Assembly Standing Committee on Public Safety

Good morning, everyone. At this time I'd like to call the Assembly Public Safety Committee to order. I'll begin with a few housekeeping items. I will notice that while we don't have a quorum for a full meeting, we do have sufficient quorum for purposes of a Subcommitee.

So we're going to go ahead and get started and then as soon as we have the remaining Members, or at least enough remaining Members, we'll start dispensing with our business items. First, I'd like to remind all of you here, although I know you're all well acquainted already, that 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 today throughout the hearing, 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 for everybody involved.

We will not permit conduct that disrupts, disturbs or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of today's legislative proceedings. And lastly, please be aware that violations of these rules may subject you to removal or other enforcement action. So thank you all for bearing with me for that reminder. Second, we have the off calendar items.

I'm just going to read this for the record. We have Assembly Bill 366 authored by Petrie Norris, that's been pulled by the Committee. And then we have Assembly Bill 394 authored by Assemblymember Wilson, that has been pulled by the author for today. Okay.

We are hearing today's measures in sign in order with standing Committee Members presenting their bills towards the end of today's hearing. We appreciate everyone's patience. As a reminder, authors will have five minutes to present and main witnesses will have a combined time of 5 minutes per side as that is the Committee's standing practice.

First up, we have, I believe It's Assembly Bill 383 by Assembly Member Davies. Assembly Member Davies, are you ready to go? Okay, so just as a reminder, we'll present as normal. If we don't have the full quorum by the time we would get to the point of vote, I'll say the recommendation and we'll get to that later in the course of today's business. So first up we have Assembly Member Davies. This is item number six, Assembly Bill 383. Assembly Member Davies, you can begin whenever you're ready.

Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members, today I'm here to present AB 383. I want to thank committee staff for working with my staff and stakeholders on this measure. I would like to start off by saying I will be accepting the proposed committee amendments.

AB 383 is a common sense measure to clean up existing firearm related codes and allows for the following changes. States that a search warrant may be issued when a firearm or ammunition still has not been turned over yet by someone subject to a domestic violence protective order or restraining order.

Allows minors engaged in hunting activity and education to possess a firearm so long as they have written approval from legal guardian and it is for a specific event or training. This bill would also expand and clarify the offense which subjects adjudicated juveniles to firearms disposition until age 25 or age 30, depending on the offense.

Ensuring that juveniles who have committed serious offense are prohibited from possessing firearms until the age of 30 is paramount to keeping our community safe from violence. Members, to help address concerns from opposition, my staff worked with committee staff on an amendment to ensure that a violation for a simple possession is not subject to an age 30 prohibition but now moves it to age 25.

This is a common sense approach that meets opposition in the middle while also giving law enforcement another tool in the tool belt for those who break the specific law. With me here to testify today from the Orange County District Attorney Office is Joe Koller. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Thank you. We'll now go to witnesses in support of the bill. You have five minutes.

Thank you, Chairperson and Committee Members. My name is Joe Koller. I'm Orange County deputy district attorney. I've been a prosecutor for over 14 years and spent over half of my career specializing in juvenile law. On behalf of Orange County District Attorney Todd Spitzer, I ask for your aye vote today.

This bill is a necessary step to narrow a gap in existing law to ensure consistency in firearm restrictions. Currently, adults convicted of a felony in California are prohibited from owning and possessing firearms under Penal Code Section 29810. However, this restriction does not apply equally to juveniles as their cases are categorized as adjudications rather than convictions.

AB 383 would address this cap by amending Penal Code Section 29810 to include juvenile adjudications, thereby extending firearm prohibitions to a broader class of offender. Existing law as it pertains to juveniles limits those offenses which would trigger a firearm prohibition to those enumerated in Penal Code Section 29820.

Broadly speaking, this includes 707B offenses, enumerated drug offenses, and limited misdemeanors. The California Legislature has already recognized that individuals convicted of any felony should be prohibited from possessing or or owning firearms and ammunition. However, existing law only extends that blanket prohibition to adult offenders.

The proposed bill would amend the penal code to add the language necessary to incorporate felony juvenile adjudications as a qualifying offense. As you well know, California voters resoundingly support restricting firearm possession of those who engage in felony conduct, as evidenced by 2016's Proposition 63 Safe for All Initiative passing with over 63%.

The introduction of this legislation is a necessary and urgent step to reduce gun violence, protect at promise communities, and ensure the safety of our youth. Gun violence remains one of the leading causes of injury and death among young people in the United States. According to the Center for Disease Control and prevention, In 2021, firearms became the leading cause of death among American children and adolescents aged 1 to 19, accounting for over 4,300 fatalities.

In 2022. A Johns Hopkins public health analysis concluded the same, with gun violence increasing by 12% over the last decade. Juvenile offenders who possess firearms are far more likely to be involved in violent crimes, exacerbating the cycle of violence in already high needs communities.

A study by the National Institute of Justice found that juvenile offenders with access to firearms are significantly more likely to commit violent crimes, including homicides, robberies, and aggravated assaults, which only compounds the risk to public safety. A 2019 study by the American Public Health Association concluded that preventing youth from accessing firearms is one of the most effective strategies for reducing gun violence and its associated public health burdens.

By taking steps to limit juvenile access to firearms with this bill, we are investing in the overall well being of our communities, reducing hospitalizations due to gun related injuries, and decreasing the overall economic burden. California leads the nation in passing common sense firearms laws that are based on data and evidence.

Preventing juvenile offenders from possessing firearms is not just a matter of protecting individual youth. It is a matter of protecting entire communities from the devastating effects of gun violence. The data and research are clear. This is an essential step in protecting public safety, promoting rehabilitation, and fostering stronger, safer communities for everyone.

To quote our own attorney general, the progress of our state has made, the progress our state has made is undeniable, but it is hardly finished. We will not stop until every community is safe from gun violence because even one death is too many. I humbly ask for your aye vote on this bill. Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony. Assembly Member Davies, if you don't mind, we'll quickly establish a quorum and get right back to business. Madam Secretary, please conduct the roll.

[Roll Call]

Great. Thank you very much. Quorum has been established, and thank you for allowing us to do that, Assembly Member Davies. We'll now hear from any member of the public in support of this bill. If there is anyone, please come forward at this time. As a reminder, please state your name, your organization, and your position and respectfully, nothing further. Thank you.

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

Anyone else? Okay. Are there any witnesses in opposition to the bill? Okay. See at least one person when you, or two people. When you come forward, your time will begin. You have up to five minutes.

Good morning, Chair and Members. George Parampathu, legislative attorney with ACLU California Action, rising in opposition to AB 383. The existing list of offenses that triggers the firearm ban until age 30 is extensive and sufficient. It covers a list of violent felonies, a list of violent misdemeanors, and a number of drug crimes.

Another crime that triggers this firearm ban is possession of a loaded firearm in any public place or any public street. And so what does AB 383 cover that existing law doesn't? It covers possession of an unloaded handgun by a minor. Again, if the minor uses this unloaded handgun to commit a violent felony, a violent misdemeanor, or certain drug crimes, they would already be subject to the firearm ban under current law. But AB 383 goes beyond this realm of culpability and covers every situation that's just a kid being a kid.

For example, under 383, a kid who shows off his dad's unloaded handgun to a friend would be subject to this firearm ban. This sort of irresponsible possession is already criminalized under current law and carries with it the host of collateral consequences that follows any conviction, making it harder to get an education, find housing, or get a job.

AB 383 would go a step farther and say this sort of mistake by a kid should also be followed up with a limit on their constitutional right to bear arms once they are an adult. This is unnecessary and harmful. Because AB 383 would limit constitutional rights due to youthful indiscretions, I urge a no vote. Thank you.

Hi, my name is Milinda Kakani. I'm a director of youth justice at Children's Defense Fund California. I'm also a board appointed commissioner on LA County's Probation Oversight Commission and an occasional co-counsel in juvenile court. I'm speaking in opposition to AB 383. With all due respect, my impression is that the intention here is public safety.

But the over reliance on surveillance, control, and criminalization inherent in this bill isn't going to get us there. We already have prohibitions on gun ownership. It's unclear what that has yielded us given that we are still facing an issue as it relates to gun violence, and it really only results in an over criminalization of black and brown individuals in our state. It's unclear what magically happens between the ages of 25 and 26.

It's unclear what data exists to show that once in possession of a firearm or ammunition as a minor results in a higher statistical likelihood of commission of a crime with a firearm. Frankly, this bill flies in the face of the intention behind the Welfare and Institutions Code.

The existence of our entire juvenile justice system. To create an automatic ban on one Second Amendment right because of a juvenile adjudication ignores the rehabilitation the system is meant to be rooted in. It ignores the fact that children and adolescents are different from adults.

And it mostly preys upon the disproportionate representation of black and brown youth in our juvenile system. Public safety must be rooted in meeting the unmet needs of our most vulnerable populations, and AB 380 is the antithesis of that. As it stands, there are already plenty of offenses that prohibit gun ownership until 30, or in this case, 25, and we don't need another one. We don't need to spend hundreds of thousands, if not millions on the prosecution and incarceration of individuals that this bill's overreach could cause.

Gun violence instead is associated with a confluence of individual, family, school, peer, community, and social sociocultural risk factors. That is what we should be asking people to look into when they make this decision. Not some broad blanket ban on possession that, again, will result in nothing that resembles public safety. Thank you. With that, I request a no vote.

Thank you both for your testimony. At this point, we'll hear from any member of the public in opposition to the bill. As a reminder, please tell us your name, your organization, and your position.

Morning, Chair and Members. Jeronimo Aguilar on behalf of Legal Services for Prisoners with Children in opposition. Thank you.

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

Nedric Miller, All of Us or None Sacramento, and I oppose.

Lesli Caldwell-Houston for the California Public Defenders Association in opposition.

Antoinette Ratcliffe with Initiate Justice, and we respectfully oppose.

Liz Blum-Gutierrez on behalf of LA County Public Defenders Union Local 148 in opposition.

All right, thank you all very much for your testimony today. We'll now turn to any questions or comments from Committee Members. Would anyone like to start us off? Mr. Haney. Assembly Member Haney.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the work on this bill and the amendments as well. And we did a bill last year around some of the loopholes that exist around misdemeanor offenses and how that's taken into consideration around access to guns. I certainly would agree that it is way too easy to get a gun in our country. In California, there are too many guns that are available to too many people. And so looking at ways that we can close some of these, these loopholes that exist, I think are important.

The one part of this that stuck out to me that I wonder if the author or any of the witnesses could respond to is the piece around youth who may want to pursue careers in law enforcement and or security, military. I know I don't know if this was addressed and I apologize for coming in a little late, but I wonder if you could help me understand how you see that particular issue and how this might affect individuals who might want to pursue those care.

I'm going to refer over to Mr. Koller.

Thank you. Mr. Haney, specifically, youth who have been successfully rehabilitated. It is important to note that this bill does not extend a prohibition in perpetuity. Juvenile adjudications are not absolute. What I mean by that is a youth who was successfully rehabilitated to the satisfaction of a judicial court officer, a judge, or engaged in some sort of diversion that would have otherwise triggered this firearm prohibition, that person is entitled to a dismissal or withdrawal of their plea under Welfare and Institutions Code 782.

That actually operates as almost a general dismissal statute, meaning that the collateral consequences associated with their plea or that true finding by a court officer, it disappears. That admission is gone. So the collateral consequences for someone who was successfully rehabilitated by our court system, that would be eliminated. So they would still have that available to them moving forward. And that's precisely what we want, someone who is successfully rehabilitated through the juvenile justice system to have their rights restored. And that would not be a collateral consequence for them.

Thank you.

Thank you, Assembly Member Haney. Anyone like to go next? Oh, Assembly Member Sharp-Collins.

I really don't have the best voice, but thank you and Assembly Member Haney for asking that question. That was my same question as well. I do appreciate the overall amendments, but I do want you to continue to work to make sure that the impact of the even simple possession doesn't derail someone's life.

I am 100% asking for you to continue to look at this from an equity lens and to make sure that we understand the impact that this will have on our marginalized communities as we're continuing to move forward. So for today, to move the bill along, I will be, you know, in that aspect. But I just want to just encourage you to please continue to look at things from an equitable lens and the impact that it can have, particularly looking with the employments and so forth moving forward. Thank you.

Thank you. Assembly Member. Would anyone else like to go with a question or a comment? Assembly Member Lackey.

Yeah, I just, I heard the opposition indicate the demonstration of one time offense showing a weapon being in violation of this measure. It's my understanding that this is a second offense. Is that correct?

To clarify, certain provisions would dictate that for a simple possession, I think under Penal Code Section 29610, would not qualify for the firearm prohibition to age 30. A second violation under the statute would trigger a firearm prohibition until the age of 25.

I appreciate that. Thank you.

Thank you, Assembly Member Lackey. Any other questions or comments? Okay, then. In that case, Assembly Member Davies, you may close if you would like.

I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Is there a motion? Okay. Motion by Alanis. Second by Nguyen. I will just note for the record that the Chair is recommending an aye as amended. I repeat the comments of my two colleagues over here that I encourage the author to continue looking at this through the lens of equity.

And with all due respect, I appreciated the testimony of both of those in opposition. The only thing I would add is that I do think as a society we need to disarm to have safer communities. So I don't think that children walking around with guns, it's not kids being kids, with all due respect. With that, aye as amended.

On AB 383 by Assembly Member Davies, the motion is do pass as amended to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

Measure passes and is off to appropriations. Thank you, Assembly Member Davies. Thank you everyone for your testimony. Thank you. That brings us next to Assembly Member Pacheco. Assemble Member Pacheco. Are you. Are you ready to go? Okay. And this will be item number eight, Assembly Bill 400. Assemblymember Pacheco. Hold on one moment. If you don't mind.

Actually want to go back. Now that we do have a quorum. Colleagues, if we might, let's consider adoption of the proposed consent calendar. I'm going to really. I'm going to read this part out loud and then we'll go forward. We have two items on consent today.

Item number nine is Assembly Bill 451, authored by Assemblymember Petrie Norris, pertaining to law enforcement policies and restraining orders. We also have item number 10. This is authored by Assemblymember Aguiar Curry. Sexual assault in prison. This is Assembly Bill 464. Is there a motion? Okay. Motion by Alanis. Second by Nguyen.

[Roll Call]

Thank you all very much. Consent calendar has been adopted. As people are coming into the room, if you can, make sure to close that door. Thank you. Assemblymember Pacheco, the floor is yours for up to five minutes to present the Bill.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. AB 400 will require that all law enforcement agencies with K9 units meet the statewide standards established by the Commission for Peace Officer Standards and Training for these programs, ensuring consistency, accountability, and excellence. The POST guidelines that were just released focus on three areas.

Use of force standards, minimum training requirements, and essential skills for K9s and handlers. With the passage of AB 400, California will lead the nation with the most comprehensive statewide K9 requirements in the country. This bill represents a significant step toward fostering trust between law enforcement agencies and the communities they serve. Police K9s are invaluable public safety partners.

Scientific research estimates that a canine sense of smell is anywhere between 10,000 and 100 times more sensitive than that of a human. Canines can also hear sounds that can't be picked up by the human ear, and they can isolate specific sounds amongst ambient noise in complex environments. These exceptional abilities make canines irreplaceable in high risk scenarios.

From locating dangerous suspects to protecting their partners and communities by identifying potential threats to early enough to avoid dangerous situations. AB 400 will ensure that all law enforcement agencies are safely deploying K9s and prioritizing the safety of K9 handlers and the public, making California a national model on this issue. With me today to testify in support are Jonathan Feldman from the Peace Officers Research Association of California, also known as PORAC. And also we have Officer Zach Pfannenstiel, canine trainer from San Diego PD.

Big supporter of PORAC, but Police Chiefs. Yes, that's okay. Jonathan Feldman California Police Chiefs Association, proud sponsors of the bill. I wanted to kind of just quickly talk about where this comes from in relation to the discussions from last year. There were two companion bills that were introduced in this body last year that moved through jointed together.

Unfortunately, AB 3241, which was our sponsored bill, made it out of Senate Appropriations. The other companion bill, AB 2042, did not. So part of the deal was that either both bills go through or neither do. So we voluntarily pulled our bill at the end of session. It wasn't outright rejected by the Legislature.

That was a voluntary move on our part because of the agreement between the two authors. Despite this, POST did update their guidelines that hadn't been updated since 2015. And because it is still our belief that there should be real requirements and statewide standardization, we have introduced AB 400 to make those guidelines mandatory minimum requirements.

I'll let the officer speak to the actual guidelines themselves and answer questions, as he's the professional, but I do want to make a few points in reference to some of the concerns that were brought up. First, our data shows that when looking at some of the larger agencies, Riverside, Long Beach, San Diego, and CHP, canine deployments result in bites or use of force 1 to 2% of the times that they're actually deployed. In certain cases, a fraction of a percentage, not minimizing those instances.

You know, they're horrific when they do occur, and I understand the damage that's caused. But we believe creating some standardization and some base state line requirements are the way to address that and elevate the training not to either ban the programs or create standards that are unmeetable.

Additionally, the K9 guidelines released by POST are not the only standards applicable to these K9 units, and Legislature spent two years debating use of force requirements and that resulted in landmark laws being passed that now require the use of de-escalation and crisis intervention tactics that only proportional force is used in relation to the seriousness of the offense.

There are reporting requirements, public transparency requirements, officers duty to intercede, render medical aid. These are all very very important policies that have been enacted that would apply in addition to K9 standards created by POST. We think we need to always continue to look to improve and do more, which is why we've introduced this bill and ask for your aye vote today. And with that I'll yield my time to my colleague.

Good morning. Standardizing law enforcement K9 training is not only good policy but also crucial for public safety, accountability, and the well being of all California citizens. For decades, police K9 teams have played a vital role in apprehending violent offenders, locating missing persons, and detecting explosives or narcotics.

However, without clear standardized training and evaluation criteria, K9 deployments can vary widely between agencies. Standardization benefits the community. A well trained K9 team that follows clear statewide guidelines ensures predictable and professional K9 deployments. It also fosters trust, as the public will know that every K9 team in the state is held to the same high standard.

With standards comes accountability. By implementing annual recertifications, higher training hours, and de-escalation testing, we are ensuring that K9 handlers are continually assessed for lawful and ethical use of their canines. Officers will benefit from clear guidelines, while the public is assured that K9 use aligns with modern policing standards. By moving toward statewide standards, we are ensuring that K9 teams operate with consistency, effectiveness, and accountability, protecting officers and citizens. Thank you for your time.

Thank you both for your testimony. We'll now hear from members of the public. You know the drill. Name, organization, and position. Whenever you're ready, Mr.

Mr. Chairman and Members, Randy Perry with PORAC, co-sponsors of the bill.

Lieutenant Brandon Epp, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, in support. Sorry for our not getting our letter in on time. Apologize.

Morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Ryan Sherman with the Riverside Sheriff Association, support. And I'll go through the list quickly today. The other groups in support include California Narcotic Officers Association, California Reserve Peace Officers, Placer County Deputy Sheriffs, and 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, Members of the Committee. Zach Cefalu with the League of California Cities in support. Thank you.

Thank you all for your testimony. We'll now go to witnesses in opposition to the bill. We have a pair of witnesses coming forward. Once you start speaking, you'll have up to 5 minutes combined total time.

Good morning, Chair and Members. George Parampathu, legislative attorney with ACLU California Action, rising in strong opposition to AB 400. Public records from the past few years show that, out of the hundreds of Californians who were disfigured by police dogs, most were unarmed. About half were going through a mental health crisis and many were suspected of no crime.

With this record in mind, the Legislature rejected AB 3241 last year because it failed to reform the use of police dogs in any way. Miraculously, in the summer that followed, POST updated its K9 standards to be word for word what the Legislature had just rejected in AB 3241.

We already know that these standards are an objective failure because they reiterate existing policy from agencies with a record of abuse. For example, Bakersfield Police Department's K9 policy written by Lexipol is nearly identical to the POST standards, the standards POST put out this summer, and their results are abysmal. 89% of dog bites resulting in severe injuries were against black or brown residents.

A federal Department of Justice investigation concluded that in Bakersfield, use of police dogs was primarily for people who were drunk or mentally ill, and an alarming 97% of deployments were not to defend self or another. 97%. These policies are completely inadequate.

Another flaw with the POST standards is they simply do nothing about the fact that these dogs are trained to bite the first person they encounter. As one police officer put it, quote, police dogs are not trained to differentiate between a young child asleep or a burglar standing in the kitchen with a butcher knife and will simply bite the first person they find. End quote.

This leads to cases such as in San Diego, where a mother was watching her 5 year old jumping on a trampoline in her backyard when a police dog across an empty lot saw the girl's head poke above the fence, darted away from the officer, jumped the fence, tried to kill the girl, then moved on to destroying the tendons, bones, and muscles in the mother's legs.

This cost San Diego $600,000. Instead of requiring any reforms, AB 400 looks at the policies written by and for the police lobby, sees their results in places like Bakersfield, where 97% of bites were for something other than defense of a person, weighs the lawsuits across the state filed by innocent victims, and disregards it all. All AB 400 does is look at this unjustifiable status quo and ask the state for its stamp of approval. Californians deserve better. For these reasons, I strongly urge a no vote. Thank you.

Good morning. Lesli Caldwell-Houston, a volunteer with the California Public Defenders Association, in respectful opposition to AB 400. AB 400 is an example where delegating policymaking to a voluntary agency is not only inappropriate but more expensive. Just as a doctor should not treat herself or a lawyer represent herself, the police should not police themselves.

Moreover, just like the use of forced standards and limits by the officer, her or himself enacted by the Legislature, the use of police attack dogs should not, should be subject to the same transparent and open debate. Each year, attacks by police dogs result in serious injuries or deaths, most often to people of color, and often innocent bystanders make up many of those injured by police dog attacks.

In January of 2024, Physicians for Human Rights, PHR issued a report, and this is cited in our letter to the committee. A multidisciplinary team of clinicians conducted a scientific literature review and analyzing data from recent California cases involving dog bites. As a result, PHR called on the California Legislature to ban or restrict, strictly limit the use of police attack dogs. For these reasons, we respectfully request your no vote.

Thank you both very much for your testimony. Next, we'll hear from members of the public in opposition to the bill. So come forward. Name, organization, and position, please.

Shervin Aazami, Initiate Justice Action, in opposition.

Liz Blum-Gutierrez on behalf of... Liz Blum-Gutierrez on behalf of La Defensa, in opposition.

Jay Hockley Sr, Initiate Justice Action, opposition.

Jeronimo Aguilar on behalf of Legal Services for Prisoners with children in strong opposition. Thank you.

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

Antoinette Ratcliffe with Initiate Justice. Forgive us, Chair and Members, for submitting our letter a little bit late, but we do stand in respectful opposition.

Good morning. Kellie Walters, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, in opposition.

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

Ari Vazquez, Coalition for Family Unity, in opposition.

Daniella Dane, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, in opposition.

Nateel Sharma, Legal Services for Prisoners, in opposition.

Thank you all very much for taking the time and testifying today. Next, we'll go to questions or comments from Committee Members. Would anyone like to begin? Vice Chair, is that a hand up or just take... Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to thank the author for bringing this bill. I think this is a great proactive approach. As obviously my background in law enforcement, I know this is something that has been lacking as far as standardization. And I know all my k9 handler friends as well agree with this that this does need to happen. Real quick for the, for George, you were saying how one officer had put it. Who, what, what officer had quoted? You quoted an officer.

That was from San Diego.

San Diego. Do you know his name?

I can try to find it. One second.

And then the other question I have while you're looking that up is can you explain to me why you mentioned that the people are unarmed?

Unarmed?

Yes.

Because if it is about proportionality response, I think it's important to realize that the victims are most of the time unarmed. I believe the percentage is around 70% of the victims are unarmed.

Do you know why that percentage is so high?

I believe it is partially because some law enforcement agencies, not all, don't allow canine deployments for armed suspects.

Okay, I know we have a trainer here. Sir, do you mind answering that question?

Yes, sir. As far as the unarmed statistic, I don't know where that was pulled from. The minimum necessary is actively resistance with immediate access to a deadly weapon. Police canines are not used for unarmed people. If they believe, perceive, or know that the person has a weapon, then a police canine could be used.

And if, maybe if a K9 officer was on scene and knew that the person of interest had a gun or a knife outside exigent circumstances, would a K9 handler send their canine to apprehend that person?

Force is just used as a matrix, so just depends on what they are seeing and the totality of circumstances. Always continually reevaluating the force level that they plan to use.

Okay, thank you. Again, thank you, author. I like the standardization. I like the statewide requirements as well. I want to say that I felt that my department was holding themselves to a higher standard. I would hope others did as well. And this is ensuring and making sure that they do to help with public safety. So thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Vice Chair. Would anyone else like to make a comment or have a question? Okay, seeing none, then Assembly Member Pacheco, would you like to close?

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

All right, thank you very much. Colleagues, before I call for a motion, I'll just briefly say the Chair is recommending an aye for today's purposes. I will say for the record that I think many of the comments that we've heard in the letters that were submitted and given by opposition testimony today are righteous questions that we should be asking of all law enforcement practices.

However, my aye recommendation is based on the scope of this bill today, which does not expand the use of canines throughout the state. It instead deals with standardization, which I do think is smart policy. We're always trying to eliminate disparate outcomes depending on where you live in the State of California. So for that limited purpose today, I will be recommending an aye. Now is the appropriate time for a motion. Motion by Alanis. Second by Lackey. Let's call the roll.

On AB 400 by Assembly Member Pacheco, the motion is do pass to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

Okay, bill passes out of committee. Six affirmative votes. Thank you very much, Assembly Member Pacheco. All right. Okay. I don't see any other external authors present. Assembly Member Gonzalez, would you like to present your bill at this time? No pressure.

Stuff together. It's just you, right? Just me. Okay.

Legal expert here in case we needed. But in the audience.

It. All right.

All right. Thank you very much for that momentary pause there. Assemblymember Gonzalez, are you ready to go? Yes, sir. Okay, you'll have up to five minutes. Awesome.

Well, good morning. First, I would like to thank Mr. Schultz, my colleagues on this Committee, and of course, the Committee staff for all of your hard work on AB380, and I will gladly be accepting the Committee amendments. The need for AB380 comes after the devastation of the LA wildfires.

Wildfires, as we all know, that tore communities apart and destroyed over 10,000 structures, including homes, businesses, schools, and places of worship. And in my district, particularly, jobs. It took away black and brown homeownerships. It took away generations of a foundation of hope.

As our communities recover from the fires and look toward rebuilding their lives and livelihoods, we must ensure that they are not being exploited by bad actors through predatory price gouging.

While existing protections apply to goods, services, rental housing and reconstruction services, we continue to see egregious examples of price gouging, including rental rates spiking over 300%, hotel prices surging, and businesses charging excessive prices for everyday essentials in a time when folks are desperate and in need of refuge.

Additionally, businesses and consumers are often unsure what protections are in place and where they are in the effect, with governors, mayors and county supervisors extending different protections over different durations, and those of us in LA saw firsthand some of that disconnect.

AB380 addresses these issues by extending price gouging protections for hotels, food and other essential goods and services for the full duration of an emergency declaration, simply aligning the protections with these already in place for rental housing.

Additionally, AB380 expands these protections to include commercial properties, and with the Committee amendments, increases fines for violations committed by businesses to deter illegal activity. Members, we are obviously in a situation where we are trying to prevent homelessness from increasing, and so this Bill heeds that call.

And with me today to discuss the importance of AB380 is Anya Lauer. Excuse me. Of Public Interest Advocates on behalf of Bill sponsors, Public Counsel and Strategic Action for a Just economy.

Good morning, Mr. Chair Members. Again, Anya Lawler with Public Interest Advocates today on behalf of Public Council, one of the sponsors. Public Council is a nonprofit public interest law firm dedicated to advancing civil rights and racial and economic justice.

They've been assisting residents impacted by the Palisade's Newton fire since they initially broke out in early January, almost immediately after the fires, Public Council began hearing from tenants whose landlords were demanding rents well in excess of PC396 limitations, sometimes explicitly being told by the landlord that the reason for the increase was that there were new renters in the market whose homes had been destroyed and could afford to pay more in rent.

In the weeks that followed, examples of price gouging were rampant. Sage, another co sponsor of this measure, worked with other organizations to begin tracking price gouging and rental housing via a crowdsourced spreadsheet within days of the start of the fires.

To date, this effort has found 5,136 instances of rent gouging across Los Angeles County with a monthly amount gouge estimated at about 21.3 million. Another group, Better Neighbors LA, found nearly 1,500 instances of gouging in short term rentals just within the City of Los Angeles in the 10 days following the start of the fires.

While we don't have similar data for other goods and services covered by Penal Code 396's protections, anecdotal evidence from past disasters indicates that it's common. We believe that changes can help reduce its prevalence. Right now, it can be difficult to understand which protections are in place.

Some protections last for 30 days, others for 180, and these protections can and frequently are extended by either the Governor or a local legislative body only the protections against gouging and rental housing last for the duration of the emergency.

Given the varying timelines and the challenges figuring out which protections are in place, people in disaster impacted areas often are unsure of what their rights are in the weeks and months following a disaster, impeding reporting and thus enforcement of these anti price gouging limits.

The aftermath of disasters is chaotic and what's needed in these periods is clarity and certainty, not confusion. AB380 provides that. AB380 also addresses one of the main ways in which we've seen landlords legally skirting the prohibitions against rent gouging. Current law limits those protections to leases with a term of 12 months or less.

Attorneys at Public Counsel and other legal services programs in Los Angeles saw numerous examples in the last two months of people being offered 13 month leases or even 366 day leases in order for the landlord to exceed the 10% rent increase limit.

Fortunately, the Governor already issued an Executive order suspending that 12 month limit and closing this loophole for people impacted by the LA fires. AB380 would delete that limit and close this loophole permanently.

As I know many of you have experienced firsthand large scale Disasters have a tremendously destabilizing effect, not just on people who are directly impacted through the loss of a home, but on the entire community and regions at large. These impacts take years to address.

Penal Code 396 is intended to ensure that those impacts aren't further compounded by drastic price increases, unnecessary goods and services. AB380 strengthens this critical section of law so that it can better deliver on the original intent. Thank you and I respectfully ask for.

Your I vote thank you for the presentation, Assemblymember, and for your testimony, Ma'am. Next we go to Members of the public who would like to be heard in support of this measure. Please come forward. State your name, organization and position.

Brian Augusta, on behalf of the California. Rural Legal Assistance foundation foundation and support.

Mark Ysidra on behalf of the Los. Angeles County Board of Supervisors in support.

Justin Yotta for California Housing Partnership in support.

Good morning. Whitney Francis with the Western center on. Law and Poverty in support.

All right, thank you all very much for your testimony. Next we'll hear from witnesses in opposition to this Bill, those who are coming forward. Once you begin speaking, you'll have a combined total time of five minutes to address the Committee.

Good morning Mr. Chair and Members. My name is Ember Madison on behalf of the California Apartment Association, CAA represents over 50,000 rental property owners and managers who operate rental housing throughout California. Mom and pop landlords make up the largest percentage of our membership.

So let me start by saying CAA does not object to holding bad actors accountable for price gouging during emergencies. In fact, we took out a full page ad in the LA Times to warn businesses about the penalties that apply during a State of emergency.

And we have compliance materials on our website and other important information on our website that is available to the General public about the emergency specifically in Los Angeles.

But here are concerns about AB380 rental property owners and businesses would face significant uncertainty when it comes to local emergencies because AB380 changes the law going forward for all emergencies, not just those in Los Angeles.

AB380 removes for all future emergency declarations the important timelines for local governments to revisit their declarations every 30 or 180 days as required by existing law. By removing these check in deadlines for local governments, you remove the transparency that is necessary for the General public to understand what State of emergencies are currently in place.

There should be a continued conversation at the local level and a public forum as it relates to revisiting declarations and the penalties that apply. We believe that Revisiting declarations provides transparency and puts businesses on notice that penalties continue to apply. Otherwise, where does the General public go for this information?

Emergency declarations play a critical role in facilitating aid from state and federal authorities. Under existing law, these declarations automatically terminate unless extended.

While we understand that certain emergencies, such as those in Los Angeles that recently occurred, will require a long term response, however, past emergencies such as those such as the bird flu outbreak, agricultural pests, winter storms and droughts have not always been widely publicized.

Without a requirement for periodic review, local governments will fail to provide timely updates and important information to the General public. To be clear, CAA would not object to an extension of the 30 day timeline specifically for Los Angeles County, only to revisit its declarations relating to the fire.

For example, a 180 day timeline like the existing construction price gouging requirement, we would want to put a sunset on that. However.

Second, in order for businesses and the General public to understand what is in place along in Los Angeles and for how long, we have asked that the Bill include a requirement that in the city that in a city and a county include on the front page of their website during a declared emergency an overview of the penalties that apply during a State of an emergency.

We also ask that local governments report their declarations on declarations of emergency on the Governor's Office of Emergency Services, just like the Governor does now, making it easy for the General public to understand what is in place. Given the increased penalties included in AB380, we do not believe that this is an unreasonable ask.

Finally, as you know, AB380 removes the ability for rental property owners to repair their property during an emergency and to increase the rent accordingly. The law already requires that owners prove the dollars they spent on repairs.

If repairs are not made to the building, it not only hurts the property, it hurts the tenants, but it also hurts the neighborhoods. The penal code protects tenants from large rent increases by requiring that the repairs are made which are beyond normal maintenance be amortized.

We are happy to work with the author on language to ensure that property owners have the income to make those repairs and that tenants are not unreasonably affected by a large rent increase. We thank you for your consideration.

Thank you. You have about a minute and 15 seconds.

I'll be quick. Good morning, Mr. Chair, Members of the Committee, Skyler Wannacott here on behalf of the California Business Properties Association and Boma California in regretful opposition. While we appreciate the author's intent, AB380 goes too far by imposing commercial rent control, interfering with private contracts and putting property based businesses, especially small property owners, at serious financial risk.

Many could face defaults on loans and be forced to lay off employees. This Bill prevents property owners from adjusting rents even as their costs like property taxes, insurance and maintenance keep rising. That's commercial rent control, plain and simple. Unlike residential leases, commercial agreements are business to business contracts negotiated between parties who understand market risks.

That's why during COVID commercial leases were not covered under the state's eviction moratorium. Because interfering with these contracts violates Article 1, Section 10 of the United States Constitution. Institution government imposed price controls don't just affect rent. They take away a property owner's ability to enforce lease agreements.

The author's office states that the Bill does not ban all evictions, but the language suggests otherwise. The Bill states it is unlawful to evict any commercial tenant after the proclamation of State of emergency. This broad language does not include any exemption for non payment.

I'll give you about 10 seconds. All right, thank you.

This Bill will devastate small and mom and pop property owners who have already struggled with rising costs. If they can't adjust rents, many will face foreclosure. It will also disproportionately affect lower income and minority communities as property owners cut janitorial, landscaping and maintenance jobs that they just can't afford to stay afloat.

AB380 imposes commercial rent control, undermines contract rights and effectively bans evictions. For these reasons, we respectfully urge a no vote.

Okay, thank you. All right. Next we'll hear from Members of the public in opposition. Name, organization, position, please. Mr.

Chair and Members, Pat Moran with Aaron Reed and Associates representing the Southern California Rental Housing Association, opposed to the bill for reasons stated. Thank you.

Mr. Chair, Members, Oras Gonzalez on behalf of California's Business roundtable and opposition. Thank you.

Good morning. Ryan Elaine on behalf of the California Retailers Association, respectful opposition. Thank you.

Good morning. Audrey Retajcik from Cruise Strategies on behalf of NEOP California in opposition.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Adam Regley with the California Chamber of Commerce in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair, Members, Franco here on behalf of the California Hotel and Lodging Association, respectfully opposed unless amended.

Bernice Jimenez Krieger with the California Association of Realtors. We haven't opposed unless amended. So we are looking forward to talking to the Member to try to come to a solution that helps everyone. Thank you.

Thank you all for your testimony. Now is the appropriate time for questions or comments from Members of the Committee. Would anyone like to begin? Yes, Assemblymember Nguyen.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I can appreciate what you're trying to do to help those that were impacted by the fires. And I would say that if something like this happened in my district, I would definitely find a way to protect the consumers.

Assemblymember Nguyen, I'm so sorry to interrupt you. If we could try to close that door in the back. I just want to make sure all Members of the Committee can hear your comments. Assemblymember. All right. Thank you all so much. Sorry to interrupt you.

That's okay. I just wonder. So I'm fortunate to have a district that encompasses the Little Saigon area where I actually grew up, where many of the immigrants, refugees that came here 50 years ago are now starting to be able to make it 50 years later. They own property, they own businesses. They're not rich.

I can tell you that. I can tell you that they're not rich. And this is their way to make a little bit of income, to be able to feed their family, to be able to still live in a home.

My fear is that putting things like this in place will actually be punishing those that are trying to help these community Members already, that letting them know that, you know, they can't increase rent, to be able to pay for things like if there were maintenance to the property that they do have to increase.

I own my home, and I feel like I'm forever fixing things in that house. And if we're putting things like this in place, this is going to definitely impact these individuals. And I'm not talking big corporate businesses or.

But I'm talking more so some of these mom and pops that own these small businesses or that has been able to rent out their home, their duplex or whatnot. And so how are we helping them? I'd hate to see that what we're trying to do is help everybody else by punishing this other entity as well, too.

And so I think opposition brought up a couple of good points and wanted to see if maybe you can answer or address some of those questions.

If, Mr. Chair, if I could take the first part and then I'll push it over to you if you'd like. Or how do you. Well, look, I appreciate the conversation. Selling Mermaid. I appreciate you bringing that up for me. Look, I'm a renter, one of the few Members who are part of the renter caucus.

And I'm not sure about humming around the table, but there's that key. My district is 85% renters. 70% of the district speaks another language other than English. It's the fifth poorest district in the state. I represent Little Tokyo, Boyle Heights. I represent Chinatown, Lincoln Heights, Historic State park, Lacito Picayuna, Macarthur Park.

So many areas that are completely poor and rely heavily on the businesses and community to support them, to keep them alive. In fact, many of them, we're losing our culture because we're losing some of our mom and pop shops to bigger corporations. This particular Bill does not address this long term effect.

It's just simply in the State of an emergency. Right. It's not a permanent solution. It's in an emergency.

And so what the goal here is that in fairness for those in our community, in fairness to those that I represent and in fairness to those across the state, not to Jack up your prices, not to take advantage of people, you can sell stuff and run it through the fair market value and the fair market rate, that's fine.

But something that was a $2 water bottle that turns into $20 that same day, that's unfair. And the same community that you talk about, that we talk about, or that I represent, that is poor, can no longer afford that $20. So now we just price out the consumer.

So I think it's important to understand that when we do work with the opposition, that will be part of our issues to address that. But I hear you, my friend. I agree with you, absolutely. Because I also represent downtown Los Angeles as well. And so I agree with that.

I appreciate you bringing that up because I think that that is what makes up our districts and what helped to get us here today. So I really appreciate you on that.

And I will just add that, you know, in my district, a lot of small businesses and a lot of folks are leaving as well too. But it's not because of big corporations. It's because of things like this that we're putting in place that are making it harder for them to continue to run their business and continue to.

To make a living. Right. And so I get a lot of complaints from immigrant families that are saying because of what we're doing, other folks are raising their prices as well too.

But it's not because of things like this, but it's because of the regulations that we're putting in place that makes it so that they can't afford to live here anymore, that they have to shut their businesses down or they have to stop what they're doing and go elsewhere.

So that's part of the fear that I have and what's gonna happen with this? Thank you.

Thank you, Assemblymember. Would anyone like to go next? Assemblymember Haney, then Sharp-Collins.

I want to thank the author for his leadership.

And it's just really been incredible to see the leadership of Members from L A in particular, in response to this crisis and the ways that you all have stepped up not only to respond to the immediate emergency, but to also prepare us as a state for, sadly, the future where we are going to continue, unfortunately, to see these type of emergencies and making sure that our laws are as strong as possible and as clear as possible.

You know, for me, if there is a declaration of an emergency and there are certain protections that we know are needed because of some of the behavior, not from most people, not from 99% of folks, but from a small percentage of those who make take advantage of that moment to really place an added burden, an unnecessary burden on impacted people in that area, that we should have protections in place for the duration of the emergency.

Why declare an emergency if it is not something that comes with it? Some extraordinary protections because of the situation that people are facing? So I know there were some aspects of this that some folks from the opposition are especially concerned about and I saw you nodding and I know that you're committed to working with them.

And there were some amendments that were recommended. Certainly thinking about the impact on smaller landlords is critical and making sure that there's a correct balance there.

But the overall approach of having price gouging protections, considering what we've seen in the past and now are there for, for this extraordinary time when there's an emergency declared for something that is actually very, very extreme type of behavior.

This type of price gouging, I think is critical and making sure that clarity is there and working with the folks who are impacted to get it right.

And so I definitely will be supporting this and commend you for doing the work for all of us to make sure that anywhere could be my district, could be any of our districts that are impacted by emergency, that our residents are protected and that we get this balance right, and that we have the greatest clarity both for those who need the protections and also those who need to understand the laws that they are required to follow.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I echo some of the sentiments of my colleagues as well, given the opposition, noting that these State of emergencies can actually continue and they can continue to be a indefinite process. I am concerned about the duration of some of these state emergencies and that we won't have the ability to tell the Governor to even lift them.

So that is actually concerning.

So I just want to make sure that we do put on record that I'm asking the author, will you work with the business interest to make sure that while we are working to protect against price gouging, that we also do not stifle the legitimate businesses and also allow landlords and hotels and others as well to adjust to the, to the change economics.

So will you be able to do that?

Yes. No, absolutely. I want to thank my colleagues both from the Bay Area and from San Diego for this conversation, for this dialogue. And this is what we do. This is why we're here.

We put this on paper, we come together as a group and we come up with a breast strategy that's going to be the best for Californians.

I just want to clarify that existing law states that upon the proclamation of a State of emergency and for a period of 30 days after or any period the proclamation is extended, it is unlawful for any person, business or other entity to increase the rental price as defined in paragraph 11 of subdivision J, advertised, offered or charged for housing to an existing prospective tenant by more than 10%.

Again, this is already existing law. This is not necessarily in this Bill. This is already existing.

The Bill that is in front of the Committee currently aligns its protections for consumers, foods and goods, and goods and services used for emergency response and recovery, hotels and motel rates, commercial property, et cetera, with those already in place for those rental housings.

Particularly though with that being said, my team and I are committed to working with the opposition and are willing to discuss an alternative duration that better balances the needs of protecting consumers and the interests of, of the business community.

And I want to take it a step further that if we do put this in the context of websites to the consumers or to businesses, that we also do it in other languages. So I think that's also very crucial.

And thank you so much for that because I was seeing you also nod as they were also presenting as well. So I want you to know that, that I trust that the author is committed to working on this going forward to work with the opposition to find some common ground. Absolutely. Well, thank you.

Thank you. Assemblymember. Any other questions or comments? I have just one. Assemblymember Gonzalez, earlier you'd indicated that your witness may have a response to some of the feedback we've heard today. I just wanted to see if she had, if she wanted to exercise this opportunity to add anything.

Well, yeah, I mean, I'll just note, I think we definitely may be reading the commercial piece differently. And so I'd love to have a conversation about that because certainly the intent and putting that in was not any sort of eviction moratorium.

It was merely to ensure that commercial leases were subject to the same 10% increase limit as residential leases. And that's entirely because in not only the Los Angeles fires, but in previous fires, businesses burn too. Right.

And so you have small, often immigrant owned businesses looking for a new lease, and we don't want them to be gouged as they try to relocate.

Nor do we want a landlord to take the opportunity, a commercial landlord, to simply raise the rent over 10% on an existing tenant because there's suddenly more demand for commercial leases so that the public council represents Low income immigrant communities and wants to stabilize those small businesses. So it's coming from that place.

So looking forward to having a conversation about the language to make sure that everyone understands what the intent is and that the words on the page actually accomplish that.

Great. Thank you very much. Does that stimulate any other questions or comments from the Committee? Seeing none. Mr. Quickly, yes, Assembly Member Lackey.

If the intent is kind of mysterious, all. We have to do is refer to. Section F where it says it's unlawful. For a person, business or other entity. To evict any residential tenant of residential housing or commercial tenant of commercial real property. It's very clearly enumerated to me. It doesn't seem that fuzzy.

All right. Thank you, Assemblymember Lackey. Are there any other questions or comments? Bless you, by the way. All right, Assemblymember Gonzalez, then this is your opportunity to close. And if you care to respond to anything Mr. Lackey has said, this would be a good time to do that.

I'll give her 30 seconds if that's possible.

I just want to note that if you further read Subdivision F, it says it's illegal to evict for the purposes of raising the rent in excess of the cap. It's not a pause on eviction, and that's just adding commercial leases to the existing thing that applies to residential.

So if there's confusion about the intent and we need to reword it to accomplish that, I think we're all totally open to doing that. Absolutely.

All right. Well, thank you all very much for your input and testimony before the Committee. I will note that the chair is recommending I, as amended, I appreciate the author for working to incorporate those amendments. I echo the comments of some of my colleagues and encouraging you to continue working with them.

The opposition to address these issues, should it pass the Committee today. And lastly, I'll just note that I, I think that in the opposition letter several good points were raised. I don't know that.

I agree that AB380 is unconstitutional, but I do think there are some unaddressed issues, and I feel confident that this author can work collaboratively with you to address those. With that said, colleagues, now would be the appropriate time and place for a motion.

I'll move the Bill. Dominic close or. I thought I already asked if there's anything you'd like to add to something. I would love to close if possible. Look, I just. AB380 strengthens price gouging protections, ensuring fairness and stability for communities impacted by these disasters. And you've already heard my. My, My personal story on that.

Look, I want to be very clear that this Bill, with the amendments, gives individuals an immediate chance for survival. This Bill does not take away the fairness in housing, nor does it put a band aid on a long term wound to any community experiencing a natural disaster. This Bill is also not just about fires.

It's about floods, earthquakes, mudslides. I mean, it's pouring in Los Angeles today or the next couple of days, and we know we'll be experiencing the results of that as well.

But for us, and for me and for those of us here who are reflective of our district and what's been said is that exploiting people's desperation by raising prices during a disaster isn't just unethical, it's predatory. In times of crisis, we should be coming together, not taking advantage of those in need.

And of course, to those of you, like myself, who practice or are believers in faith, we are in a season of Lent, a time for reflection, sacrifice and compassion. Let's remember that taking advantage of others during a crisis goes against the very values of justice and mercy.

In times of crisis, we are called to lift each other up, not profit from suffering. And so with that, I am committed to working with the opposition to address concerns while providing necessary support to Californians recovering from an emergency. And I, of course, respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Assemblymember Harbidian. I move the Bill.

I second.

Okay, we have a motion by Harabedian, a second by Sharp-Collins.

Please conduct the roll on AB380 by Assembly Member Mark Gonzalez. The motion is do pass as amended. To the Appropriations Committee. Schultz, Aye. Schultz, aye.

Alanis, not voting, but making a yes on the floor.

[Roll call]

That measure passes.

All right. Congratulations, Assemblymember. A measure passes with five votes off to appropriate creations. Thank you all for your participation. Next we have item number three. This is Assembly Member Alvarez, Assembly Bill 358. Assembly Member Alvarez, are you ready to go forward?

Okay, so once you get situated you'll have five minutes and if you have any witnesses and support, they will also have five minutes.

Foreign.

Thank you Mr. Chair. Appreciate the opportunity to be before you to present Assembly Bill 358, the Technology Reform and Access to Crime Evidence Amendment, also known as TRACE Amendment.

Want to start off by saying thank you to the Chair, to the Committee staff for their work on this together and make it clear that we are accepting the Committee's amendments today. As the world has changed and the use of technology has increased, it unfortunately has also found its way into circumstances where potentially crimes are being committed.

And this Bill addresses a critical gap in California law that prevents law enforcement from investigating those unauthorized tracking devices or recording devices that are found in private spaces, such as a person's home or their vehicle.

Assembly Bill 358 ensures that survivors of stalking, domestic violence and harassment are not left defenseless when they discover that their privacy has been violated.

The Bill makes a narrow and necessary change to the California Electronic Communications Privacy act, also known as Cal ecpa, to allow law enforcement to inspect a tracking or recording device with the consent of the person that finds it in their private space.

Right now, according to Cal Ecba, law enforcement cannot immediately inspect the device even with the victim's explicit permission.

That means that if a stalking or domestic violence survivor finds an unauthorized tracking device or a recording device in their home or in their vehicle, law enforcement cannot search the device without first obtaining a warrant, even if the person who found the device gives them that permission.

The delay can give perpetrators time to remotely erase evidence and hide their tracks. And while California has strong digital privacy protections, the law unintentionally shields abusers, stalkers and criminals who may use this technology to monitor and control victims.

The TRACE Amendment clarifies that laws empower survivors and strengthens protections for those facing threats from stalkers or abusive partners and ensures that law enforcement can help victims in real time rather than being restricted to potential unnecessary delays.

Assembly Bill 358 does not allow warrantless searches beyond those narrow and victim centered circumstances that we just described and that are in the section. So we believe AB358 is about common sense, safety, and more importantly, survivor empowerment.

The Bill does not undermine privacy rights, but rather ensures that victims can protect themselves when their privacy has already been violated. I appreciate the work of our District Attorney Summer Stefan, who's worked with us on this issue.

And today representing the District Attorney is Deputy District Attorney Joel Madero with the San Diego District Attorney's Office, who is the bill sponsor to speak more about the bill. Thank you so much.

Good morning to the Chair and the Members of the Committee and thank you for your time. My name is Joel Madero and I'm appearing on behalf of the San Diego County District Attorney's Office, a proud sponsor of AB 358.

I've been a Deputy District Attorney for nearly 10 years and am currently the Director of the Catch Unit, a multi jurisdictional task force focused on the prosecution of crimes involving technology. In my role, I'm frequently reviewing or collaborating on Cal ECBA related issues.

AB358 focuses on addressing the unintended consequences of Cal ECPA's overbroad privacy language that has resulted in victims of spying and surreptitious recordings having less rights in their own intimate spaces, their homes, their vehicles, and other private areas than those who are invading those spaces. Unlike what the opposition has stated, AB358 aligns Cal ECBA with the Fourth Amendment.

An individual who places a spy camera or other surreptitious recording device or tracking device in an area where they themselves have no reasonable expectation of privacy would have no legal basis to challenge a search of the device under the Fourth Amendment.

The Fourth Amendment begins and ends with a discussion of a reasonable expectation of privacy, and here there is none. This is not expanding privacy rights in this situation is not a natural extension of Riley, as the opposition has suggested, but instead a violation of legitimate privacy interests of victims of those crimes.

No court that I am aware of has held otherwise. The result of this expansive statutory right can truly shock the conscience. Imagine a parent finding a camera in their teenage daughter's room and they believe that a house guest left it there.

The parent wants law enforcement to act efficiently and quickly to identify what has been captured, who has captured it, and for how long it has been there. The parent, due to Cal ECBA has no right to consent for that device to be searched immediately, and instead law enforcement must seek a warrant.

Similarly, if a victim of domestic violence finds a tracking device in their vehicle and they believe that their abuser left it there to track their movements, that victim has no power to consent for law enforcement to search that device to find out who has been who has been tracking them and for how long they have been tracking them.

Again, law enforcement must seek a warrant. Other examples of these shocking Outcomes are easy to come by and include cameras found in employer dorms or changing rooms at the mall, or even bathrooms in this very building.

Beyond the harm done to victims by not only by having a law that protects that, that has a law that violates their legitimate privacy interests to benefit somebody who has no legitimate privacy interest, the real world implications go beyond this violation.

There are serious concerns of loss of evidence because any delay in seeking a warrant, whether it's an hour, a day, a week, can result in the loss of evidence.

Because of the nature of these devices, the perpetrators can actually find out immediately if the devices have been taken offline and thereby immediately start obstructing investigations, deleting data and concealing their activities. AB358 is a narrow exception to the General warrant requirement and is intended to empower victims of these crimes and align Cal ECBA with the Fourth Amendment.

We respectfully ask that you Committee vote aye thank you.

Thank you, Assembly Member, for the presentation and for your testimony, sir. Next we'll go to Members of the public who'd like to be heard in support of this Bill. If there are any such Members of the public come forward, please state your name, organization and your position.

Patrick Espinosa, on behalf of the California. District Attorney Association, in support.

Thank you very much. Next we'll hear from any witnesses in opposition to the Bill. Those who will be testifying in opposition, please come forward. Once you begin, you will have a combined total time of 5 minutes to address the Committee.

Good morning, chair and Members. My name is Jake Snow. I'm a senior Staff Attorney at the ACLU of Northern California. In opposition to to AB 358. You've heard a lot today about how Cal ECBA is somehow a shield for abusers who are seeking to track or monitor people by placing devices near them. But that's not true.

CALECPA was passed in 2015. It took effect in 2016. And it says that taking into account the modern privacy invasions that are possible in the modern world, given that people's devices, their phones, they contain immense amounts of private information about them, law enforcement has to follow a simple rule if they want to get access to those devices.

And that simple rule is they have to get a warrant. And that is the same rule that the United States Supreme Court applied in Riley. And that's why we called this calica, a natural extension of that law.

The vague and broad exception to Cal EKPA that we're talking about today is simply unnecessary and it would run afoul of the Fourth Amendment and also Article 1, Section 13 of California Constitution, neither this exception and this exception is just simply not necessary to protect people.

When you have a situation where there is a crime that's been suspected to have been committed and law enforcement has evidence of that crime, they can put that evidence in the form of declaration and they can submit a warrant application.

And serious crimes where people are harmed and there are serious implications for finding the people who might have committed those crimes are investigated using warrants. Police officers and district attorneys get and rely on warrants every single day.

And in fact, in the Reilly case, the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court mentioned an instance where law enforcement was able to get a Warrant in only 15 minutes. So the situation where you really need to have a warrant, where you need to get access to something with faster than that is pretty far fetched.

But also CALECPA has an emergency exception where if there is a true emergency, then law enforcement can get access to a device so long as they make a showing of that emergency. For all these reasons, I seek no vote. Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony, sir. Next we'll hear from Members of the public in opposition. Please state your name, organization and position.

Brittany Stonecipher with Kaiser Advocacy on behalf. Of Electronic Frontier Foundation. We appreciate the amendments, but remain in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Sherivan Azambi on behalf of the San. Francisco Public Defender's Office. In opposition. By reviewing the amendments.

April Grace insisted. Warriors in opposition without amendments.

All right, last call. Any other public comment on the matter? Okay, thank you all very much. Assemblymember harabideya.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to the author for bringing the Bill. And just one question for the author and one question for the opposition for the author, how are we defining electronic devices?

Because I do think that especially from our witness from the District Attorney's office, it sounds like we're talking about a very particular type of device, tracking device, camera. It seems narrower than just a phone.

And I think a lot of the opposition's testimony, if I was hearing him correctly, I think a lot of the issues are that this would encapsulate phones.

In your experience over the last 10 years and in the cases that you prosecute, how often are we actually dealing with phones versus specifically a camera or some other sort of tracking device?

I have never seen a phone being used for these purposes. I've seen ring cameras disassembled, put in vents. I've seen cameras in public restrooms. I've never seen a phone used for this purpose.

Has there been any consideration from the Author to actually narrowly define electronic devices under this circumstance to very surgically get to what we are trying to get to here.

We have not. That has not been a concern that's been raised. Certainly can look at that. But as you correctly stated, perhaps some of the opposition was. We heard loud and clear feedback on Section 13 that was previously in the Bill that has. We have now accepted the amendments and removed that.

And it's now the language is actually quite specific. It says with the consent, it's very short and specific with the consent from an individual who locates the device within their residence, automobile or personal property. And the device is reasonably believed to have been used for the purpose of recording or tracking an individual without their permission.

We have not defined that in our language. We can go and take a look at that. I probably like to see what cast to. To that as well. As you know, technology continues to evolve even from 2015 when ECPA came to be.

And so things have certainly changed. Absolutely.

My only concern in the hypothetical situation is when you have some sort of relationship where a phone is left in a car, in a house, and the potential victim is using that quote, unquote device as sort of a leverage in a relationship, taking it to law enforcement, saying that this is being used to track me.

I want you to search it right away. We obviously want to avoid that type of situation where it is a false some sort of report being used again as a leverage point. I do think there is some concern there and maybe this definition would address that. But I appreciate the consideration on the opposition side.

I did not hear you address. I think we all very much appreciate the Fourth Amendment. What is the reasonable expectation of privacy in a device that is planted, such as the author and the testifying witness actually described?

I can't imagine there's a reasonable expectation of privacy when you put a ring camera in someone's vent or in their car. And so obviously that is a triggering. That's a triggering analysis for Fourth Amendment rights to be upheld. So what is your response to that?

So first of all, the definition of device that's used in the language does encompass devices like laptops, phones, Ipads, tablets, things like that. So for those, obviously, the expectation of privacy is very strong. So just like.

But putting that aside, when you have a situation where, for example, a camera is located somewhere, I think it's true that the expectation of privacy might be different. It might depend on if that camera is like part of a phone. But if it's just like a camera, for example, that's placed inside A restroom, for example.

I think the analysis under the Fourth Amendment is different. And so I think that's something you're referring to, and I think that's very right.

But the implication of that is that this Bill is unnecessary because if you have a situation where there's a camera installed in a restroom or in a child's bedroom, that information about how that is a very strange and foreign device that should not be there, and there's no excuse for it, can be put into a declaration, can be submitted to a magistrate, and a warrant can be acquired.

The obviousness of that as being evidence of a crime would be able to be presented to a judge, and a warrant could be acquired in that situation. And I think that just speaks to the fact that the intent of this Bill is actually unnecessary given the available process that exists.

Thank you. Thank you to both of you.

Thank you, everyone. I. In a moment, I'll be calling a very short recess for two purposes. I'd like to confer with the author just to clarify one small provision of the amendment. It's also come to my attention that we have some Members of the public who arrive late that would like to be heard on this Bill.

So, colleagues, I promise to be expeditious, but we're gonna take a five minute recess. I ask that you don't go too far. And then we're going to resume as soon as we're back. Five minute recession.

All right, everyone, welcome back. Thank you very much. In a moment, we're going to resume the public comment period. I did want to state for the record, I appreciate the author and the sponsor for working with me.

Later in the course of the proceeding, I'm going to be recommending the following change, but I'd like to say it out loud now so that everyone who's about to comment has an opportunity to comment on it. I'm referring to page four of the RN.

This would be line number 15 dealing with the proposed addition of Section 13 as an exemption or exception to the CalECPA warrant requirement. We'll be proposing the addition of the following words: a tracking or surveillance device.

So the entirety would now be "with the specific consent from an individual who locates a tracking or surveillance device within their residence, automobile or personal property." And it goes on from that point. So thank you to the author for being willing to work on that. Let's next go back--

I believe there was some late opposition that's come in. So if we have those who've come in, you know the drill. Name, organization and position.

Yeah. Jeronimo Aguilar on behalf of Abolish Bondage Collectively coalition, in opposition. Thank you.

Okay, thank you all very much. Assemblymember Harabedian, we left off with you. Anything else on your end?

No, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

Okay. Any other questions or comments? Mr. Lackey.

Yeah, I'd just like to say thank you to the author for understanding victims and the circumstances, because this seems to me like it would be protected under the abandonment clause. But speaking with attorneys, it does not fall under that. There's ambiguity anyways, and so this clarifies that ambiguity.

And I think anytime we do that to protect victims, we're moving in the right direction. So I thank you for this.

Thank you, Assemblymember Lackey. Anyone else? Assemblymember Sharp-Collins.

So thank you for bringing forth the bill. We know that warrants exist for a reason, and for that reason they are there to make sure that law enforcement just can't grab people's info. So we know that exemptions also currently exist for death and also emergency situations.

My question to the author is that as you're continuing to think about this overall bill process within itself, how do we know that this is the appropriate line to draw? Because things already currently exist.

So if you can help me clarify how you know that this is the appropriate line to draw to move forward and even for changing the language in that section.

Thank you. Yeah, I think this is very clear. Certainly the additions of the Chair and recommendations here. The intent is focus on the victims, as our colleague just mentioned, on tracking and surveillance of those victims when it's in their property, in their home, in their automobile. The language is very clear on that.

And unfortunately, there have been circumstances. I can't speak to them because I'm not a District Attorney, but the District Attorney can speak to circumstances when there has to be-- there had to be-- they were required to go and receive a warrant in order to be able to access that information, so that the information could be preserved and be utilized to protect the victim.

And so because of that ambiguity that exists, this would create a pretty clear distinction that this would be information that could be gathered by law enforcement when there's consent by the person who owns that home or who owns that vehicle. I think it's a pretty clear line here.

And if you like to hear examples of when other instances where warrants had to be sought, we can share that as well.

Yes. In reviewing warrants that would be covered under this exception, I've had a case where it was an individual who had no legal right to live in a home and who we believe left spy cameras in vents of an adult daughter's room.

The family, of course, was more than willing to consent to act quickly to get into the device. It is true that warrants can be fast. They can also take quite a long time. In particular, when we're trying to identify what the device is and what kind of information is being collected.

CalECPA requires a lot when we delineate what we're seeking. In that case, I can't attest to what we would have found had a search been done immediately, but I can say by the time a warrant was approved and we got into the device, we unfortunately were unable to find anything actually on the device.

We strongly believe there was something on there at some point, but cases like this, when I brought this up with law enforcement partners, they mentioned that it is often the time or it has been the case where victims are more than willing to consent over property that is in their own home.

If this was a document or anything else other than electronic device, the victim would have a right to say, of course I'm going to cooperate with law enforcement, I want you to to take this and evaluate it. But just because it is a device falling under CalECPA, there's additional protections, which we certainly understand.

But in an area where the subject who is spying has no legitimate reasonable expectation of privacy, we believe that this is the right line and does clarify the ambiguity as far as abandoned property. Thank you.

Thank you Assemblymember. Any other questions or comments? Seeing none. Assemblymember Alvarez, this is your opportunity to close if you'd like.

Thank you again to the Chair, thank you to the staff, and thank you to the Committee Members who engaged in the conversation. Assembly Bill 358 really is about clarifying and reducing or eliminating the ambiguity in instances when there's a victim, there's a survivor, there's someone who is unfortunately finding themselves in a domestic violence situation.

This is survivor and and victim centered and it strengthens the protections for them to make sure that the evidence that is found in their personal property, their home, their automobile can be used by law enforcement in order to proceed with investigations and other information that needs to be gathered in order to protect that victim from further victimization.

So for that reason we respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Assemblymember Alvarez. Colleagues, the Chair is recommending an aye as amended today. I want to applaud Assemblymember Alvarez, who I really think is a quality example of what I would hope to see from every author, the open mindedness, the willingness to collaborate. I thank you, sir.

I will make my comment very brief, but I do want to note, because the concerns were raised, I do not believe that Assembly Bill 358 runs afoul of Article 1, Section 13 of the California Constitution, which codifies the protections of the Fourth Amendment, protecting folks from unreasonable searches and seizures.

The point is very well taken from the opposition regarding the applicability of Riley v. California. Had some pretty extensive conversations with the author and the sponsor about that case. However, I would note that Riley applies to a digital device, specifically a cell phone, which is unique from a tracking or surveillance device.

A cell phone contains personal communications, contact lists, things that really are worthy of protection in terms of privacy. A device, on the other hand, that's placed on a person's vehicle or in their home for the purposes of surveilling them or tracking their movements. I do not find that there's a reasonable expectation of privacy in safeguarding that information.

And therefore I believe that what the author is proposing, as amended, and specifically the inclusion of those additional terms today, tracking or surveillance device, are reasonable and do properly balance the privacy interests. And I will say I appreciate everyone's flexibility today.

It's always fun to write law on the fly, but I think we had some fun while we did it. With that aye as amended is the recommendation. Is there a motion?

Move the bill, Mr. Chair.

Okay. We had a motion from Harabedian, second from Lackey. Let's call the roll.

On AB 358 by Assemblymember Alvarez. The motion is due pass as amended to the Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee. [Roll call].

All right, thank you everyone. We have three vote-- yes. We have three votes in favor. It will remain on call, Assemblymember Alvarez. And we'll see how everyone votes when they come back. Thank you very much. All right, that takes us next to item-- I assume we'll go in numerical order, Assemblymember Bryan.

So we'll start with item number one. This is Assembly Bill 247. Assembly member Brian. You'll have five minutes and your witnesses in support there of will have an additional five minutes combined total time.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's good to be back before this Committee. I'm here to present AB 247, a Bill that will ensure incarcerated hand crew members who are actively fighting wildfires receive fair compensation for their invaluable service during that life saving work. Incarcerated people have long been a part of the state's firefighting force.

More than a century ago, CDCR created a conservation camp program to train incarcerated people to help fight fires throughout California's fire season. There are now 35 conservation camps in the state. Earlier this year, my home county of Los Angeles experienced a devastating and heartbreaking loss due to two out of the three worst wildfires in our state's history.

In this time of crisis, incarcerated people who were on the fire line actively fighting the fire played a crucial, an invaluable, an unforgettable role in protecting our homes in our region. Incarcerated people who bravely step forward to fight our state's wildfires are severely underpaid.

They currently receive a mere five to $10 per day with a $1 kicker when they are actively fighting. A 2018 report discovered that incarcerated hand crew members were more than eight times more likely to be injured after inhaling smoke in particulate matter compared to professional firefighters because of where and how they work during these wildfires.

Additionally, they were four times more likely to experience object induced injuries such as cuts, bruises, dislocations and fractures compared to professional firefighters working on the same fires. Unfortunately, these fires can also be fatal.

From early 2017 to late 2018 three incarcerated hand crew Members died fighting to protect Californians, to protect lives, to protect property, to put their lives on the line in service of others. AB 247 will provide incarcerated hand crew Members with fair and just wages when they are actively fighting fires. This Bill isn't just about fair pay.

It's about dignity, equity, and recognizing all of our heroes, all of our first responders, when they step up in a time of crisis. Joining me today are two previously incarcerated hand crew members. Lakeisha Johnson is here with the Young Women's Freedom center. And Eduardo Herrera is here with the Anti Recidivism Coalition.

Thank you. Good morning, honorable chair and Members of the Public Safety Committee. My name is Eduardo Herrera Jr. And I'm a Member of the Anti Recidivism Coalition. I'm here before you as a previously incarcerated firefighter. I'm also a professional firefighter for the State of California and as someone who has lived the reality that AB 247 seeks to address.

During my incarceration, I served as an institutional firehouse, responding to real emergencies like medical calls, structure fires, vehicle fires, traffic collisions and wildland fires. I was on call 247, 365 days a year. As an incarcerated firefighter, we are four times more likely to suffer injuries and eight more times more likely to endure smoke inhalation.

Like firefighters, we work long shifts, often most dangerous and often in most dangerous conditions. Yet for all that we did, the value of our work was reflective. When I was just paid $1.80 an hour, despite this, I gave everything to the job because I knew that service was my way forward.

I wanted to give back to the ways I could and held onto the value of doing so one moment will stay with me forever. My crew and I responded to a call where we were assigned landing zone coordination for a traffic collision involving a 27 year sheriff deputy.

On his way to work, he had suffered traumatic cardiac arrest. For over 30 minutes we performed CPR, doing everything in the power to save his life. Unfortunately, he succumbed to his injuries. Afterwards, I was directed to put an American flag over his body and as he was driven away, he took.

We took our helmets off and saluted him. His fellow officers and his wife shook my hand and thanked me for trying to save his life. That moment changed me forever. It showed me that regardless of my past, I had the ability and the responsibility to serve others.

When I was released, I was fortunate to continue my experience and begin firefighting career through the Ventura Training Center. And thanks to AB 2147, I had my record expunged. California invests in rehabilitative fire training. Let's not waste that investment. Let's recognize the courage, dedication and hard work of those who have earned a second chance.

AB 247 is not just about fair wages. It's about dignity, rehabilitation, and, most importantly, to be seen. I humbly urge your support for AB 247. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair Members of the Committee. My name is Laquisha Johnson and I'm here today as a former incarcerated hand crew Member and advocate in support of AB 247, which seeks a fair wage increase for those risking their lives on the front lines of California wildfires.

I want to take you into the reality of what it means to be a hand crew Member. It's 2am Alarm blares a fire. A life on the line. You cannot hesitate. You jump up, you throw on your gear, and in seconds, you have to be out. There's no time to think, be tired, sore or cold.

Whether it's a burning home, a fatal car accident or a medical emergency, you have to be there. Some of the calls I've answered weren't just emergencies. There were tragedies unfolding in real time. A young woman dragged under a big rig, fighting to survive. A family just dropping their kids off at school.

What should have been a normal day ended in a triple fatality. A police officer whose car flipped over multiple times on the highway. A brush fire spreading rapidly through vegetation. I performed CPR on strangers, helped save burning homes, and stood in the chaos of destruction, doing my best to save lives.

And yet, for all this, while deployed on active fires, my pay was far below a livable wage. I want to be clear. I am grateful for the skills I've learned in this program. It taught me discipline, resilience and leadership. But when the shift ends, a reality sets in.

That paycheck barely covers a few phone calls and hygiene products. And when we come home, many of us have no safety net, no job waiting, no savings to fall back on. Just $200 upon release. And what does that cover? A bus ticket, Uber? A meal and maybe a night in a hotel. And then you're left with nothing.

And then we have to rebuild our life from there. With inflation driving up food prices, housing costs and even basic necessities, how can we be expected to reintegrate into society successfully. AB 247 would increase the additional pay during active fire deployment. This wage increase isn't just about fairness. It's about dignity. And it's about recognizing the risks we take, the lives we saved, and the reality that when we. For when we return home.

Thank you very much for your presentation. Assemblymember Bryan, thank you both for being here and sharing your story. And thank you for your service to California in that capacity. Next we'll be hearing from Members of the public who'd like to be heard in support of the Bill. You know the drill. Name, organization and position. Let's go.

Thank you. Taina Vargas, Initiate Justice Action co sponsor in support.

Hi, my name is Desmond Jones with the ARC, the Anti Recidivism Coalition in support of AB 247. Vote yes.

Shervin Azami on behalf of Initiate Justice Action and the San Francisco Public Defender's Office. In strong support.

Minea Gonzalez with Initiate Justice Action and strong support.

Nicholas Tirado, Forever 23 production and strong support.

Antoinette Ratcliffe with Initiate Justice Proud co sponsors and support.

Christopher Bryson with Anti Recidivism Coalition. In support.

Lawrence Cox with all of us and none. Strong support.

Desiree Wynn Orth of East Bay Community Law Center in strong support.

Lesli Caldwell-Houston for the California Public Defenders Association In support.

... legal services for prisoners with children. In full support.

My name is Michael Stringer for Center of Unemployment Opportunities. I support.

Ruth Salady with Initiate justice and strong support.

Alyssa Rodriguez with Initiate justice and strong support.

Anthony Coretto, formerly Incarcerated Firefighter program associated. With the Variance Institute of Justice in support.

Natasha Minsker, Smart Justice Californian. Strong support.

Liz Blum-Gutierrez on behalf of La Defensa and Grip in support.

Sergio Maldonado on behalf of Center Employment Opportunities with full support.

Nicholas Morrow on behalf of Center of Employment and support.

Eugene Day, Anti Recidivism Coalition. Strong support.

Jay Hockley, senior Initiate Justice Action. Strong support.

Lee Gibson on behalf of all the incarcerated brothers and sisters. Strong support.

Adam Kane with initiate justice, formerly incarcerated firefighter and strong support.

Tasia Stevens with Catalyst California in strong support.

Savannah Jorgensen with the League of Women Voters of California in strong support.

Aynan Harris would initiate Justice Action. Showing support.

Casey Velasquez, Initiate Jack Initiate Justice Action. Strong support. Thank you.

Celia Rogers, Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in strong support.

Faith Lee with Asian Americans Advancing Justice Southern California. We're in strong support.

Ariana Montez with the Hernandez Strategy Group on behalf of California Attorneys for Criminal Justice and support.

Efrain Ortiz, formerly incarcerated, on behalf of Initiate justice and strong support.

Hi, my name is Shamil Watson. I'm here supporting ARC for AB 2047. Please vote yes. Thank you.

My name is Sco. I'm here with ARC. I'm in support of AB 247. Please vote yes Good morning.

I'm Bernie Singh with all of us in Sacramento and I'm in support.

Junius Winters, formerly incarcerated worker in support.

Nateel Sharma with Legal Services for Prisons with Children. In support.

Nedrick Miller, All of us or None Sacramento. Strongly support.

Ike Valerie, Anti Anti Recidivism Coalition. Strongly support.

Antonio Ca, former lifer with Anti Recidivism Coalition in support of Senate of Assembly Bill 247.

Aaron Ream, therapist at the Anti Recidivism Coalition. On behalf of the entire clinical team, we are in full support.

Chris Larson, policy manager, Anti Recidivism Coalition. Strong support.

April Grayson, political Director for the Sister Word Freedom Coalition in strong support.

Good morning. Glenn Backes for Prosecutors Alliance Action in strong support.

On behalf of Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, a proud co sponsor. In support. Thank thank you.

Hello, I'm Tina Chris Keane. I'm Associate Director with Community Healers United. I'm in strong support.

Good morning. Henry Ortiz with Community Healers Initiate justice. And Boys of Men of Color and Struggle support. Thank you.

Vanessa Rojas, Initiate Justice Action. Strong support.

Good morning. John Cannon, formerly incarcerated firefighter and All of Us or None organizer in full support.

Daniela Dane, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children and support.

Whitney Francis with the Western center on Law and Poverty and support Dax Proctor, Californians United for responsible budget and support no Igudino on behalf of Legal Services of Prisoners with children and strong support on behalf of the Reentry Providers Association of, California, California Safety and Justice and ARC and strong support. Thank you.

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

Vivian Librado from Fresno, also a Member of Initiate justice and I'm in support.

And I'm Christopher Washington from Fresno also and a Member of Initiate justice and I'm in strong support.

Laura Larios with Initiate justice from Sacramento, California and strong support.

I'm Reina Pena, also from Fresno, California, a Member of Initiate Justice and I am in strong support.

Hello, I'm Zena Sandoval. I'm with Initiate justice and I'm in full support. Hello, I'm Ava Martin. I'm from Mount St. Mary's University, Los Angeles, and we're in full support.

Good morning. Kelly Walters, Staff Attorney with Legal Services for Prisoners with Children and strong support.

All right, thank you all very much for your testimony. Special thank you to our sergeants for helping make all of that happen. It's a lot of people love to see it. Next we'll be hearing from any witnesses who'd like to testify in opposition to the Bill. Is there anyone here to testify in opposition?

Okay, I see no affirmative response. Is there any Member of the public who wants to be heard in opposition to the Bill? Okay, I don't see any response then. Assemblymember Bryan, anything you'd like to add?

Yes. When wildfires ravage our state, as has been for the last century, incarcerated people serve on those front lines. And every time a crisis breaks out, we recognize their service, we tweet about their service, we send our gratitude, we send our thoughts and prayers.

And we never step up to do what we should do, which is treat them as the heroes that they are. They helped save Los Angeles this year, and they deserve to be recognized for that bravery. And more than that, they deserve to be compensated justly. I respectfully ask your. I vote. Thank you for your comments, sir.

Any questions or comments from Members of the Committee? Assemblymember Harabedian.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Let me just start by thanking the author for bringing this Bill and everything you're doing to push these important issues in the wake of these devastating fires. I have the privilege of representing the communities of Pasadena, Altadena and Sierra Madre that were ravaged by the Eden fire.

And one of the highlights of that horrible experience was actually spending time with the incarcerated firefighters, learning about them, thanking them for their service, and just witnessing firsthand how important their work is. They are heroes. They deserve to be treated as such. I have personal friends who have served as incarcerated firefighters. There's no better example of rehabilitation.

And this program should be expanded. And I do think that there is a time and a place for making sure that everyone who is on the front lines is being treated fairly and equitably, and this Bill does that. And I just thank you for. For doing this.

I want to thank the witnesses for your service, for everything you've done. I want to thank everyone who came to actually speak and support. It's not easy to get up in front of the mic. It's not easy to get up here to Sacramento to do it. And we definitely see you. So thank you.

Thank you, Assemblymember Gonzalez.

I just want to thank the author and reiterate the comments from the Member from Pasadena.

I had a chance to meet with those individuals after the press conference that we held with the speaker introducing our Wildfire package and hearing the stories, but also the increase that we need to do for more training to have access for those folks as well. And look, they were in great spirits.

And ARC is in my district as well. So I want to just thank the Author and thank those who came today to testify and share the good word, because that's what we need to hear and what we need to know to get things done. Thank you.

Thank you, Vice Chair.

I apologize for being late. You know, obviously, fires been a big thing going on lately and boots on the ground. Boots on the ground. I mean, we got to get it and take care of it. Obviously, we. My side, I was been demanding a lot of firefighters as well.

And I think this is a great answer to that as well. And I think another point to it, if you want to allude on this later, also with the restitution. I know, I know our victims sometimes are not getting the restitution.

That's because those in custody can't raise that funds or the funds to give it, give it to the victim. So I think this also will, will help and then I'll let you allude to that as well. But thank you for bringing this Bill and I'll be supporting it. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other Assemblymember Sharp-Collins

Thank you so much for bringing forth this Bill. I do echo everything as well from my colleagues. And you brought up the point that I was going to make about, you know, the funding coming in to help support them to be able to pay their restitutions. I do appreciate you taking the.

Because I know during the wildfires and so forth, you also did take that time to meet with them to hear their stories. And doing this work helps to further humanize the overall situation so people can understand that although you have been incarcerated or even currently incarcerated, you still deserve to have quality of life.

You still deserve to be able to live and still be able to provide for yourself, but also for your family through this process. So I do really appreciate you bringing forth some of the formerly incarcerated folks here to let people know that even though you were there and you did the work, look at you now.

Look at where you are now. And I appreciate you guys coming in to show your story and continue to serve this, this state. And, and I look forward to the continued work that we're going to do. So thank you so much for everything and bringing forth the Bill.

Thank you. Any other comments or questions? All right. I, I got out in front of myself a little bit earlier. Assembly Member Brian so I know you closed. I just want to say that the chair will be recommending and, and I on this one.

I do applaud you for bringing it forward because our justice system focuses too much on punishment and not enough on redemption and second chances and rehabilitation. But I also want to close in saying thank you to all of the formerly incarcerated firefighters who came and spoke before us today. Thank you for sharing your stories and you really.

A round of applause for all of you. I know this is going to be a jump ball. Who wants to make this motion? All right, Dr. Sharpe, Collins with the motion. Is there a second? Second. Second by Gonzalez. Let's call the roll

[Roll Call]

Congratulations. You got all eyes and an okay there. Nicely done. All right. Thank you. But wait, there's more. We have item number two, Assembly Bill 248, also with Assemblymember Isaac Bryan. So, Assemblymember Bryan, when you're ready, you'll have five minutes on that one. And any witnesses testifying in support thereof will also get five minutes.

Whenever you're ready, sir.

Thank you. Mr. Chair and colleagues, I'm proud to present AB 248. A Bill that removed the. Will remove the arbitrary and harmful wage cap in place for incarcerated workers throughout our state's jails in other counties. Current law has set a wage cap for incarcerated workers in county jails. $2 for every eight hour shift.

If you're quick at math, that's a maximum of $0.25 per hour. These wages are immoral and a direct relic and afterlife of slave labor. In addition to this, we have predatory pricing for basic resources such as hygiene products, medications and food sold in commissaries.

To put that in full perspective, if you are in LA County Jail, the largest jail system in our state, and you're being paid the maximum wage of 25 cents per hour, it will take you an entire business week to afford a two ounce tube of toothpaste and a bag of hot Cheetos.

A survey conducted by the ACLU found that almost 70% of incarcerated workers were unable to afford basic necessities solely from their wages, placing substantial financial strains and burdens on their loved ones. It also limits the ability to support victims with restitution.

AB 248 will begin the work towards dignifying all workers by uncapping the restrictive and arbitrary limits in place on the earnings of incarcerated California's and county jails. It does not require the state to set any new wage.

It does not require anything from the state other than to allow counties to decide for themselves what the dignity of work is worth, including for incarcerated people. Joining me to testify is Junius June Winters who has lived experience working in Sacramento County Jail and Jeronimo Aguilar with legal services for prisoners with children for technical assistance.

Good morning chair and Members. Thank you for being here today. I want to discuss an important issue that impacts many lives and calls for our urgent attention. The labor practices within our county jail system. I personally worked in the county jail and I can tell you that I really did real work for nothing whatsoever.

I had to wake up every morning at 3am to serve breakfast and I didn't get to sleep till about 1 o'clock in the morning. And I had to do this every day. Every day I had to scrub showers, mop sweep, pass out supplies. I really did work and didn't get paid.

So in many cases, individuals in county jail are required to work, often for minimal wages or sometimes without pay at all. These individuals contribute to various industries such as cooking, cleaning, filing, paperwork, plumbing, and in some facilities, people have to work outside in 100 plus degree weather all day.

And yet the compensation they receive does not reflect the value of their labor. This situation raises serious concerns about fairness, dignity and human rights. The labor performed by incarcerated individuals often mirrors that of free citizens. Yet without the same rights and protections, this disparity can lead to feelings of exploitation and injustice.

It is essential that we advocate for fair wages and humane working conditions for all workers regardless of their circumstances. Reforming these practices is not just about economic fairness. It is about upholding the values of justice and humanity.

We must advocate for reforms that ensure fair compensation and the protection of rights for those who contribute their labor regardless of their situation.

AB2 48 put forth to the Committee today by Assemblymember Bryan will remove the $2 maximum wage per 8 hour shift that is currently in state law via penal code 4019.3, allowing counties to set their own wages. For incarcerated workers. This is a crucial first step in the right in the fight for justice through this legislation.

Though this legislation doesn't set higher wages, it does lift arbitrary ceilings and leaves incarcerated workers forced to accept at most 25 cents per hour for their labor, no matter the job or service being provided.

Together today we can work towards a system that respects the dignity and worth of every individual and gives communities more tools to identify solutions to the issues of incarceration and economic instability. Thank you.

Yeah, good morning chairmembers. I just want to, you know, thank Brother Jun here for his testimony and experience and just add, you know, a couple of, you know, statistical data points here for you all through what, through a public records request.

Since all 58 counties, over 90% of these counties have said that they don't compensate incarcerated workers at all. I just wanted to put these things in perspective for us all. And you know, when we think about those that are in county jails, there's many of those that are, you know, still awaiting trial.

These are folks that are fighting their, you know, fighting their cases, you know, on the, on the inside.

And so when we think about the values that we're upholding here in the State of California, right, And we think about folks that have not been even convicted yet of crimes yet were, you know, exploiting their labor and not, you know, paying them in a fair or in a, in a, in a way that values their humanity and their dignity.

But again, want to highlight what the Bill actually does, right? And so it doesn't require anything. It doesn't require counties, it doesn't set a minimum wage, anything of the sort. What it does is that it gives counties the opportunity and community Members opportunity to get involved in the, in the democratic process.

And you know, us to take a closer look at this, right, and to lift this arbitrary cap of $2 that really, that really doesn't serve anybody but, you know, serves the continued exploitation and, you know, yeah, undervalue of people's humanity and dignity.

So with that, I don't really have much else unless folks have some questions about, you know, some of the specifics about the Bill.

Thank you for the presentation and for both of you for testifying. Thank you for your story, sir. Thank you. Appreciate you. We'll next here for Members of the public who'd like to speak in support of the Bill. Name, organization and position. Let's roll.

Sherivan Azami on behalf of Initiate Justice Action and the San Francisco Public Defender's Office. And strong support.

Desmond Jones, a part of the Anti Recidivism Coalition. Full Support of Prop 248.

Medea Gonzalez with Initiate Justice Action and strong support.

Lucia Johnson with Initiate Justice full support.

Antoinette Ratcliffe, Executive Director with Initiate justice in strong support.

Natasha Minsker, Smart Justice California in strong support.

Lesli Caldwell Houston for the California Public Defenders Association in support.

Lawrence Cox with All of Us or None strong support.

Liz Bloom Gutierrez on behalf of La Defensa, LA County Public Defenders Union Local 148 and VR California in support.

Sergio Maldonado with Center Employment Opportunities showing full support.

Nicholas Morrow from Center of Employment Opportunities and strong support. Thank you.

Christopher Bryson, Anti Recidivism Coalition support.

Alyssa Moore, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children in full support.

Michael Stringer with Center of Employment Opportunity shown full support.

Kelly Walters, Staff Attorney with Legal Services for Prisoners with Children in full support.

Ruth Saladi, Initiate justice in strong support.

Alyssa Rodriguez with Initiate justice in strong support.

Taina Vargas, Initiate Justice Action and support.

Lee Gibson, Initiate Justice. Strong support.

Jay Hockley, senior Initiate Justice Action. Strong support.