, if left untreated because of lack of knowledge of contracting one of these diseases, the health impacts are tremendously dangerous for the victim.

For example, if left untreated, syphilis can lead to neurosyphilis, which can cause brain seizures and and cases of dementia. Additionally, this disease can lead to blood clots and in many cases heart failure. Furthermore, if chlamydia is left untreated, it can cause infertility of the ovaries and liver swelling.

Once again, Members, I want to reiterate this Bill is completely permissive. The victim must still petition the court for this testing to occur after probable cause is found. It is not automatic.

AB229 is merely trying to protect victims who has already gone through a traumatic experience and prevent another health crisis from developing because they were unaware they were infected. I also want to take a brief moment to address opposition's concerns with the expanded types of testing we include in this Bill.

Should AB229 pass this Committee, you have my commitment to men of of the Bill, some of the more invasive tests we put in and simply revert back to the basic blood, urine and saliva testing. With me here to testify on behalf of the sponsors, the California Conference of Bar Association is Michael Fern. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Good Morning. My name is Michael Fern and I am here representing the Conference of California Bar Associations which serves as the source for this Bill. Under existing law, a court can issue a search warrant for pre conviction testing of a defendant's blood and saliva for HIV.

But when sufficient evidence supports a court order for HIV testing, there is no good reason not to limit such testing to HIV alone. AB229 would permit court ordered testing to include other sexually transmitted diseases which are more prevalent than HIV and can cause infertility, birth defects and even death.

Second, AB229 would clarify that a minor victim's parent or legal representative can exercise the same rights as the victim to apply for search warrant for testing.

And in response to the registered opposition, I would want to mention and make sure the court, not the court but the Committee, is aware of a few things that AB229 does not do. First, the Bill does not change the burden of proof required to obtain a pre-conviction search warrant for testing. The standard would remain the same.

Second, the Bill does not require any specific test to be used, leaving it up to the sound discretion of the court who could give the defendant a choice. For example, even as written, a defendant may prefer the non-invasive collection of discharge with a cotton swab over being stuck with a needle and having their blood forcibly drawn, which is the existing statute.

In short, AB 229 is grounded in current scientific knowledge about STDs, removes HIV stigma from the law and would result in greater protection for the health of both the accused as well, as the victim of a sexual assault. Therefore, the Conference of California Bar Associations recommends your. I vote on this matter. Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony and for the promotion. I think support. Okay, thank you. You got two. All right. Is there anyone else from the public here in support of the Bill? Okay, Seeing none. Are there any witnesses in opposition to the Bill?

All right, so once you get seated, you'll have up to five minutes, and your time won't begin until you.

I'm back. Leslie Caldwell, Houston, for the California Public Defenders Association. And as I stated previously, 40 years laboring in public defender offices. While we're very happy to work with the author, we currently are opposed.

And the reasoning for our opposition is that this Bill would invade the medical and physical privacy of a person who has merely been accused of a crime and not convicted of a crime. I urge you to keep in mind procedure here. Accused and convicted are extremely different situations for an individual.

This Bill assumes any person accused of a crime is guilty and any accuser is therefore a victim. Based on those assumptions, this Bill makes the medical and physical information regarding the defendant available to an accuser who is not yet determined by the court to be a victim.

We recognize that the Legislature previously enacted a statute that would allow for testing for HIV, which causes a potentially deadly disease, using blood and saliva of a person accused of a crime. But this Bill goes far beyond the existing statute. This Bill goes far beyond testing of blood and saliva.

It calls for testing of rectal, urethral and or cervical discharge for any sexually transmitted disease. The execution of a search warrant would require very invasive procedures, including the insertion of medical devices in the rectum, the vagina and cervix, and the urethra.

This legislative body should know and acknowledge how potentially invasive collecting these samples actually is before allowing a court to order such testing based only on probable cause.

While it might make sense for the Legislature to provide a mechanism where a person who is a victim of a crime can find out if the person who has been convicted of a crime has a disease that could have been transmitted to the victim.

This Bill assumes the accused is guilty by not first requiring proof of the offense to a court of law. For these reasons, on behalf of cbda, at this point, we respectfully urge your no vote, and I want to reiterate, we would be happy to work with the author.

Thank you for your testimony. We'll now hear from any other Member of the public in opposition to this Bill. As a reminder, please state your name, organization and position.

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

Danica Rodarmel, on behalf of La Defensa in opposition.

Celia Rogers. Ella Baker, Center for Human Rights. In opposition.

I'm sorry, I was asleep at the wheel there. Patrick Espinosa, on behalf of the California District Attorney Association in support of the Bill.

Any other Members of the public that would like to be heard on this Bill. Seeing none, colleagues will now move to questions and or comments from Committee Members would yes, Assemblymember Lackey, thank you for volunteering.

It's actually a comment, not a question. I, I believe that the objection that was was stated about conviction versus accused is already in current law. That's what's happening. It's currently permissible in the accusatory status of a charge.

And I think that's for a reason because sometimes these convictions take an extended period of time to where if there was this contagion, it would already take effect. So it's a pragmatic matter. So I think that objection is easily remedied and that it already is current law.

So it's no reason to really oppose this particular measure and certainly deserves support. This is something that protects victims and I think it's well deserved. So I'll be supporting this measure. Thank you.

Thank you, Assemblymember Lackey. Any other questions or comments? The only thing I would add, Assemblymember Lackey, is from experience, you're not incorrect here. I can tell you that I've prosecuted a number of driving under the influence cases and as, and I know we have this shared background very common.

In fact, I remember one no-drive dui, meaning that the- offender was not actually seen driving. It was ultimately on the prosecutor to make the representation to the court that the crime, at least by probable cause, albeit not by beyond a reasonable doubt, but still had to demonstrate that a crime had occurred and that there was a good faith basis to have an invasive procedure in that case, drawing blood to determine the blood alcohol content.

So to your point, there is a provision at least for certain kinds of testing already provided for by law. But I do have a question for the author now. Assemblymember Davies, I appreciate your presentation today. You heard some concerns from the opposition about the very invasive nature of some of the testing that's provided.

Does this Committee have your commitment to work with the opposition to remedy some of those concerns that were raised here today?

Absolutely. And as I was stating, you know, should this be passed by the Committee, you have my commitment to mend out of the Bill some of the more invasive tests that we put forward.

Thank you. And I'll represent. I'm certainly no medical expert, but I think that much of the information that you're probably seeking could be collected through blood or urine as opposed to more invasive means. Do these comments or questions raise anything else from Members of the Committee? Okay. Seeing none.

Assemblymember Davies, you have a chance to close if you'd like.

I respectfully asked for an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. And colleagues, I will mention the chair's recommendation is I at this time, and I will make the rep. I will make the recommendation. Understanding your commitment, Assemblymember Davies, to work with the opposition to eliminate some of those problematic portions that we talked about today. With that agreement in place, Chair is recommending an aye.

Assemblymember Ramos, move the Bill as appropriate.

Thank you. Is there a second? Okay. Ramos. And win seconds.

Let's call the roll on AB229 by Assemblymember Davies. The motion is do pass to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

Okay, measure passes. Thank you all for coming in, for your presentation and your testimony today. And I believe next up, we will have Assembly Member Gipson. Assembly Member Gipson, are you ready to go? Okay. I love the bow tie today. All right, colleagues, this will be item number one. This is Assembly Bill 15.

Assembly Member Gipson, you know the drill better than I do, but your time will begin up to five minutes once you start. Do you have any sponsors or anyone with you today? Okay. Fantastic. All right, Assembly Member Gipson, when you're ready, the floor is yours.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Members. Thank you for allowing me to present Assembly Bill 15, the California Homicide Victims Families Right Act. This bill is a reintroduction of the act of the exact version that I introduced last year and passed almost unanimously by this committee out of committee.

Assembly Bill 15 aims to create a procedure, a procedure for family members, specifically a designated person within a family who've suffered loss due to homicide to request from law enforcement to conduct a review of an open unresolved homicide case. If the review provides an investigation lead, then the case will be a full reinvestment or reinvestment.

Solving gun violence can be important part of preventing gun violence in communities. And it can help provide closure to victims and their families. There are countless stories from impacted families from all across the State of California. And I want to underscore that, certainly because of my involvement in Parents of Murdered Children, Justice for Murdered Children, and other organizations, I hear the stories from individuals that I've met in my years.

California statewide case clearance rate for homicide has been at under 65% for the last 10 years, meaning that over a third of homicides go unsolved in the State of California. The available data tells us consistent stories. California needs to do more to solve homicides, especially in communities hit hard by gun violence.

And I just want to underscore, my community is hit by gun violence extremely hard. Grieving families often want more information about the status of their loved one's case, but there is no uniform process that will allow this process to take place or for family members who are seeking answers to questions or even a process in which they have to speak to detectives.

And that's what this bill gets at the root of today. It is my desire through Assembly Bill 15 is to create a process in which family members have the opportunity to know where things are at and also and also provide pertinent information that can lead to someone being apprehended, convicted, and arrest by this particular bill. With me to provide supporting testimony is a representative who will self introduced with Youth Alive.

Good Morning, Chair and its Members. My name is Janiesha Grisham, and I'm 25 years old. I'm a violence prevention educator for Youth Alive in Oakland, California for the program Teens on Target. My role as a VPE is to give youth a space to discuss the impact of violence on them and in their community.

We want to teach them that their voices matter and that their negative experiences should never hold them back. I actually had the privilege of being a youth leader for Teens on Target while I attended Castlemont High School. Back then, TNT was a place where I could express myself freely with no judgment. The safe space that was provided was something that I will never forget. It made me want to become the example that you can and should use your story to spark change within our community, which is why I am here today in support of AB 15.

Prior to joining TNT, I had tragically lost my brother, Christopher LaVell Jones, December 31st of 2010. Unfortunately, my brother's killers were never caught. I am here today speaking out for the families who want justice. Countless of times I have heard mothers, siblings, anybody really speaking about how they just want answers for what happened to their loved ones.

Instagram posts counting up how many days it's been since they've talked to a detective, how many days since arrest has been made, or they have even been updated on their loved one's case. I am a loved one who has waited 5,177 days for justice, and I'm still counting.

These experiences are why I am in support of this bill. This bill would give families a second chance at getting answers and getting justice. There is no harm in taking a second look at a case with a fresh pair of eyes if it gives, if it can give loved ones closure. This is why I'm asking you to support this bill and what it means for families like mines who are just looking for answers. Thank you.

All right. Thank you, Assembly Member Gipson, and thank you for coming today and sharing your story. And I'm very sorry for your loss.

Thank you.

With that, we'll hear from any member of the public who is also in support of this bill. Is anyone here in support? Okay, as you all make your way up here, just as a friendly reminder, please tell us your name, the organization that you're with, although the shirts are helpful, and then whether it's a support or, in this case, support position. So whenever you're ready.

My name is Cassandra Whetstone. I'm a volunteer with Moms Demand Action in support.

Diana Honig, volunteer with Moms Demand Action, in full support.

Good morning. Jillian King, volunteer with Moms Demand Action, in support.

Mr. Chair and Members, Beverly Yu on behalf of Everytown for Gun Safety, co-sponsor, urge your support. Thank you.

My name is Mary Duplat. I am a gun violence survivor and a volunteer for Moms Demand Action, and I am in support.

Good morning. Thank you all for being here to hear us. My name is Catherine O'Mordha. I'm with Moms Demand Action, and I ask for your support.

Yarah Judal, volunteer with Moms Demand Action, in support.

Hi, my name is Kimberly Manfredi from Moms Demand Action, volunteer, in support.

Linda Peacock, Moms Demand Action, and I'm in support.

Cooper Howard, Moms Demand Action volunteer, in support.

Good morning. Tammy Shaw, I'm a volunteer with Moms Demand Action, and I'm in support of AB 15. Thank you.

Julie Chapman, I'm a volunteer with Moms Demand Action in support.

Mary Lou Rossetto, Moms Demand Action volunteer, in support.

Good morning. Cheryl Davis with Moms Demand Action, and I'm in support.

Good morning. Rebecca Marcus on behalf of the Brady Campaign in support.

All right, thank you all very much for taking the time to come down, make sure your voices are heard, and be an active part of our democracy. With that, are there any witnesses in opposition to this bill? Okay, I see one person coming forward, or two. You'll have five minutes once you are seated and start talking.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. I assure you we didn't plan the outfits. But Cory Salzillo on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association, respectfully in opposition to the bill, as we were last year to the bill upon which this is based. We certainly appreciate the desire to solve cold cases, and I would say second only to the victims and family members, law enforcement obviously has that innate desire to eliminate the problem of unsolved cases, especially murders.

But this bill creates a rigid process in statute with little room for flexibility to address the particular realities of any specific case or investigating agency. The bill triggers what would effectively be an automatic review if an immediate family member or a, quote, similarly situated person files an application.

And notwithstanding the lack of clarity around this term, similarly situated person, the bill moves these case reviews to the front of the line without regard to staff, fiscal resources, and other law enforcement priorities. And it requires that the case review be done within 90 days or with the possibility of a single 45 day extension.

Designated persons could ask for this type of case review every five years, thereby compounding the challenges the bill presents. It's also worth noting that, as it regards the case review, the bill specifies that the person or persons performing the review shall not have previously investigated the murder.

This is exceedingly problematic for small agencies who may not have multiple staff who could complete complete such a review, and even for larger agencies who may have more staff resources, but in a situation when the relevant staff members originally participated in the investigation.

As the analysis points out, this bill does not preclude a case review if the requester may be a person of interest or has not conclusively been eliminated as a suspect. So for all of those reasons, we certainly, again, understand the desire to address unsolved murders, but we must oppose this bill. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Committee. Lt. Julio De Leon, representing the Riverside County Sheriff's Office and Sheriff Chad Bianco. We, we do agree with, with the bill, and I think we believe we have the same goals to, to solve unsolved cases. However, I wanted to address the impact it has on large agencies such as ours.

We do have a standing cold case unit, and we've had it for a decade. And that unit is dedicated to reviewing cases and opening, reopening cases based on new investigative techniques or technology that allow us to solve those cases. If this bill were to pass as is, we would have to reprioritize bills that have, or correction, cases that have already been reviewed by our investigators. And it would impede our ability to continue ongoing investigations with crimes that, that, that, that cases that are being investigated.

And we believe that this bill is overly intrusive and would affect our ability to solve cold cases that we are already investigating and that we have already reviewed and determined that are cold, but now we would have to reprioritize those cases and put them back on top. So for those reasons and for the reasons the State Sheriff's Association has noted, we request no vote as well.

Thank you both for your testimony today. Bear with me one moment as I ask if there is any member of the public who'd like to be heard in opposition to this bill? Going once, going twice. All right. Seeing none. Thank you all for your testimony and remarks before the committee. Colleagues, we'll now go to questions or comments from Committee Members. Assembly Member Ramos.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And in hearing some of the constraints that it puts on local law enforcement, looking to the author to continue to further that dialogue, to work with law enforcement, to look at the components that it affects during the investigations. Hopefully that's something that could be done.

Well, thank you very much. And so certainly after hearing some of the concerns, my commitment is to working with law enforcement, working with the opposition to get to a middle ground so we can move this bill forward. That has always been my position.

We want to make sure that we are partners in this, trying to resolve some of these cold cases. And let me also simply say this, that we're not pointing any fingers. We're saying that loved ones can't bring closure, they can't move forward. I, for one, it's hard for me after one, my son being killed.

That case is a cold case, unresolved murder with our own family. And I speak on behalf of countless individuals. And so we want to get it right. We understand the great demand that your specialized department has. I wish every department had a cold case, but they don't. And we appreciate that.

I also want to underscore the Golden Gates Strangler. It took us 32 years to find this individual and brought that individual to justice. The case was closed. Had not been for DNA, this person still would be out there roaming the streets undercover after killing so many victims in our community.

And I'm simply saying that if information is pertinent to provide to detectives, to law enforcement, that would give a family member a glimpse of a hope that to lead to an arrest and charges and hopefully conviction, then let's do that. And we have mechanisms within the bill in terms of resources. So thank you very much. And again, my commitment is working with the opposition to find a yes.

Thank you. And to the opposition, is that offer also to continue to work with the author on some of these areas and look at the components that impact agencies?

Absolutely. We're always happy to help with that. I would just note, though, that in response to the author's immediate prior comments, there's nothing that precludes a law enforcement agency under current law from reopening a case when new information. If there is new DNA, or as my colleague mentioned, new technologies or techniques that become available since the, since the crime occurred, to reopen those cases.

It's not, our objection is not to solving cold cases. Obviously, we believe wholeheartedly, I mean, detective on a cold case, They're, aside from the family, there's probably no one else that wants that issue resolved. Right. But the challenge with this is the mechanism by which that case review is triggered. And that's the issue with the bill.

Well, thank you for that. And with the attempt to work out any areas that impact on the agencies, I'll be supporting it today.

Thank you. We have Assembly Member Lackey next.

Yeah, I clearly understand the, and sympathize with victims of cold cases, for sure, but reasonableness has to be an element towards success. And there's a slight inference that law enforcement is not as highly motivated as they should be in solving these cold cases and that they need legislation to push.

And somewhere in the middle is probably the truth. I would suggest to you that it's very rare that law enforcement needs legislation to push them. What they need is evidence, and sometimes that's very, very, very difficult to acquire. And I'm not so sure that legislation can cause that to surface.

However, at this point, I want it to be known that I am in full support of any kind of victim recognition of those who have suffered the loss of a loved one and felt that law enforcement has not done their due diligence. However, if there's not further cooperation, and I still continue to get pushback from those who are tasked with this responsibility, I may not continue to support this measure because reasonableness has to be a reality. Otherwise, we're chasing our tail.

Thank you, Assembly Member. Any other questions or comments from the dais? All right, I just have one question for you, Assembly Member Gipson, as the author. Just want to make sure I'm understanding the bill correctly. So if a murder has gone unsolved for a year or more, at that point in time, the next of kin can request the reinvestigation by law enforcement. Is that right?

In the bill, it gives very broad. But yes, you're absolutely right. The federal government, just want to underscore that the federal government also has a piece of legislation in law similar to this particular piece of legislation. In order to trigger that, it has to be three years. This actually is just a year.

And so this has guardrails on it, gives great discretion to law enforcement. But if in fact a family member of a loved one who has died for gun violence or whatever, it doesn't limit to gun violence, but who have passed away, have information that leads to a particular arrest, then that information is given.

Then it's triggered through an application process. But also wanted to underscore that, again, that this bill wants set up a process. It sets up a process. Right now, there is no process. If you were to call the detective, first of all, my detectives, our detectives have all retired. That's how long ago it's been. Right.

But if you were to call up a detective and want to leave information, one you have to try to find, get a call back, a call returned. This sets up a process through the application process that can't be denied, that says if someone has filed a asking for this particular case to be reviewed so that detectives can see the information and possibly use this information to lead to an arrest or follow up on something. Also, it provides the information. It gives family members the kind of comfort that people are still working on this particular case. Just as you heard from my witness, it's been 5,000. What did you say?

5,177 days.

Days, right. And if you would ask her how many times have she spoken to the investigating officer, I would venture to say she probably haven't spoken to that investigator very much. And I understand that people are busy. But this sets up a process.

And all we want to do is set up a process so that those victims' families have some kind of insurance that someone is working on it and trying to resolve this particular case. And so that's where we are with this bill. That's the intent and that's the purpose of the bill.

Thank you, Assembly Member. I'll just note for the record that Assembly Member Gipson was referring to Public Law 117-164 is codified in 34 USC 60901. That's referred to as the Homicide Victims Families Rights Act passed by the Congress in 2021. The other thing I would just note, Mr. Gipson, is that my understanding of the law is once the review has been conducted, there is a five year limit, if you will. You know, you can't ask for re review again for a five year period unless new evidence comes to light.

As you continue these conversations with those who have concerns about the the effect this could have on precious law enforcement resources, that might be one of a few areas to continue conversing and seeing if that five year period makes sense. Perhaps it should be shorter or longer. I leave that to you.

But I will mention that my recommendation will be an aye for today with the understanding that you'll all continue these conversations and try to hammer out some of what I think is disagreement. But really we're all on the same page trying to do the right things for victims' families. Any other questions or comments from the committee? All right. Mr. Gipson, would you like to close. Anything to add?

Yes. I want to thank Mom Demand Actions and everyone who's come and also the witnesses for being here, taking time out of their busy schedule. I just wanted to briefly. I lost my keys, and I searched high and low for those keys. And then I solicit the help of my family member to help me find those keys.

Because I couldn't find those keys. Those keys are right in front of me. I needed a second pair of eyes. That's what this bill does. It set up a process to allow a second set of eyes, fresh lens, if you will, of another detective to come in and say, well, we haven't a look at this.

Well, let's look at this particular situation. Or let's go to someone's Facebook or social media post, some chatter that may have not been even looked at or explored. And so without that, we will continue to have these cold cases. This is a thoughtful piece of legislation.

And again, to the opposition, my commitment is let's sit at the table and let's try to work out our differences. Let's close the gap and move you to a yes or even to a neutral position. But I believe those who have suffered great loss deserve to have every rocked turned over in order to find the person, the perpetrator who committed this heinous crime, who took their family member away. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Assembly Member. Chair is recommending an aye on this one. Do we have a motion? Okay. Sharp-Collins. Is there a second? Harabedian. Let's call the roll.

On AB 15 by Assembly Member Gipson, the motion is do pass to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

All right. Thank you very much for coming in. 9-0. Let's try to do that a little bit more. Right. Okay. Thank you. Quick programming note. Assembly Member Patel, are you ready to go? So you'll be next up. And Assembly Member Wallis, I see in the front row. You'll be right after Assembly Member Patel. We'll get you out of here.

All right, colleagues, next up we have item number six. This is Assembly Bill 237. Sorry. Keeping track of all those bill numbers. This is Assembly Bill 237. Assembly Member Patel, once you're ready, you can begin. And you'll have up to five minutes to present to the committee. If you want to wait for the room to clear. That's appropriate. Do you have any witnesses?

I do. My witnesses are coming up.

Wonderful.

Okay, I think we're all ready to go. Assembly Member Patel, whenever you're ready.

Thank you. And thank you, Committee Members for being here today. Good morning. Before I begin, I would like to thank the Chair and the Committee for their work on this bill, and I will be accepting the Committee amendments.

AB 237 closes a problematic loophole in Penal Code 422 that makes prosecution and conviction of people who threaten sensitive places difficult. Under current law, the language around threats made on locations is vague. For example, a person can threaten to commit a shooting at a specific mosque.

But if no individuals are named, even though the same people may be attending that mosque, then prosecution of that threat is hampered. This is not okay. And the end result is people living in fear with very little assurance that our court system can and will bring justice.

Airports, voting centers, places of worship, daycares, hospitals, and even schools are targets of people who not only threaten to commit crimes, but actually do. Such instances have affected my community. The Poway Synagogue shooting was a horrible tragedy that still lives in the minds of my constituents.

Unfortunately, threats of violent acts still take place and can portend those that will happen. In late 2023, a man in our community sent hundreds of emails claiming he was going to commit a mass shooting at Shoal Creek Elementary School. This horrified parents who pulled their kids out of school, contacted their local officials and demanded justice.

Despite the man having weapons and a map of the school, to this day, no convictions have been secured and the man who sent those emails walks free in our community. Why is that? Because the threat was not specific enough or direct enough for a criminal conviction to be possible.

Under the current statute of PC422, true and credible threats must be addressed by law enforcement, even when centered at locations. Unfortunately, this is not the only instance of this kind of problem. Some other examples that illustrate the issue I'm addressing in just the past four years. In Orange County in 2021, Mission Hospital bomb threat hampered prosecution.

Yolo County 2021 mosque threat, no prosecution Louisiana County 2022 movie theater bomb threat warrants issued, no prosecution. UC Berkeley, 2022 emailed threats, no threat charges. San Francisco Airport 2022 bomb threat, no penal code 422 prosecution. Fresno County 2023 college threat, charges dismissed. San Bernardino County 2024 high school shooting threat, attempted PC422. Something has to be done.

I'm simply trying to close a clear gap in the code. This bill does not increase punishment. It does not put people who need diversion services in jail. However, it gives Prosecutors and judges the appropriate tools to deal with crimes that are becoming increasingly common.

Here to testify are Pat Espinosa from the San Diego County District Attorney's Office as well as Jennifer Basinger, a Shoal Creek Elementary School parent. I respectfully ask for your Aye vote today.

I'll go first.

Thank you.

My name is Pat Espinoza. I'm a Chief Deputy District Attorney in the county, San Diego County District Attorney's Office here on behalf of the San Diego DA's office and also the California District Attorneys Association. Tomorrow, March 5th marks the 24th anniversary of a school shooting in San Diego, County. It's at Santana High school in Santee, California.

A 15 year old gunman, gun person walked on the campus of Santana High school and killed two students and wounded 13 others. I also personally prosecuted, along with our elected District Attorney, San Diego DA Summer Stefan, a school shooting in San Diego County at Kelly Elementary School in Carlsbad, California.

That's when a man who suffered from a mental disorder went on the school campus, the playground and shot two second grade girls. The takeaway is that school violence has to be taken seriously and school threats have to be taken seriously.

And in this environment that we live in, all Californians, and in fact our whole country takes those type of threats seriously to our students and to our schools. What this bill, AB237 does, it attempts to fix a gap, a problem in current law.

Currently, the tool we use to prosecute school threats is the General Statute 422 of the Penal code. Within that statute, that statutory language, there's a phrase quote as to convey to the person threatened. That language is the hang up for some folks in terms of how to apply that.

It's a hang up in this way is that some judges read that as though there's a requirement that the threat has to basically name a specific individual. What we know is that's not how threats are made. Threats are much more General. Oftentimes they would say they're going to be a shooting at the school.

They name a school, they don't name individual persons. And that is the problem that the prosecutors face when we're trying to prosecute vague threats that don't name a specific individual using only 422 of the penal code. But it also creates an issue downstream.

The downstream issue is even at the law enforcement level, if they can not convince a judge that they even have probable cause to meet the elements of the statute, then they cannot get the search warrant to further their investigation. And oftentimes what we see is these threats are online and there's some anonymous form.

You cannot attach the threat to the individual. And we need some search warrants so we can get into the social media so we can find out who put that threat out there that alarmed our community.

In closing, what we know is that there are about nine other states thus far that have passed specific statutes to focus on the issue of threats to schools. We think California should do the same knowing that there's some weaknesses in 422 as a tool to prosecutors and law enforcement. And so we urge an Aye vote. Thank you.

Hi, good morning. My name is Jenny Basinger and I am here today to discuss the unfortunate reality that I as a parent, along with hundreds of other parents, staff Members, community Members and worst of all, young and innocent students have been subjected to over the past year and a half.

In December of 2023, our elementary school was on the receiving end of a mass shooting threat.

At the time this threat was received, our students as young as four years old were all gathered at an Assembly where students and family Members come together to connect with the community, celebrate their students accomplishments and find out what exciting activities are to come in the month ahead.

Unbeknownst to everyone in attendance, the San Diego Police Department was executing an investigation and subsequent arrest of a man who was sending out threatening emails regarding our school. The emails were not just threatening, they were targeted, calculated emails sent out with the full intent to cause chaos and and fear amongst our community.

Thanks to the valiant efforts of the San Diego Police Department, this man was arrested and charged before he was able to carry out his plan. In the months that followed his arrest, our community was sent on an uphill emotional legal battle that we are still in today.

Charges have been filed and dismissed during the preliminary trial because of the claim that you cannot threaten an entity. I am sitting here before you to remind you that a threat to an elementary school, or any school for that matter is is only being made because the people that are there.

Sorry, the entity is the staff Members that work there, the volunteers that support the daily efforts, the community Members that send their children there daily. And let's not forget the young students. Since the day we received the notice of the intent initial threat, we have spent countless hours reviewing our safety protocols.

We have had many school wide safety drills because once you've been threatened they are no longer practice. They're vital to our daily survival. We have hosted community safety summits to allow our parents to feel heard and supported. We have redesigned how we approach our assemblies to ensure that we can safely invite families on campus.

All school events have a law enforcement presence. All staff is updated and reminded of protocols, and our campus has had security updates. All of the changes were made out of fear. There is a fear that the loophole in the current law would prevent the suspect from being held accountable and released to execute his threat.

The claim that you cannot threaten an entity is beyond false. We are the entity. We are Shoal Creek. The students, the staff, the community and are the ones left picking up the pieces of this threat. Please allow AB237 to close the loophole that is currently victimizing our school and community.

Please do not allow other family Members to endure what we have. Thank you.

Thank you for your presentation. Assemblymember, thank you for both of your remarks. And ma'am, thank you very much for making the journey today and sharing your story with us. Appreciate it. With that, we'll next go to any Members of the public who'd like to speak in support of this bill.

As a reminder, please state your name, organization and position.

Mr. Chair Members, Jolena Voorhis, on behalf of The League of California Cities, in support.

Hello. Carlos Lopez, on behalf of the California School Employees Association. In support.

Chair and Members, Jonathan Feldman, California Police Chiefs Association. Proud co sponsor.

Mr. Chair Members, Ryan Sherman with the Riverside Sheriff Association. In support. Sorry we didn't get our letter in on time. But also in support on behalf of the following; School Police Associations, LA School Police, LA School Police Management, CA Coalition of School Safety Professionals, and the LA School Police Chiefs Association, all in support. Thank you.

All right, thank you all for your. For your comments today. Before we go on, Assemblymember Patel, I know we've had some discussion, some pretty hearty discussion about this bill. Just want to clarify for the record, are you accepting the Committee's proposed amendments today?

Yes, we're accepting all the proposed amendments.

Thank you for your collaboration. With that said, we'll next go to any witnesses in opposition to the bill. Anyone here to testify in opposition? Yes, I see one. Your time will begin once you start speaking. Oh, okay. Come on up. Grab a seat.

Morning, Chair and Members. George Parampathu, Legislative attorney with ACLU California Action. I appreciate the Committee's amendments. I rise up respectful opposition to AB237. As someone who was present at Berkeley in 2022 and somebody whose mom worked at Mission Hospital, I agree that we must ensure that our schools, workplaces and houses of worship are safe.

Yet I caution against expanding Penal Code 422 because the law is often problematically enforced. Section 422, like AB 237 does not require that the person making the threat have either the intent or the ability to carry it out.

This is especially problematic for people with mental health issues as the fear they experience may lead them to say things that they never actually act on. Moreover, 422 is already over applied in our schools for age appropriate behavior. For age appropriate behaviors, children have been prosecuted for schoolyard disagreements, social media speech and artistic expression.

These harms disproportionately impact black and brown students. While research shows that black students are not more likely to misbehave than others, in California, they are three times more likely as white students to be referred to law enforcement. Even if they are not found guilty.

Students suffer significant harm for their involvement in the system, such as a lower likelihood of graduation and a higher likelihood of future incarceration. While students and others should be accountable for their words, the solution is not criminalization.

You must make sure that schools in every zip code are well funded and that every student has access to quality mental health services to preempt these issues and and to treat the students once something like this comes up. For these reasons, I urge a no vote on AB237. Thank you.

Good morning. Leslie Caldwell-Houston, for the California Public Defenders Association. Excuse me. In respectful opposition to AB237. In my 40 years that I have referred to earlier in testimony as a defense attorney, I represented many people charged with four in all kinds of circumstances.

In 2006, I had a client who was charged with a felony for threatening to firebomb a preschool. She was convicted and then ultimately found not guilty by reason of insanity. And that just highlights our position that this kind of crime, in this particular bill, kind of attacks mentally ill and youthful people far more than anyone else.

I'd like to point out that the failures to prosecute that were referred to by the author are not necessarily all due to the fact that they weren't focused on a particular person.

And in fact, the story that we've heard, the judge in that case was not able to read the actual transcript, but it seems that his dismissal of the charges is not just based on the fact that it was a threat to a school, a building. It's much more nuanced and complicated than that.

California law already provides broad protection against criminal threats.

Current law makes it a felony to wealth, excuse me, willfully threaten to commit a crime which will result in death or great bodily injury to another person with the specific intent that the statement is to be taken as a threat, even if there's no intent of actually carrying it out.

This standard has served California citizens very well and kept the public as safe as we could. I am concerned about scary stories about school shootings. School shootings are prosecuted, unless the shooter kills himself or herself. Those are prosecuted crimes. This bill expands threats which tend to be made by minors and the mentally ill.

As I previously stated, for these reasons, we respectfully request your no vote on AB237. Thank you.

All right, thank you both for your comments. We'll now turn to any Members of the public who'd like to address the Committee. As always, name organization and position.

Danica Rodarmel, on behalf of LA Defensa and Initiate Justice in respectful opposition.

Celia Rogers, on behalf of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, in opposition as it is in print. Thank you.

Brook Langevin, Local 148, LA County Public Defenders Union, in opposition.

Dax Proctor, Californians United for Responsible Budget, in opposition.

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

Marad, on behalf of Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Nedric Miller, All of Us and None. Sacramento. In oppose.

Tyena Vargas, Initiate Justice Action in opposition.

Roxanna Gonzalez, Initiate Justice Action in opposition.

Bernice Singh, with All of Us or None in opposition.

Thank you all very much for coming down and making your voices heard. Committee will now go to questions and comments from Members. Would anyone like to get us started? All right. Well, Assemblymember Patel, I have a question just to get the ball rolling.

You've heard some of the concerns that have been raised by the opposition and the testimony that we've heard today. Do you or your sponsor or anyone have any. Any response to those concerns?

I do have a response, but I would like to defer to my expert witness here. Pat. Sure.

Sorry. One of the concerns that was voiced today, and we've heard voiced previous hearings, when a bill in this area has been raised, it was the impact on juveniles and the impact on those who suffer from mental illness. You know, the examples that I use that I have personal connection to.

I mean, I went to Santana High School as a prosecutor when we prosecuted that case, that shooter was a student at the school. He was 15 years old. And so the folks that make these threats, if they're juveniles, if there's folks that are mentally ill, they have the capacity to act on those threats.

And that's why law enforcement has to act. School officials have to act. And the community is scared when they know that their school was mentioned. And that's why parents are scared.

In the Shoal Creek Example, we had to have the San Diego Police Department send a patrol car and park outside the school for a number of days so the community can settle down. And the parents felt it's safe now to send your kids back to school.

The second example, the elected District Attorney Summer Stephan and I prosecuted in Carlsbad, the Kelly Elementary School. That individual suffered from a severe mental illness. He entered a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity. We went through the trial phase, and then we went through the sanity phase. And it was up to the jury to determine.

They determined although he had a serious mental illness, he still was sane and was held accountable. So I don't mean to diminish the important issue of mental illness, but it has a role in the criminal justice system. There's ways to treat it. We have mental health diversion. We have.

We have incompetence to stand trial if their mental illness is so severe that they can't go through the criminal process. And there are other resources.

So there is a way within the criminal justice system to deal with individuals who both commit crimes, make these criminal threats, but also have some type of severe mental illness that the criminal justice needs to deal with.

Assembly Member Patel, anything you want to add? Are you satisfied with that response?

I just want to add that I want to reiterate that this bill does not increase any sentencing, it does not increase the punishment, but it does give access to people with mental health issues an opportunity to enter into diversion programs.

Thank you. Thank you, Assemblymember Patel. Does that line of questioning raise any questions or comments from Committee Members? Okay, then. Assemblymember Patel, you have a chance to close. If you'd like to add anything else.

I have nothing else to add. I respectfully ask for your Aye vote on Assembly Bill 237. Thank you.

Thank you, Assemblymember Patel. I'll just note that I am recommending today an Aye vote. I appreciate the author's willingness to entertain amendments that I think substantially improve the original version of the bill, which I felt captured too much protected conduct and speech under the First Amendment.

I think that I appreciate the author taking the approach of not necessarily trying to ratchet up more time or enhancements, but instead looking at how we can safeguard our communities. And I'll just close in saying, ma'am, I want to thank you again for coming and telling your story.

As a parent to two kids, I know it's very troubling that these sorts of things happen, that folks are out there targeting our synagogues, our churches, our daycare centers. And, sir, to the sponsor in response to your comments, in reply to the opposition.

Look, absolutely, I've seen in the course of my career that there are any number of reasons that folks engage in criminal activity. And sometimes what they need is not to be locked up. They need treatment and they need help. But it doesn't deter.

It doesn't take away from the fact that when somebody makes a criminal threat against an institution like a church, a daycare, a synagogue, it causes immeasurable harm, including to all of the people that have loved ones there. So for today, I'm recommending an Aye.

And Assemblymember Patel, I just encourage you strongly to continue working with the opposition as we get close to that line with First Amendment protected speech. It's so tricky. So make sure that you continue to work with them and always look at ways to improve that bill. With that. Can I get a motion?

Second?

Whatever.

Okay. I'm going to construe that as Nguyen with the motion. Lackey is the second. Let's call the roll.

On AB 237 by ASM and Member Patel. The motion is do pass as amended to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

That measure passes.

Okay, measure passes. Thank you for your work. Assemblymember Patel. Thank you to everyone who came to testify, for or against it. We appreciate the. The input of everybody. All right, next up we have item number 11. Assembly Member Wallace, thank you very much for waiting around. We'll be ready to get started as soon as you're ready.

And yes, this is Assembly Bill 336.

Awesome. Good morning, Mr. Chair and committee members. I have before you today AB 336, the Felony Reckless Burning act, which closes a loophole that allows severe reckless burning offenses to be charged as misdemeanors.

Right now, reckless burning, acts like burning debris without a permit in high wind conditions or setting off illegal fireworks in a high-risk zone, can be charged as a misdemeanor, even when it causes great bodily injury, structural fires, or forest land damage.

With 2 million acres at high or very high fire risk in our state, our communities are vulnerable to massive devastation. The Palisades fire burned over 23,000 acres. More than 5,000 homes and businesses gone. At least 12 lives lost. Pacific Palisades shrouded in smoke. Families sifting through ashes. That's the kind of devastation we face too often in California.

AB 336 ensures serious reckless burning cases are felonies; requiring incarceration or probation plus a fine, not just a fine alone, to strengthen accountability, improve prevention and protect our communities. I value the committee's thoughtful analysis and want to discuss a few points together. First, on the fine, the analysis notes a 10,000 maximum or 41,700 with assessments might burden families.

I think that's a fair concern. But AB 336 doesn't mandate $10,000. That's already the felony cap under Penal Code 672, and judges can set less. The 41,700 assumes every fee at its max, which is not our goal here. We're after a balanced penalty that fits the harm.

Second, on penalties versus arson: the analysis wonders why reckless burning could hit six years when arson starts at five. Arson's intent sets it apart absolutely. Yet when reckless acts burn forests or hurt people, felony status ensures accountability, reflects that toll.

The bill keeps a wobbler for inhabited structures aligning with its current tier, and I'd welcome your ideas to refine it. Finally, on discretion and costs, I respect the concern about limiting prosecutors or the $133,000 per inmate cost. AB 336 targets only the most serious reckless burning. Catastrophic risks not every spark: lesser acts stay flexible.

Preventing wildfires could save billions, becoming an economic benefit rather than a burden. Groups like PORAC, California police chiefs, highway patrolmen, district attorneys, Riverside sheriffs and over 20 others support this effort, seeing it as a shield for our communities. I value your expertise and would love to work together to stop this burn rebuild cycle with a fair approach.

And with me to testify and support is Kim Stone with the district attorneys.

Good morning. Good morning, chair and members: Kim Stone and Stone Advocacy, on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association, in support. Welcome to the chair and new members. Glad to see you here. And I also just want to say how happy it made me to see a Thomas Jefferson quote in the analysis.

I was an American Studies major and early American history, and it just made my heart sing even though the rest of the analysis didn't as much.

This bill is really a value decision about how appropriately we want to impose consequences on reckless burning that results in large district and it's you know, we may or may not have different beliefs about the values of that.

The California District Attorneys Association agrees that it would be appropriate to increase the penalties for reckless burning from a wobbler to a straight felony and therefore supports it.

We understand that people may have different values and disagree, but we do believe that particularly as wildfires increase, as the consequences from fires increase, that having the penalties for those really kind of disastrous and catastrophic events is appropriate. For those reasons, we are proud to be in support of the bill.

All right, thank you both very much for the presentation and the testimony. By the way, Mr. Weber, nice job with the Thomas Jefferson quote. I think you've set a new standard for the committee. We want to see quotes like that. Okay. Next, we'll hear from any members of the public in support of the Bill.

You all know the drill. Feel free to get started.

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

Mr. Chairman and members: Randy Perry, on behalf of PORAC, in support.

Ryan Sherman with the Riverside Sheriff Association and the other police groups mentioned previously in support. Thank you.

All right, thank you all very much for your comment. Are there any witnesses in opposition to the bill? Okay, I see at least one, maybe two. So, you all know the drill. Feel free to grab a seat once you get started. We'll give you up to five minutes.

Thank you very much, Chair Schultz and commissioners. I really appreciate the time on this important legislation. My name is Will Abrams. I am a wildfire survivor from the 2017 PG&E fires. And since that time, I've been advocating for wildfire survivor interests in bankruptcy court and district court courts and at the Public Utilities Commission.

I appreciate that the laudable goals of AB 336 to hold individuals that recklessly start files legally accountable. I certainly understand that holding both individuals and corporations accountable for devastation, pain, and suffering they cause is important. However, this legislation needs to ensure that corporations, and not just individual people, are held accountable for recklessly starting fires.

I did notice that the quote from the author from Thomas Jefferson. I would also add that there was Jefferson did also focus on corporations. And another quote that is notable is that we hope that we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations.

We need to have equitable application of the law and this does not get that done. This should start with holding PG&E accountable for the fires that they start and devastate entire communities. Right.

This legislation, if I make the mistake and I'm reckless and I have a lawnmower that I, you know, I've been working hard all week and I decide to mow my lawn on a Saturday and it's a red flag warning day and I accidentally start a fire, mandatory two to six years in prison while PG&E goes from community to community burning down our communities and they get what right?

So, there are 70,000 plus victims who still have not been paid from the 2015 to 2018 wildfires. I was here with the passage of AB 1054 in 2019. And it was absolutely the commitment then that that legislation would ensure that all wildfire survivors were paid in full. I ask that the legislature think about that commitment.

I know there's new legislative packages being put forward for new commitments for LA wildfire survivors who we absolutely care for and should and make sure is our priority. But we can't just bypass the commitments that we already had for the wildfire survivors in Northern California.

So, we really need to make sure that we're focused on that paid in full settlement. I urge you to oppose this bill and really focus on equitable application of the law and making sure that corporations are really held accountable. Thank you.

Good morning, chair and members. Alexandra Trantham, Vice President of Local 148, the LA County Public Defenders Union; here in opposition to AB 336 existing law does allow some recklessly causing a fire cases to be punishable either as a felony or misdemeanor, depending on the severity of the conduct.

This gives proper discretion to the prosecution and judges to ensure that the seriousness of the crime is proportionate to the charges and punishment which allows for justice to be served. One of my clients charged with arson, for example, is a 17-year-old teen who threw a match into a trash can in a parking lot.

The only damage was to the trash can. And many of our clients who are charged with arson or for recklessly causing a fire crime suffer from serious mental health issues. The assembly has recognized the importance of considering mental health conditions for the very reason that many people cannot understand the consequences of their actions.

We are residents and we represent residents of LA who felt the impact of the devastation of the Palisades and Altadena fires. But more serious conduct involving unlawfully causing a fire already has more serious punishments. The conduct AB 336 seeks to address should remain as a wobbler to provide discretion appropriate to achieve just outcomes.

Please vote no on AB 336. Thank you.

Thank you both very much for your testimony. Next, we'll hear from members of the public. Whenever you're ready.

Natasha Minsker, Smart Justice California, opposed.

Leslie Caldwell Houston, for the California Public Defenders Association and a wildfire survivor, opposed.

Simelia Rogers, Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, opposed.

Danica Rodarmel on behalf of Vera California, La Defensa, and Initiate Justice, and Opposition

Melanie Kim, San Francisco Public Defender's Office, in Opposition

Dax Proctor, Californians United for Responsible Budget, in opposition.

Roxanna Gonzalez, Initiate Justice Action, opposition

Taina Vargas, Initiate Justice Action, in opposition.

Jim Lindebergh, Friends Committee on Legislation of California, in opposition.

Geronimo Aguilar on behalf of Legal Services for Prisoners with Children. Respectful opposition. Thank you.

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

Nedric Miller, All of Us or None: Sacramento, opposed.

Bernie Singh with All of Us or None. I oppose.

Thank you everyone for your participation today. All right, now we go to questions and comments from committee members. Would anyone like to start us off? Mr.Lackey, floor is yours.

Yeah, I just want to make one clarification that the opposition mentioned that this bill does not make it a felony when there's only property damage involved. That's a red herring. And so, I would like to make sure that everyone knows that up here.

All right, thank you, Assemblymember Lackey. Duly noted. Any other questions or comments from members of the committee? All right, let me see if I had anything on my end. Assemblymember Wallis, I was just wondering, could you speak a little bit to the impetus for bringing the bill forward?

Yeah, it was actually brought forward by constituents in my district. They, you know, obviously are concerned about wildfire risk and you know, it was a loophole that was brought to our attention that we thought we could figure out a way to close this for the again, you know, serious reckless burning incidents.

To one of the points that we heard from our opposition testifier today. Did you at any point in time look at what I would describe as a lack of parity in the criminal law? We certainly have corporate personhood, and corporations can be charged but can't throw a corporation in jail.

And as you noted, we also have a maximum fine of $10,000. Just looking, just wondering if that's an issue you looked at previously or might be willing to look at in the future.

We hadn't looked at that honestly beyond the scope of what we were trying to do here.

All right, thank you very much, Assemblymember Wallis. Any other questions or comments from the committee? Seeing none. All right, Assembler Wallis, I'm going to give you a chance to close.

Just respectfully would request an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Assemblymember Wallis; as I said previously, anytime I recommend a no, I think the public has a right to know why I'm recommending a no. Assembly Member Wallis, I want to thank you for your advocacy around this issue. I know it's something that we have talked about, you care deeply about.

I think there are a number of things that were brought up today that could be the subject of future legislation and perhaps we can chat about that offline. But I am recommending no, for two principal reasons. First of all, in my estimation, the bill creates inequities and discrepancies in the penal code that will have real unintended consequences.

I'm not going to belabor the point.

But the idea that someone recklessly causing a fire could serve six years when somebody willfully and deliberately causing a fire would serve five, that to me, is not consistent with what we should always strive to do in our justice system, and that is equal treatment under the law and to obviously look at more of your conduct, more severely, in terms of penalty.

So that would be one reason I'll be recommending a no. The other is just a philosophical approach that I have. And I share this not so much for you, assemblymember; I know we have talked about this, but for all the people that will follow after you in that seat. I'm a very big believer in prosecutorial discretion and in judicial review.

I believe that a prosecutor handling the case is going to have a better handle of what is appropriately charged and the court better handle of what's the appropriate outcome than if we simply try to codify everything in some sort of matrix that doesn't allow a lot of flexibility or determination of facts specific to each case.

You know, the fact that, I think somebody mentioned this, that someone could carelessly light a match, could be punished more than someone who intentionally sets a fire. That's why I'm recommending a no, sir. But I know this is an issue you care about. I know you're going to continue legislating in that area.

And so, I offer to you, as I do any author, if I or the committee can be a resource to you in brainstorming and always looking at better legislation out there, that. That offer very much stands, sir. Appreciate that. With that, colleagues, the chair is recommending a no. Do we have a motion?

Second.

Okay. Motion by Alanis. Second by Lackey. Let's call the roll.

On AB 336 by Member Wallis, the motion is do pass to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]. That measures on call.

Thank you, sir.

Got it. Measure will be on call. Thank you very much. Yes, Mr. Wallis? Would you like reconsideration? Okay. Thank you, sir. All right. I believe that brings us to our final piece of business today, Mr. Lackey. I know you are excited to present to all of us item number four, Assembly Bill 71.

Assembly Member Lackey, it's nice to see you down there. I can see you more clearly head on. All right.

It's all fun, that's for sure.

All right. Whenever you're ready, Mr. Lackey.

Well, thank you, Mr. Chair and what's left of the Members, for allowing me to present AB71. I'd like to begin by thanking the committee for working with my office on the bill. And of course, I'll be accepting the amendments to be submitted to the Legislature toward the end of the pilot program extension.

AB 71 will extend the sunset date for the ignition interlock device program from 2026 to 2033. Ignition interlock devices are, they're also referred to as IIDs. They're breathalyzers that are installed in cars to prevent drivers from starting the car if they've been drinking.

In 2023 alone, over 30,500 drunk driving attempts were prevented using these devices in this state. However, this program is set to end in 2026. If no action is taken, California will become the only state without an IID program, leaving thousands of lives unnecessarily at risk. Imagine this.

Every 79 seconds, someone is killed or injured in a drunk driving collision. In 2021, 1370 people were killed in alcohol related crashes, accounting for nearly one third of all traffic deaths in this state. We can't allow this program to end. AB 71 is a simple bill that will just extend the operation of current IID from that program from 2026 to 2033. This bill will not only continue to save thousands of Californians, but it will also ensure that DUI offenders be held accountable through the mandatory or discretionary use of these devices.

With me today to testify is Larry Hearn, who is an alcohol drug counselor who worked with DUI clients over a decade, and Sherry Daley, who is the vice president of government affairs for the California Consortium of Addiction Programs and Professionals, and they are also sponsoring the bill.

Good morning, Honorable Chair and Members. My name is Larry Hearn, and I have worked as a counselor since 2001, including 11 years at a DUI program. I have worked with numerous clients who have been required to take responsibility for the consequences of their behavior related to alcohol drug use. The most serious and consequential impact of substance use disorder occurs when someone is harmed while a person is under the influence.

In addition to the irreparable damage to individuals harmed in these cases, people with addiction face years of incarceration and a lifetime of guilt as a result of actions that could have been prevented in the first place. I am here today to attest to both the deterrent effect of ignition interlock devices and the positive effect this technology has on people who are reluctant to seek care for addiction.

These devices have been proven to deter people from driving under the influence, chancing physical harm to self and others, as well as property damage. Even with an accident, multiple DUIs without an accident, multiple DUIs can create barriers that make getting one's life back on track after treatment more difficult.

Simply put, if these devices save one life or save one person from decades of incarceration, they are an effective and inexpensive way to reduce harm. In addition to the life saving potential of these devices, they have also been shown to serve as an objective way to break through denial that is common amongst people with a substance use disorder.

Although a person may reason away criticism from loved ones, pressure from friends to seek help, or internal feelings that something must be wrong, technology like this points to a clear picture that cannot be reasoned away. These devices create a new habit with lasting results long after the device is removed.

And for those in recovery who decide they can have just one and be okay, a positive result on an IID is an objective indicator that they should seek help from their sponsor, treatment from a professional, or return to recovery principles the person may have forgotten. For these reasons, I urge your aye vote on AB 71.

Good morning, Honorable Chair and Members. Sherry Daley with the California Consortium of Addiction Programs and Professionals, proud sponsors of Assembly Bill 71 because it saves lives and encourages people to enter substance use disorder treatment.

My organization is a leader in advocating for harm reduction measures that keep people out of prisons and jails so that their disorders can be treated as the health conditions that they are. That that being said, we also fiercely support measures that protect communities from the consequences of illegal acts related to substance use disorder and encourage all technology that assists individuals to recognize when they have a substance use disorder.

Although the general public believes that a person with addiction hits rock bottom and then miraculously reaches out for treatment and is whisked away for 30 days and onto a new beginning of a life, we in the treatment profession know that the journey to recovery has many levels according to the stages of change transtheoretical model, people move through levels of behavior change that lead to an acceptance and willingness to address substance use disorder.

In the first stage of addiction recovery, people aren't ready for an addiction treatment program of any kind. This phase is characterized by defensiveness and endless justification of their behavior. There's a clear lack of insight into the negative impact of excessive drug or alcohol use. Some will remain in this stage due to a lack of information about their own addictive behaviors.

AB 71 is a tremendous tool for moving people to higher levels of treatment readiness because it gives direct individual feedback about one's behavior that is incontrovertible. Failing to extend this law will result in decreased public safety as well as reduction of the number of people willing to address their substance use disorders. We respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you all very much for the presentation and the testimony today. We'll next go to members of the public once Assembly Member Haney gets through there. Welcome back. Members of the public who'd like to voice their support, whenever you're ready.

Mr. Chairman, Members. Randy Perry on behalf of PORAC in support of the bill. Thank you.

Patrick Espinoza, California District Attorneys Association, in support.

Ryan Sherman with Riverside Sheriff Association and the other Police Officer Associations in support. Thank you.

Thank you all very much for making your voices heard. Do we have anyone here to testify in opposition to the bill? Okay, I see no affirmative response. I'll then ask, is anyone here from the public otherwise just hoping to voice opposition to the bill? Couple people coming forward. All right. Whenever you're ready.