Assembly Standing Committee on Public Safety

All right. Good morning, everybody. Welcome to the Assembly Standing Committee on Public Safety. My name is Nick Schultz. I'll be chairing the meeting today. I believe we're waiting on our Vice Chair, who should be here any moment. All right. I'd like to begin with a couple housekeeping items, as we always do.

First of all, there are some general rules of conduct before we start our hearing.

Please note that, in order to facilitate the goal of conducting a legislative hearing, and as we proceed with the witnesses and public comment throughout today's 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.

We will not permit conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of legislative proceedings. And lastly, please be aware that violations of these rules may subject you, subject you to removal from today's proceedings, and/or other enforcement actions. For the record, I'd like to note we have the off calendar for today.

The following bills have been pulled by the author. We have Assembly Bill 292, by Patterson, that is off calendar. We have Assembly Bill 479 by Tangipa, pulled by the author. Assembly Member—Assembly Bill 633—by Crell, pulled by the author. And Assembly Bill 710, by Irwin, pulled by the author. I see we now have a quorum.

Madam Secretary, would you please conduct the roll?

[Roll Call]

Okay, with the quorum present, we'll next go to adoption of the proposed consent calendar. I'm going to read the following items that we have on today's consent calendar. Colleagues, we have five items. Item Number 7, Assembly Bill 535, by Schiavo, titled, "Threatening a Witness Assisting a Prosecution."

We have Item 10, Assembly Bill 584, by Hadwick, titled, "Firearms, Dealers, and Manufacturers: Secure Facilities." We have Item 16, Assembly Bill 741, by Ransom, labeled, "Department of Justice Child Abuse Reporting." We have Item Number 18, Assembly Bill 799, by Celeste Rodriguez, titled, "Prisons Death Benefit for Incarcerated Firefighters."

And we have Item 20, Assembly Bill 809, by Quirk-Silva, titled "Corrections: Rehabilitation Space." Do we have a motion?

Move the consent.

Okay, motion by Harabedian. Second by Lackey. Let's call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Consent calendar has been adopted. And now to the regular order of today's business. We will be hearing today's measures in sign-in order. Everybody's favorite. Withstanding committers—Committee Members—including myself, presenting their bills probably last, and certainly towards the end of the hearing. We appreciate your patience.

Authors will have five minutes to present, and main witnesses will have a combined time of five minutes, per side, as that is the Committee's standing practice. First up, we have Assemblymember Davies with Item 22. This is Assembly Bill 837.

Good morning. I must be getting older because I was the early bird today.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members, today I'm here to present AB 837. I first 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.

Members, many of us are familiar with various dangerous drugs, such as fentanyl, cocaine, or meth. However, there is an equally dangerous drug, that has been around for quite a while but has recently seen a surge of illegal usage amongst our younger population, and that is the drug known as ketamine. So, what is ketamine, you ask?

According to the US DEA, ketamine is a dissociative anesthesia that has some hallucinogenic effects. This substance can induce a state of sedation, immobility, relief from pain, and amnesia. The DEA also notes that ketamine has also been used to facilitate sexual assault.

While there are legitimate medical uses and therapy for ketamine, many users are acquiring it on the street, without the tragic permission and observation of a trained professional. If this sounds familiar, it is because ketamine was also the drug that was found in the late actor Matthew Perry's system, when he tragically passed away.

AB 837 is a very narrow bill to close a 1991 loophole, in our current law, that allows someone not of a medical profession to transport ketamine into our state, and either administer it, or give it away.

While opponents of this measure may tell you this drug is not a top concern and does not warrant what AB 837 does, let me leave you with this sobering statistic.

In a 2025 survey, the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, found that overall past year recreational ketamine was increased by 81.8, from 2015 to 2019, and then, an additional 40% from 2021 to 2022.

I just want to reiterate, Members, that the amendments agreed to by the Chair, and his fantastic staff, limits the Bill to just the trafficker. We do not touch the seller or the buyer. Furthermore, we exempt people transporting it who will use it for legitimate medical purposes.

This Bill only touches the persons illegally transporting ketamine in our state and gives judicial discretion on how to sentence an individual via Pentacol 1170. With me here to testify is, from the California District Attorneys Association, Robert Brown. I respectfully ask for an "Aye" vote.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee. I'm Robert Brown of the San Bernardino County District Attorney's Office, and I'm here also on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association.

We strongly support Assemblymember Davies' Bill, because, while there has been a great deal of attention on fentanyl, and rightly so, over the past couple of years, it would be tragic to see something else slip into its place, while we focus too much attention on it. I'm not saying there's too much attention on fentanyl.

Ketamine is a very powerful anesthetic. It is something that can be highly addictive in the wrong usage, and it can be used as a drug of aggression, as was mentioned just a moment ago, when it comes to sexual assault. The focus on ketamine hopefully will not grow.

We don't want to see it become a viable alternative to those who are trying to steer away from fentanyl, and other hard drugs, that have become the increased scrutiny over the last few years. So, with that, California District Attorneys Association strongly supports this Bill. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Assemblymember Davies, was that your only witness?

Yes, thank you.

Okay, thank you very much. Next, we'll hear from anyone else in the room who'd like to support the bill. Please come forward with your name, organization, and position. Please.

Morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Ryan Sherman, with California Narcotic Officers, in support, along with the peace officer groups listed in the analysis. Thank you.

Good morning. Lt. Julio De Leon, from the Riverside Sheriff's Office, on behalf of Sheriff Chad Bianco, in support.

Okay, thank you all very much for your testimony. Seeing no one else. We'll move to witnesses in opposition to the bill. Please come forward, and once you begin speaking, you will have up to five minutes, combined total time.

Good morning. My name is Dr. Ricky Bluthenthal. I'm a distinguished Professor of Population and Public Health Sciences at the Keck School of Medicine, at the University of Southern California.

I'm an NIH-funded researcher, who has conducted over half a dozen federally funded studies on drug use, epidemiology, health risk associated with drug use, and harm reduction and prevention interventions for people who use drugs, over the last 35 years.

My studies have included interviews with 5,000 people who use drugs throughout the State of California, and results from these studies have documented the effectiveness of Syringe Service Programs, identified associations between opiate withdrawal and non-fatal overdose, and examined health harms associated with displacing unhoused people, among many others.

Related to the current Bill, in these studies, we have found that criminal legal enforcement and penalties were associated with negative health harms. These harms include increased HIV risk behaviors and lower odds of utilization of prevention services. Because sellers and users are often the same person, arrest and prolonged incarceration is likely to interfere with potential help-seeking, among people subject to these laws.

Further—sorry, I was reading the wrong one—further, once involved in the criminal legal system, people's capacity to maintain well-being is inhibited. Employment and housing become more difficult to obtain and maintain, and social support and relationships are harder to find and grow.

For people who are incarcerated, links to families and loved ones are interrupted, while access to employment, education, and housing could be impeded for their lifetime. At the same time, increased penalties rarely impact use patterns. It takes years for information about penalties to reach populations of users.

Indeed, in California, when we eliminated penalties related to possession of syringes in the 2010s, people who used drugs still reported reluctance to carry syringes for years after. And even the National Institute on Justice has reported, in 2016, that penalties do not deter crime.

And finally, enforcement-increased penalties have historically done little to reduce availability and use among current and potential consumers of illicit substances. In short, increased penalties do more harm than good, and in fact, there's little evidence of positive outcomes, but well-documented evidence of bad outcomes. For these reasons, I urge you to vote "No."

Good morning. Glenn Baccus for Drug Policy Alliance, in respectful opposition. Current criminal law makes it a criminal offense to possess ketamine for sale, with a punishable—punishment—of up to three years in jail or prison, absent other charges or enhancements. This is an adequate deterrent.

Furthermore, federal law provides that any non-citizen convicted of possession for sale is deportable, or can be denied reentry, even if they have a US-born child. Increased penalties will not make California safer.

Jacking up sentences, highly publicized crackdowns on prosecution of persons who shared or furnished ketamine, will make it less likely that a person will call 911 or seek emergency care when they witness a medical crisis. We all want loved ones and communities to be safe.

I'm the parent of two young people in their 20s, subject to myriad risks, but I know from studying the research on crime prevention, drug policy, and criminal justice that increasing penalties for drug transportation does not reduce the drug supply. It never has. It does not reduce suffering associated with drug use, and it never has.

Doesn't reduce the suffering of incarceration, or drug use itself. The lessons of over 50 years of the drug war are clear. We need to invest in public health and divest from jails and prisons.

All right, thank you. Does that complete your testimony? I'll take that as a yes. Next, we'll hear from those in opposition. Name, organization, and position, please.

Natasha Minsker, Smart Justice, California. We appreciate the amendments have improved the Bill. We continue to be concerned about the phrases, "furnishes" and "gives away."

My name is Amy Andro, on behalf of the San Francisco Public Defender's Office, in opposition.

Danica Rodarmel, on behalf of the Los Angeles Public Defenders Union and La Defensa. In opposition.

Elle Chen, on behalf of Drug Policy Alliance. In opposition.

Antoinette Ratcliffe, with Initiate Justice, in respectful opposition.

Jeronimo Aguilar, here on behalf of Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, in opposition. Thank you.

Gretchen Burns Bergman, on behalf of A New PATH—Parents for Addiction Treatment and Healing. In opposition.

Bernice Singh, with All of Us Are None - Sacramento. In opposition.

Leslie Caldwell, Houston, for the California Public Defenders Association. In opposition.

Good morning. Ed Little, on behalf of Californians for Safety and Justice, in respectful opposition.

Good morning. Shervin Azami, on behalf of Initiate Justice Action, in respectful opposition.

Raj Jayadev, with Silicon Valley Debug. In opposition.

Good morning. Claire Simonich, with the Vera Institute of Justice, with respectful opposition.

Daniella Dane with All of Us or None, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, in opposition.

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

Great. Thank you all very much for your testimony today. Next, we'll move to questions and/or comments from the Committee Members. Would anyone like to begin?

Vice Chair, were you reaching for the mic there?

Yes, if you don't mind. So, for the opposition, you brought up that this law will not help reduce the supply of drugs coming in, or any of the crimes. 11379 H&S excludes the drug that we're speaking of today. I'm not sure why, but for some reason, it was excluded.

And I would think that this Bill would help address, or at least add that, to help enforce that. What would your, what would your comments be about that?

Thank you for the question, Vice Chair.

Given the 50 years of bad outcomes from using the same laws for heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine, we know from both our common sense and from research that that didn't reduce the availability of drugs, that drugs became more powerful, cheaper, and more plentiful, during the 50 years that we had that for methamphetamine, cocaine, heroin.

So, there's no reason to believe and no research to support that adding this to transportation will reduce the availability of ketamine, if there's any legal market and there's any legal demand.

And so how do we get the people that are using those drugs—how do we get them the help they need?

For ketamine and for most drugs, it's important to do prevention education, outreach to users so they know about the dangers, be able to identify what's actually in their drugs, because often people buy things that they don't know what's in there, so being able to identify what is in a drug is helpful to drug users.

Make sure that they're interfacing with programs, like street medicine or harm reduction programs, that give them the bridge to treatment. Because having a trusted relationship with someone who's on your side every day, no matter what you're doing, they're trying to help you be healthier.

That person is the one who facilitates your entry into treatment, or housing, or getting back with your family. They help you identify solutions in your life.

Thank you. Assemblywoman. Do you guys have any responses to that?

I do, and I just want to clarify that this Bill only is addressing the transporter. It is not addressing the user or the seller. I think that's very important to see. And also, there's exemptions for medical use.

And you know, I'm just going to say, I've been working with families, doctors, instructions when it comes to 2012, all the way through working with opioids, parents that are, their kids are dying, and this is something that is very dear to my heart, because we are losing way too many.

And for us to just think that, you know what this is, this is going to be detrimental to those out there. It's just not fact. And you can do education. We've been doing education for many, many years. And yet our kids are taking things such as gummies, such as marijuana, you name it.

And they don't realize, even though we're telling them, be careful what you're ordering, be careful if you're getting online, and they're taking it. So, the best way to save a life, to save the traumatic injury to these kids, is to stop this actually happening.

We're not touching medical use, we're not touching the dealer, we're not touching the user. This is the person transporting it, and they know where they're taking it, too. So, I think it's time that we make them accountable. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you, Vice Chair. Would anyone else like to either pose a question or make a comment? Seeing none. I'll share the Chair's recommendation, and then Assemblymember Davies, give you the chance to close if you'd like. Just want to emphasize that I appreciate the work of you and your team with the Committee staff on the amendments.

I think the amendments do substantially improve the Bill. I do agree with some of our advocates that there are still unanswered questions. So, while I'm recommending an "Aye" for today, I strongly encourage you to continue working with them.

And the last thing I'll briefly mention is that, as someone who's both lost someone dear to me from substance abuse, and someone who's prosecuted a substantial amount of cases, it is really a revolving door. I would submit that those who are dealing with addiction and substance abuse are going to use the substance, whether or not it's criminal.

I think we have to be smart in how we tackle criminal behavior in our community. I don't disagree with much of what you two gentlemen had to say. The War on Drugs is a failed effort. We've seen time and time again that it doesn't work criminalizing users, or even those who are selling.

But it is very much a business transaction for many, and for those who are profiting off of the misery of others, I do think we need to send a substantial message, and that is that we're not going to tolerate that behavior in California. And this does eliminate some disparities and discrepancies in the law.

So, for today's purposes, Chair is recommending an "Aye." Assemblymember Davies, I'll give you a chance to close.

Thank you. I respectfully ask for an "Aye" vote, and I also want to say thank you so much to all the Members in our Chair. I've had the opportunity to be here—this will be my third time, and just listening and supporting. So, thank you, and, and great job. Thank you.

Okay, we had motion by Alanis, and I think a second by Nguyen. All right, let's call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay, congratulations. Measure moves on to the Appropriations Committee. Next, I don't see Assemblymember Kalra here, so let's move on to Item Number 2. This is Assembly Bill 352 by Assemblymember Pacheco.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. I am here to present Assembly Bill 352. First, I want to thank the Committee staff for their hard work on this Bill. The U.S. marshals Service charged with protecting federal judges assessed 5,873 threats and inappropriate communications against the judiciary between 2021 and 2022.

A 2020 National Judiciary College survey of 572 judges revealed that a majority of those judges feared for their safety and desired enhanced protection. AB 352 adds a subdivision to penal code Section 422 to make criminal threats against judges and court commissioners an aggravating factor in sentencing.

This change enables judges to impose a maximum three year sentence for felony criminal threats when appropriate. Strengthening penal code Section 422 helps to enhance protection for judicial officers, potentially deter people from making threats against them, and making judicial officers feel safer when judges and court commissioners are able to do their jobs effectively and without fear. Public trust in the justice system. Bless you.

Thank you.

Public trust in the justice system is maintained. AB352 addresses escalating concerns about threats of violence and especially towards public officials. The Bill sends a clear message that violent or threatening behavior will not be tolerated. With stronger laws in place, individuals who make threats are more likely to be held accountable for their actions.

AB352 makes California's community safer by reducing the risk of violence and intimidation towards judges and court commissioners, supporting the smooth function of the justice system and deterring harmful behavior. With me today in support of the legislation is Cliff Costa, the representative of the California Judges Association.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Cliff Costa, today on behalf of the California Judges Association, first want to thank the Committee consultant for her work on it and her excellent analysis. We appreciate the collaboration nationally and here in California. Attacks and threats directed at the judiciary has dramatically increased. You heard the numbers that Assemblywoman Pacheco has mentioned.

Let me say that that is more than five times the amount of threats that occurred just a decade ago. Just recently, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts remarked and noted the dramatic increase of threats against the judiciary. A recent New York Times article also went in and highlighted these threats.

These threats have come in various forms, whether it be bomb threats at courthouses, swatting against judges, personal residence or doxing, or just other criminal threats. But what we've noted is that these threats are not made necessarily against a particular type of judge or a judge that was appointed by a particular party.

They are attacking and threatening both judges, regardless of who has appointed them. These threats we believe are unwarranted and threaten access to justice. This was an example of just last year where a bomb threat both occurred in multiple court locations and therefore shut down the courthouse, thus eliminating litigants access to justice.

These are people who took days off of work to go get their resolution resolved and the courthouse was shut down because of these types of threats. This is frustrating not only for judges, but this is something that I think you all deal with every single day. Criticism is no surprise when you sign up to be a public official.

However, it's when criticism turns towards violent threats and attacks against you for simply doing your job or because you were assigned a particular case, which is unfortunately very troublesome both in our society at large, but here In California specifically, AB352 recognizes these additional safeguards that are needed given today's present threats.

And again, we respectfully appreciate the Committee consultants for working with us. And on behalf of California Judges Association's more than 2500 membership, we are respectfully requesting an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you both very much for the presentation and your testimony. Next we'll hear from those here in support. Name, organization, and position, please.

Chair Members, good morning. Jonathan Feldman, California Police Chiefs Association. We took a position on a majority of our bills last week, so apologies. That no letter was submitted, but we are in support. Thank the author.

Mr. Chairman, Members, Carl London, on behalf of Crime Victims United, also in support. Thank you.

Morning, Mr. Chair. Ryan Sherman with Riverside Sheriff Association and the other POAS in support. Thank you.

Morning, Mr. Chair, Members of the Committee, Robert Brown, San Bernardino County District Attorney's Office and for the California District Attorney's Association in support.

Thank you all very much for your testimony. Next we'll hear from those testifying in opposition for combined total time of five minutes. Once you get up here and get situated and start speaking, your time will begin.

Good morning, Chair and Members. George Parampathu, legislative attorney with ACLU California Action Rising opposition to AB 352 while a lot of the proponent's comments were about the integrity of the judicial process, I would like to note at the outset that the bill's language is not limited to court officials in their official capacity.

And even if it was, as I will explain, that's already an aggravating factor under existing law. While we must ensure the safety of our judges and court commissioners, it is important to note that penal code 422 already punishes threats in all settings directed at any person. There is no need for AB352 specific callout of court officials.

Moreover, PC422 already provides prosecutors the discretion to apply the law as a misdemeanor or a felony in proportion to the offense. And the law already provides courts and juries a list of aggravating factors that are to consider in any case.

There's no reason to think that prosecutors, juries and judges are wielding their discretion in a way that minimizes the threats of court officials. To the extent that AB352 is aimed at securing the integrity of our judicial process, that, too is already covered by existing law.

One of the aggravating factors that judges and juries currently weigh is whether the defendant, in any way, quote, illegally interfered with the judicial process. In other words, threats against judges in their official capacity in relation to their duties is already an aggravating factor.

And so we're left to ask, what does AB352 cover that existing aggravating factors do not? AB352 would increase the punishment. Sorry, would increase the punishment. When someone threatens another person in a grocery store and they just happen to be a judge, ratcheting up the punishment there is unreasonable as it has nothing to do with culpability.

We should not use the penal code in this way. Study after study has made it clear that bills like AB352 will not increase public safety. Even the federal Department of Justice has said that increasing the severity of a punishment does little to deter crime.

Lastly, where the current law applies to threats directed at anyone in any setting, carving out judges for the purposes of an extra aggravating factor is sure to invite future legislative efforts to carve out other groups for similar treatment. In the end, this will complicate the penal code with provisions that offer no benefit to public safety. Because AB 352 is unnecessary and unhelpful, I urge a no vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much for your testimony. Next, we'll hear from those in the room who'd like to also voice opposition to the Bill. If you'd like to come to the microphone, state your name, organization and position. Okay. Seeing no one else, we'll go to questions or comments from the Committee. Would anyone like to start us off?

Just one myself, then, Assemblymember Pacheco, just curious, do you have any response to the comments made by the opposition today about the necessity of AB? Oh, I'm sorry. We do have one person. Sorry, a one person voicing opposition. Please go ahead.

Apologies, Ignacio Hernandez, on behalf of the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice in Opposition, thank you.

Okay. With that said. Yeah. Do you have a response to the opposition?

I will Let my witness respond.

Thank you. Completely understand the concerns raised by the opposition. Would like to talk more through the aggravating factors that exist. But we believe that if you are just impeding the judicial proceedings, that's 1 point. But when a judge is at their home and you're threatening them at their home, that's a not necessarily impacting the judicial proceedings.

And so we do believe there is a space here necessary to address criminal threats that are made against judicial officers, whether it be in their official capacity or when they are still at home. You are a judge regardless of your circumstances, just like you are a Legislator.

Regardless of your circumstances, you may be home in your district, you're still a Legislator. Same concept for judges and court commissioners. And I would like to also point out that this Bill does include tribal judges as well. And we appreciate the Committee for including them.

Okay.

All right. Does that invite any further questions or comments? Seeing none. Assemblymember Pacheco, I'll allow you to close. I'll just say that I am recommending an eye for today. I will also note that importantly, while the Bill does create a new aggravating.

A new aggravating factor, the court still retained discretion to sentence the person anywhere in the triad that they believe appropriate. Notwithstanding the finding of an aggravating circumstance, they could still sentence to the lower mid range as well. With that, Assemblymember Pacheco, anything to add?

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

Okay. Motion by Ramos. Second by Nguyen.

Let's call the roll on AB352 by Senate Member Pacheco. The motion is due pass to the Appropriations Committee. Schultz.

Aye.

Schultz aye. Elanise. Aye. Elanise aye. Gonzalez.

Aye.

Gonzalez aye. Haney.

Aye.

Haney aye. Harabedian. Lackey.

Aye.

Lackey aye. Nguyen.

Aye.

Nguyen aye. Ramos.

Aye.

Ramos aye. Sharp-Collins.

Aye.

Sharp-Collins aye.

Thank you. And it's off to the Appropriations Committee. Thank you, Assembly Member Pacheco. Thank you. And next we have. Let me just make sure. Okay, we have item number 23. This is Assembly Bill 938 by Assembly Member Bonta. Assemblymember, once you're all situated and start talking, we'll start your time.

Good morning Chair and Committee Members. I would like to express my appreciation to your Committee staff for their time on working on this bill.

I want to assert that I accept the Committee amendments which would keep the current requirement that an offense for which vacant or relief is requested be directly related to being a victim of human trafficking, intimate partner violence or sexual violence and would also exclude murder from being allowed as an affirmative defense except for felony murder.

California has the highest rent reported cases of human trafficking in the nation. I authored AB938 because of the consistent calls from organizations and survivors themselves who expressed the critical need for expanded legal remedies, protections and resources for survivors of violence and exploitation.

AB 938 is fundamentally about listening to survivors and ensuring our criminal justice system does the same. It recognizes that many individuals who have been arrested or incarcerated are not simply offenders but survivors of profound violence and exploitation. We cannot claim to be to value public safety while simultaneously criminalizing the very individuals who must most urgently need protection.

AB938 acknowledges the realities of trauma and offers survivors a pathway towards justice and healing rather than continued harm.

AB938 expands legal protections and vacatur relief for survivors of human trafficking, intimate partner violence and sexual violence by specifically allowing survivors to assert an affirmative defense to the charge of for all offense crimes by the preponderance of the evidence that the person was coerced to commit the offense as a direct result of being a victim of human trafficking, IPV or sexual violence at the time of the offense and has a reasonable focus of nexus of harm.

Allowing a person secondly, allowing a person who was arrested for or convicted of an offense committed while they were a victim of human trafficking, sexual violence or or intimate partner violence to vacate to petition the court to vacate or set aside a previous conviction, arrest or adjudication.

If the petition is unopposed by the prosecutor, the court is directed to may to grant petition if opposed or if the court deems necessary, requires the court to hold a hearing in the petition. It also ensures that the petitioner survivor can bring forward evidence and allows the prosecutor to bring counter evidence as well.

It also allows the court considering a totality of the evidence to vacate the arrest or conviction if it's established that the petitioner was a victim of human trafficking at the time of the offense, that the arrest for a conviction of the offense was a direct result of being a victim of human trafficking and it's in the best interest of justice to vacate the arrest, conviction or claim.

In so doing, a survivor petitioner is established is able to establish the finding that the petitioner lacked the requisite intent to commit the offense. It also sets aside the arrest or finding of guilt and vacates any unpaid restitution, fines or fees, and orders law enforcement agencies to seal and destroy records. Survivors deserve our compassion, not further incarceration.

Historically, the criminal justice system has disproportionately penalized individuals for adopting survival strategies in response to severe abuse and exploitation. This legislation represents a commitment to protecting women. Women of color, particularly black and Latina survivors, are disproportionately impacted by the criminalization of their actions taken while being harmed, coerced, threatened and violated. California wouldn't be alone.

Georgia, Louisiana, Nebraska, Wyoming, and New York allow for vacatur for survivors for all offenses nonviolent and violent felonies. Many passed with bipartisan support and authorship. Oklahoma, South Carolina, Wisconsin, and Wyoming allow for affirmative defense for survivors for all offenses.

According to a study done By Stanford Law, 57.7% of Native American women face a lifetime risk of intimate partner violence, sexual assault, or stalking. A national survey by Polaris Institute found that 90% of trafficked individuals had offenses directly tied to their exploitation within a year of their arrest.

This bill is proudly supported by survivor advocacy organizations, public defenders, trauma informed legal scholars and leaders in restorative justice. With me today to testify are Jamie Beck, a vacatur attorney and human trafficking and domestic violence expert, and Susan Bustamante, a courageous survivor who shall share her experiences with criminalization directly linked to her victimization.

Good morning. Good morning, Chairman Schultz and Committee Members. My name is Jamie Beck and I'm a vacature attorney and expert witness on human trafficking and domestic violence. In the past eight years, I have represented nearly 100 survivors in vacature cases around the state.

I have seen firsthand how this law helps survivors repair the harm caused by their unjust criminalization. However, vacatur alone doesn't address the full harm. Survivors spend years battling the charges that they were coerced into committing, and many plead guilty just to avoid prolonged legal battles.

As a result, they endure lengthy prison sentences, are separated from their families, lose custody of their children, and are subjected to physical and sexual abuse while incarcerated. That is why AB938 is so important. This bill expands vacatur to all crimes and the affirmative defense to all crimes except murder.

Currently, California's law draws an arbitrary line between violent and nonviolent crimes, excluding survivors who are charged with violent offenses. This distinction ignores the reality that these victims were coerced into committing the crime under extreme duress and often through unimaginable violence.

By limiting the relief to nonviolent crimes, the current law fails to protect these survivors and punishes them for their own victimization. AB 938 removes this arbitrary distinction, ensuring survivors can defend themselves and clear charges related to their victimization.

To those who argue that these laws will allow dangerous individuals to avoid criminal liability, I want to be very clear. Both vacatur and the affirmative defense are extremely difficult to attain. Survivors must meet a high burden of proof, and prosecutors have the opportunity to oppose these petitions in court.

Ultimately, it is and should be up to judges and juries to determine whether a survivor meets the criteria. Other states like Georgia, Louisiana, Nebraska and Wyoming have vacatur laws that apply to all offenses. Additionally, states like Oklahoma, South Carolina, Wisconsin and Wyoming have established the affirmative defense for trafficking victims, which applies to all offenses.

These states recognize the fundamental injustice of criminalizing victims. It's time for California to catch up to these states and ensure that victims of trafficking and abuse have access to justice and the opportunity to rebuild their lives. For these reasons, I strongly urge this Committee to support AB938. Thank you.

Good morning. Thank you for having me. My name is Susan Bustamante. I was raised in the Hispanic culture of what happened in the household stays in the household. At age 12, my father started molesting me and it continued to the age of 18. I finally told my brother about the abuse.

He says, don't worry sis, I'll take care of it. When he came back, he said, go home. Because he had gone to my parents house and had a confrontation with my father. And so he said, go home. He'll never touch you again. And he never did. There was no bruises, no blood, no interaction, just words.

At 19, I met Steven, my husband. When we met, I didn't know he was a Vietnam vet or that he was raised in a domestic violence household. The first time he hit, he hurt me. My husband dragged me in the bathroom and threw me around.

He kept me isolated from my family, only allowed me out of the house twice a year for Christmas and my birthday. In the six years I was married, he threatened to kill my sister and my mother. He said they would have accidents. It was torturous. If I ever left or left, took my children.

When I was pregnant with my first daughter, he literally dragged me through the house. He was constantly backhanding me because he didn't want to leave bruises. So he always hit my head. He would have flashbacks to Vietnam and I would wake up with him choking me.

I Have permanent damage in my neck and my head from all the beatings. He would lift me up with his forearm off the floor. I was like 115 pounds. He was 5 foot 10, 170 pounds. And I would pass out on him. In 1980, I became pregnant again. He forced me to have an abortion.

That was my turning point. I wanted him out of my life. He threatened to kidnap my daughters if I ever left. So I reached out to my brother once again. Again he told me, don't worry, sis, I'll take care of it. The idea that he would kill Steven never occurred to me.

Later he called me to say that Steven was dead. He threatened to call the police and say I planned it. He blackmailed me for Steven's insurance. I was afraid of having my daughters taken from me. So I gave in. I was 24 years old. A few years later, my brother died of a brain aneurysm.

And somebody who knew him told a detective that I killed Steven. When I went to trial, nothing was allowed about the molestation, nothing about domestic violence. When I was on the stand being questioned, I tried to explain. They said, how did you feel when Steven died? I said I was relieved.

Not because he died, but because I wouldn't be hurt no more or afraid of what was going to happen to my family. It was struck from the court record. Nothing was ever allowed to get into the defense.

In my defense in the transcripts, after a two day trial from start to finish and no chance to tell my story, I was convicted for murder I did not commit and sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. So at 32 years old, I never been in trouble, never went to the police, never got to jail, nothing.

But I was sentenced to die in prison. My daughters were 8 and 11. I missed their weddings, the birth of their children, my grandkids. I lost my parents, my sister while in prison. Three decades. If 938 would have been a law, then I would have been able to at least share my story. Maybe.

Would I been able to. Maybe I would have been able to access a permitted offense or a different sentence. Or if not, I would have been able to just tell my story and speak my words. To share what happened to me and what happened to my husband. Thankfully, I was granted clemency in 2017 by Governor Brown.

Went to parole board in six months, came home in 2018. I'm a survivor of domestic violence, a survivor of Cholmo Station and a survivor of the California prison system. And I'm an advocate, care for victims and survivors who should have the chance to tell their stories in court. I'm here in strong support for this bill. AB938.

Thank you, Assembly Member Bonta, for the presentation. Thank you both for your testimony and Ms. Bustamante, on a personal note, thank you for your courage and bravery coming today. I can't imagine that was an easy story to tell, but unfortunately, that is a reality that far too many Californians are also experiencing. Experiencing.

So thank you for sharing all of that information with the Committee.

Thank you.

Next, we'll hear from individuals who'd like to speak in support of the bill. You know the drill. Name, organization and position, please.

Good morning. My name is Katie Dixon. I'm the policy coordinator for the California Coalition for Women Prisoners. We're proud co sponsors and we appreciate Assemblymember Mia Bonta for bringing this forward this morning. Thank you.

Good morning. Leela Chapelle, I'm here on behalf of the Coalition Abolish Slavery and Trafficking, the Survivor Justice Center and the Immigrant Legal Resource Center, all as proud co sponsors of this bill. Thank you.

Danica Rodarmo on behalf of La Defensa and strong support.

Good morning. Capri Walker with Californians for Safety and Justice, Proud co sponsor and support. Thank you.

Good morning. Natasha Minsker for Smart Justice Californians, strong support.

Shervin Azami on behalf of Initiate Justice Action and strong support.

April Grayson, Sister Warriors and strong support. And I thank the Member for always being the champion for criminalized survivors.

Good morning. Issa Borgeson with the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights and strong support.

Melanie Kim, San Francisco Public Defender's Office, co sponsor of AB938.

Good morning. Claire Simonich with the Vera Institute of Justice and strong support.

Hello again. Antoinette Ratcliffe with Initiate Justice and strong support. Thank you.

Good morning. Adriana Griffith, also also with Initiate justice, as well as a survivor of trafficking, myself, in strong support.

Good morning. Jamila Rosales Webb with Silicon Valley Debug and strong support.

Daniella Dane, Legal Services for Prisoners of Children. All of Us or None. In strong support.

Claudia Cesena from the Ella Baker Center and strong support.

Sharice Domingo, Silicon Valley Debug and the California Participatory Defense Network and strong support. Thank you for sharing your story.

Raj Jaidev, Silicon Valley Debug and strong support.

James King with the Ella Baker Center and strong support.

Glenn Bacchus, Drug Policy Alliance and strong support.

Gretchen Burns Bergman, co founder, A New Path Parents for Addiction Treatment and Healing. In strong support.

Leslie Caldwell, Houston, for the California Public Defenders Association, in support. Thank you.

George Pamphlethu on behalf of ACLU California Action and strong support. Thank you.

Jim Lindberg, Friends Committee on Legislation of California in strong support.

Jeronimo on behalf of Legal Services for Prisoners with children. Thank you Member thank you for telling your story. God bless you.

I'm Bernice Singh with All of Us or none Sacramento and Legal Services for Prisoners with Children. I support.

Jabray Dixon with Changes and strong support. Thank you for your story.

Ed Little on behalf of Crime Survivors for Safety and Justice and strong support. Thank you.

Wonderful. Thank you all for your testimony. Now we'll hear from those testifying in opposition to the bill. Please come forward and you'll have a combined total time of five minutes once you begin speaking.

Good morning again, Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee Robert Brown of the San Bernardino County District Attorney's Office and on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association in opposition. It is impossible not to hear a story like we have just heard and not feel something for those who have been victims of human trafficking.

Human trafficking can take many forms and exacts a tremendous toll on the lives that it impacts, and we certainly appreciate that. We also appreciate the amendments that have been discussed this morning as they are an important step in the right direction. The law, however, currently allows for evacuture when it comes to nonviolent offenses.

And we take the position that as it's currently written, the inclusion of violent offenses for relief under this section cuts too wide a swath as a path of relief. Evacuateure is like exclusion of evidence in a courtroom. It makes it so something doesn't exist and so it hides the truth.

And in this case, when you include crimes such as arson, rape, forcible child molest, kidnapping, carjacking for possible relief under this proposed statute, it gives too much leeway when human trafficking itself could take many forms, some more and some less, that could lead to relief under this statute.

We respectfully oppose appreciate the work on it, but we oppose the bill in its current form. Thank you very much.

Morning, Mr. Chair. Members. Ryan Sherman, on behalf of the Riverside Sheriff's Association in respectful opposition to the bill as proposed to be amended.

Our biggest concern revolves around what my colleague stated concerning the violent crimes issue and how even though under current law with the nonviolent crimes, there's no requirement for considering what's in the best interest of public safety for the nonviolent crimes that might not be necessary.

However, if we're going to expand this to violent crimes, I think a judge should be able to have the discretion to take into consideration the impact that a vacature could have on public safety, regardless of whether it's in the interest, because maybe that the individual person was, you know, it would be just to have them released.

However, maybe because of their past history, it's not a public safety risk that should be taken. And for those reasons, we respectfully request a no vote.

Thank you. Thank you both for your testimony. Next we'll hear from others hoping to express their opinion to the Committee. Come forward. Name, organization and position, please. Chair and Members, Jonathan Feldman with the California Police Chiefs Association also in respectful opposition. Thank you. And that is the only person that I see.

So next we will turn to Committee questions or comments. Assemblymember Haney.

Well, first of all, thank you so much to the author for continuing this work.

This is, I know something that for so many people and many of the survivors who are here and advocates who are here are, you know, so deeply committed to because there are people who need our help who are waiting for this bill to pass so that they have the opportunity to have their stories heard and to ensure that nobody goes through the situation that Ms.

Bustamante did. That is, I think, the most tragic piece of what our law currently excludes, which is it does not allow the full story of survivors to be told. It does not allow the truth to come into court and to be considered. And that's simply what this bill asks for and ensures.

And I just want to thank you again for you and your courage and all of the survivors who have continued this fight. And I do very hope and, and I know with such a capable author that this bill will cross the finish line this year and be able to provide those protections.

And so I'd like to, to move the bill at the right time and also ask to be added as a co author. And thank you for your. Your leadership.

Thank you very much. Assemblymember Haney. Assemblymember Sharp. Oh, no. Okay. Any other Questions or comments, Mr. Lackey?

Yeah, certainly this is a very complex consideration in all truth, because you're dealing with both a victim and an offender. And the question that I have in my mind is even though you're kind of an offender under significant duress, there's no argument about. Against that. That that is a fact.

But does that mean that the victim of that crime gets dismissed? I don't know if you're following what I'm saying, but you have two victims now. So does it mean that the. Because there was duress involved that the other victim gets no consideration? Because that's the way I understand this proposal and that's what I'm wrestling with.

It doesn't seem like that's a just situation. Should there be a reduced penalty? Absolutely. But should that victim be completely dismissed because they had dressful circumstances, as was the opposition indicated? You can never pacify a violent crime like rape. That's an example. Because as I understand this, the statute, it dismisses that.

And anytime you have a victim of rape, I think they deserve some level of justice. And it seems like, as I understand this, that that victim of rape, because the offender was under duress, would not be held accountable for that rape. And I find that to be an affront to justice.

So that's why I'm wrestling with this. I think there's some really good points and very heart wrenching witness here. Thank you for having the courage to come and share your experiences of how deplorable that must have been. I'm so sorry that that occurred.

But another affront to justice is something to consider, and it feels like to me that this is not quite where it needs to be. So I just want to let you know why I'm not able to support at this particular point. Thank you.

Thank you. Assemblymember Lackey. Would anyone else like to pose a question or make a comment? Assemblymember Gonzalez.

I just want to thank you. Excuse me. To the author for bringing this forward, but particularly to. The witness here today. My mother was a victim of domestic violence for 13 years. And this is something that's personal to me to having to witness that. But particularly, what's more important is also keeping in mind that LGBT plus community.

Is also part of this conversation. As much as we don't talk about it, it is. And so I just want to thank you both for bringing this forward today. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other questions or comments? Okay. Give a brief explanation on Chair's recommendation. And then Assemblymember Bond to give you the chance to close, Chair is recommending wholeheartedly an eye, as amended on this. I will just note, with all due respect to the opposition, your points are well taken.

But I do want to read from the bill the language which I actually think does address some of your concerns.

Subsection G says after considering the totality of the evidence presented at the hearing that we're referring to, the court may not shall, but may vacate the conviction and the arrests and issue an order if it finds all of the following.

Number one, that the petitioner was a victim of human trafficking at the time of the alleged Commission of the qualifying offense. Number two, the arrest for or conviction of the offense was a direct result of being a victim of human trafficking. And number three, it is in the best interest of justice.

As a practitioner, I handled human trafficking cases and I handled cases where those who we were prosecuting were themselves victims of human trafficking. With all due respect to the those testifying in opposition today, I've been in your shoes. I prosecuted those cases myself. And I understand your role as an advocate.

But in this context, I believe we fundamentally trust the people that wear the black robe, that are appointed or elected to be judicial officers to weigh all of the evidence and make the right decision for the offender, for the victim, and for public safety.

Nothing in this provision requires any particular outcome, but what it does do is allowed a judge hearing all of the evidence to really pursue true justice. And as my colleague from San Francisco Francisco said, to ensure that we are telling the whole and complete story and finding the truth in judicial proceedings.

And that should always be a goal of our justice system. So thank you all for indulging me with that. I'm recommending a strong eye. Assemblymember Bonta, you may close.

Thank you, Chair, for your support and the experience that you bring to being able to center really produce survivor centered policy. It is in the interest of justice through affirmative defense or the ability to allow for victims who turn survivors like Ms.

Bustamante to be able to have an opportunity to assert an affirmative defense, to be able to have an opportunity to pull together the evidence indicating that they are survivors of domestic violence, intimate partner violence, human trafficking or sexual violence.

That is actually in the interest of justice, to be able to allow for us to provide remedy through our court system, to be able to have that happen. I can't even pull together evidence to defend a parking ticket. I can't imagine what it would be like for Ms.

Bustamante to to actually have to assert a defense, pull together the evidence of the years of survivorship that she needed to experience in order to be able to really meet the standard of the burden of proof outlined in this legislation. This is just a shot.

This is going into the corners of our legal system where we have refused to go to before to allow for victims of human trafficking, intimate partner violence and sexual violence to be able to have their justice and day in court. The rest is left up to the judge and our court system, which is a justice system.

With that, I respectfully request your Aye vote.

Thank you, Assemblymember. Now is the time and place for a motion. Is there a motion? Motion by Haney, second by Sharp-Collins. Let's conduct the roll

On AB 938 by Assembly Member Bonta. The motion is do pass as amended to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

Congratulations. You're off to Appropriations, I believe.

Thank you very much, and thank you for your time, Mrs. Bustamante. All right, next we have item number three. This is Assembly Bill 475. And I see we have Assemblymember Wilson. Assemblymember, thank you so much for waiting so patiently. Once you're seated, set up and start talking. You'll have five minutes.

Thank you.

They can just move that, you know? Move this one over and move that one down.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members, I am pleased to speak with you this morning regarding a California Legislative Black Caucus priority measure, AB 475. Now, AB475 would require that work assignments for incarcerated individuals is voluntary, allowing for greater participation in rehabilitative services and helping to restore dignity and bodily autonomy to incarcerated individuals.

Along with this substantive bill, I have also introduced ACA 6, which will eventually be before you this legislative season, and that will officially ban slavery in all forms from our California State Constitution.

These bills work in complement together to both remove racist language from the Constitution and to forever end the practice of involuntary servitude in the State of California.

This is extremely important to the California Legislative Black Caucus, not just because of the historical narrative, but also, we recognize that, today, more than 95 thousand Californians are incarcerated in our state's prisons. And despite making up around 6% of California's total population, Black Americans account for 28% of the incarcerated population.

Far too long, California's prison system has upheld the remnants of slavery through forced labor, an injustice that disproportionately impact not only the black community, but the Latino community as well. And it also undermines the very principles of rehabilitation and dignity.

The current practice of forced labor does not prepare incarcerated people for success upon reentry and often present prevents, excuse me, participation in rehabilitative services. AB 475 reflects our commitment to humane correction policies as it promotes economic justice and better prepares individuals for reintegration in society.

The US Department of Justice reports that over 95% of those currently incarcerated will eventually be released. We must give them a path to reintegration to not perpetuate a cycle of oppression.

AB 475 is a step toward a more just criminal justice system, one that holds people accountable while valuing work as a pathway to rehabilitation rather than a condition of confinement. I would like to introduce my two witnesses.

You'll hear first from Esteban Nunez, Senior Strategy Consultant at Anti-Recidivism Coalition, also known as ARC, and Michael Mendoza, the National Criminal Justice Director at Latinos for Justice.

Good morning, Chair and members of the committee. My name is Esteban Nunez. I'm a Managing Director at ACTUM here on behalf of the Anti-Recidivism Coalition. But I'm also here as somebody who has lived experience through the system that we're here trying to reform.

When I first entered prison, I was ready to take accountability for my actions and rebuild my life. During my initial evaluation, I asked to be placed into a job that would allow me the flexibility to finish my college education. I wasn't opposed to working. In fact, I started working when I was 16 years old.

But I wanted to take full advantage of the rehabilitative programs that were available to me. Instead, I was assigned to a mandatory kitchen job that conflicted with my education. My goals were sidelined because in our current system, forced labor takes priority over rehabilitation. This isn't just about logistics. It's about dignity.

And it's about what we want our prison system to be: a place for accountability and transformation, or a place that continues the legacy of slavery under a different name. The most painful example came when my younger sister attempted suicide while I was incarcerated. She was in the ICU, possibly facing a kidney transplant. I was distraught and devastated.

I had asked my supervisor if I could take the day to ground myself and called my family. He was compassionate, but he warned me that if I did so, he would have to report that I missed my shift, and I would have been written up for refusing to work.

That meant solitary confinement, loss of phone calls and no visits. At the very moment, that all I needed was my family. No one should be forced to have to choose between their humanity and a prison work assignment.

Because of forced labor requirements, incarcerated people are often precluded from participating in life changing programs like substance abuse treatment, GED, and college courses, victims' awareness programming, anger management, parenting classes, and other educational and therapeutic opportunities that are essential for rehabilitation and a successful reentry.

AB 475 is a historic opportunity to begin to dissolve the remnants of slavery, fostering a system that promotes rehabilitation and true accountability. I urge your support. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and members of the committee. My name is Michael Mendoza and I'm National Criminal Justice Director for a Civil Rights Organization called Latino Justice. For us, we are in strong support for a lot of reasons. One, this is a national issue of importance.

As an organization, we've been supporting states, such as Tennessee, Alabama, Nevada, and Utah, who have overwhelmingly changed their state constitution to support this issue. In these states, we've seen, for example, in Tennessee, it was passed by 80%. In Nevada, it was passed by 60%.

And so, we're seeing from constituents across the country, from Americans across the country that really want to see this issue and ending slavery once. And for all for an organization like ours, we are also looking at this from the federal level.

We are working in congress to ensure that our current administration is also taking a look at this issue and looking at how we can change the US Constitution as well. And so, for us, as a civil rights organization, we are seeing that states are moving in the right direction, as is California aligned with this bill.

But I'd also have to say that personally as well, I also am personally impacted. I spent 17 years growing up in adult prisons from the age of 15 to 32. And during that time, being forced to work does nothing for rehabilitation.

And so, for us, we want to send a strong message that giving people a choice, giving people an option to choose rehabilitation rather than forced labor, is public safety.

And so when you have states like Tennessee, Alabama, Utah, Colorado, all agreeing with this and their voters voting in this capacity is a strong message to the rest of the country that we want to emphasize, which is to really have true public safety is giving people the opportunity to choose rehabilitation, the autonomy to look at how they are going to spend their time while they are incarcerated and prepare for rehabilitation and prepare for reentry.

So, what I will say is that for me and myself while I was incarcerated, you know, it was important to get into education rather than cleaning showers. At my time in incarceration, it was important for me to focus on what I was going to do upon reentry and focus on education and be prepared.

And so that's the strong message that we, as a civil rights organization working across the country with other states, want to send. And also emphasize that here in California by supporting this bill. And so, I hope that you all consider this legislation. Vote for it in support. Happy to answer any questions that I can.

All right. Thank you very much for your presentation and your testimony, all three of you. Next, we'll hear from those in support of the bill. Name, organization and position, please.

... Greater Sacramento Urban League: Strong support.

Hello again. I'd like to read off the following organizations in addition to Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, All of Us or None chapters in Oakland, Riverside, Orange County, Los Angeles and San Diego. Courage, Legal Aid at Work, Youth Leadership Institute, Freedom for Youth, Prison from the Inside Out, Starting Over Strong, A new way of Life, Fire, Community Interventions, FICPFM, California Lawyers for the Arts, and Interfaith Movement for Human Integrity. We want to be clear that we're taking a support if amended position at this time.

We are working with the member to hopefully see some language that will just make sure that there's no loopholes and there's no ways for forced labor to continue. And so, as we continue to work on the language and hopefully get to a full support business position in the future. Thank you.

Hi, I'm Bernie Singh with All of Us or None and Legal Services for Prisoners with Children. I support if amended.

Hi. Daniela Dane, Legal Services for Prisoners for Children and All of Us or None; support if amended.

Hello. Jerome Dixon, formerly incarcerated, CEO of Changes; support if amended.

Hi, y'all. Abby Salim with Empowering Women Impacted by Incarceration, co-founder, and Restoring Hope California and strong support if amended.

Hi, Danny Gray, the Change Parallel Project, and we are your strong support if amended. Thank you.

Gretchen Burns Bergman, A New Path, Parents for Addiction Treatment and Healing, and Moms Unite to End the War on Drugs: in support.

Ed Little on behalf of Californians for Safety and Justice: in support.

Good morning. Ayo Lewis, on behalf of GRIP Training Institute: strongly support if amended.

Lesli Caldwell Houston, from the California Public Defenders Association, in support.

My name is Tramir Watson. I'm representing 10P: outstanding support to eliminate forced labor in jails and prison. Thank you.

Hi. Antoinette Ratcliffe with Initiate justice. Also willing to stand in strong support if amended.

Sherivan Aami with Initiate Justice Action also in strong support if amended.

Wonderful. Thank you all for your testimony and support. Next we'll hear to those who'd like to testify in opposition. Do we have anyone here in opposition to the Bill? I don't see any affirmative response. Does anyone otherwise want to make their position position known? In opposition. Going once, going twice, Seeing none. Questions or comments from the Committee? Yes, Mr. Lackey.

Yeah, I just respectfully disagree with the whole premise that associating accountability with slavery is inaccurate. I think it's unfair and I think to support this Bill would dismiss the recent expressed will of the people. Prop 6 in 2024 was defeated 53 to 46. So I'm in no way in a position to support this measure. Sorry.

Okay.

May I make a comment through the chair?

What I'll do is thank you for your comment. Mr. Lackey, my question is Assemblymember Wilson, any response to the comment?

Thank you. I just like, I mean, I think that the California Black Caucus, as well as several nationwide organizations, including those in California, would disagree with your assessment.

But you get to have that assessment in regard to your position around involuntary servitude in our prison system not being associated with slavery history, I think, would prove you wrong as well.

But I would like to note, as it relates to the ballot measure, which was Prop 6 on the ballot, that although you note that 53% of voters said no, I note that only 49% of those who actually participated said no. There was no clear majority in terms of passing this or not passing this.

1.4 million people who looked at the ballot was really unsure about it and didn't vote yes or no. We saw that in our conversations around the community that people were confused, especially around the language related to discipline. And at the same time, they were having conversations about Prop 36, which talked about accountability.

And that's why it was important to reintroduce this Bill, recognizing that there wasn't an overwhelming response of no, contrary to your. To your comments. And it was really important to make sure we educated the voters as relates to discipline and what it is meant to have, a voluntary work program.

And so that's why we're here on a path, a dual path, to not only change the Constitution, but also voluntarily as a state, create a program that is a voluntary program as it relates to work and ensure we have accountability and rehabilitation.

Thank you very much. Assemblymember Wilson, any other questions or comments from the Committee? All right. Seeing none. I'll just say that the chair is recommending an eye on this Bill as well. Assemblymember Wilson, anything you'd like to add for closing?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. To my comment. My colleague across the aisle for in his comments, I'm just urging my colleagues to ensure they stand on the right side of history today. This Bill has no formal opposition and I respectfully ask for your aye vote on AB475 noting this as it relates to history.

If there were 10 black people standing here today, 1.5 of them in their lifetime would probably go to prison. If there were 10 Latino people standing today, one of them in their lifetime would probably go to prison. To get one person who is white to go to prison, you'd have to have 50 of them standing here today.

This is about righting the wrongs of the past. This is about having a criminal justice system that is fair to everyone. And then once people get in, they're held accountable, they're rehabilitated and they're reintegrated into society. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there a motion? Second by Nguyen.

[Roll Call]

All right, so it will remain on call. We'll let you know the outcome. We have a few Members that need to come back and cast their vote. Sounds great. Thank you very much, everybody. All right, next up we have. I just saw. Is our speaker pro Tem in the house, Mr. Lowenthal. There he is.

All right, so we have Assemblymember Lowenthal. We'll start with item 14, if that's all right with you, sir. That is Assembly Bill 704 colleagues. He does have two items before us, but we'll start with item 14. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Mr. Chair and Members, I'm very pleased to present AB 704, to which I want to start by saying thank you to the Committee, for all the time and effort that they have put into this Bill.

AB 704 allows individuals who have been convicted of low level and misdemeanor crimes before the age of 26 to be eligible to have their records sealed and destroyed. Right now, convictions, except for vacated convictions, cannot be sealed. They can only be expunged.

If granted expungement through the court, a person's guilty plea is actually withdrawn, the case is dismissed, they're able to leave their encounter with the justice system without a conviction. In California before the digital age, an expungement in practice was as good as sealing.

However, now criminal history providers are able to access expunged records and make them easily available for the public to see, creating this dilemma where even though the individual has been forgiven by our judicial system, they have not been forgiven by suspicion society as a whole.

What this Bill does is it allows individuals who were convicted of eligible crimes when they were between the ages of 18 to 25 the ability to petition the courts for record sealing and destruction relief, if four years have passed since the person was arrested or completed any terms of incarceration, probation, mandatory supervision, post-release, community supervision, or or parole associated with the record, whichever was later, during which the person has not been convicted of a new offense.

Numerous studies show how transitional age youth are not yet fully developmentally mature. This means that they lack the capacity to fully understand the consequences of their actions. This includes factors like impulsivity, susceptibility to peer pressure, limited cognitive abilities to weigh risks and rewards compared to adults.

Thus, a more rehabilitative approach rather than purely punitive measures aligns with our understanding of youth brain development. These people should not be burdened for a lifetime of barriers to employment, to housing, to community engagement as a result of these factors.

An important note is that this Bill does not automatically trigger any petition or any record sealing and destruction. I want to say that twice this does not automatically trigger any petitioner record sealing and destruction. Rather, it allows the person the opportunity to petition the courts for the records to be sealed and destroyed.

A court that receives such a request is vested with the authority to grant this relief if they find the request to be in the interest of justice. It is the petitioner who has granted. Excuse me. It is the petitioner who has the burden of proof showing that this relief should be granted.

A criminal conviction carries with it a loss of civil rights Public benefits, employment opportunities, housing eligibility and the freedom to live and work without restriction. These sanctions and disqualifications cause long lasting effects to the individual, but also to the entire community.

Because when people are disenfranchised from work, from school, from family life, civic participation, the overall health of a community declines. The only way to truly protect against this disenfranchisement is to seal and destroy the records.

Before I introduce my witness I'm very proud to sit with today, I also want to point something out in my conversations with judges on this topic, which is the system we have now much better accounts for this gap in technology that enables this proliferation to take. And what do I mean by that?

Judges now use diversion in a way that they didn't have before. So before what would happen is, someone would be brought to court and there would be a conviction out of it. And so what we're talking about are these convictions that took place years ago when people were between the ages of 18 and 26.

That's not to say convictions don't happen today, but diversion is the way around this and people go through diversion in a court monitored program today don't have to deal with the issues around expungement and such. So you know, we have to clean up some of the things from the past.

And that's really what this Bill is about more than anything else. And with that I would like to introduce my witness, Mr. Ed Little, on behalf of Californians for Safety and Justice, here to testify in support of the Bill.

Good morning, Chair and Committee Members. My name is Ed Little and I am the Governor Affairs Manager with California for Safety and Justice and proud co-sponsor of AB 704 long after they've completed their sentence.

People with past convictions in California face thousands of prohibitions that hinder them from obtaining their basic needs such as jobs, housing, education, and many more. AB 704 would allow individuals who have been arrested, or convicted of low level crimes before the age of 26 to petition to have those records sealed and destroyed.

We know from brain science research that young adults in their 20s are still undergoing brain development and maturity with, which has led to impulsivity, risky decision making and an inability to fully grasp the consequences of their actions.

As such, our system must take a more rehabilitative approach, including allowing transitional age youth an opportunity for a clean slate after they have made mistakes that land them with a criminal record. By creating a pathway for record sealing and destruction, this Bill provides the opportunity for young people with pass low level records to truly fully move forward beyond the lifelong disenfranchisement that comes with a criminal record.

Just want to take a moment to address some of the opposition's remarks. AB 704 would not, in fact, pose any impediment to Brady compliance, nor would it pose any change from current practice. Currently, prior convictions that would expunge pursuant to 1203.4 cannot be used to impeach a witness in People v. Field (1995). Similarly, witnesses cannot be impeached with cases that have been diverted.

Therefore, with regard to Brady, this Bill changes nothing. Sealed records will be treated identically to expunged or diverted records. For these reasons, we ask for your aye vote on AB 704. Thank you.

Thank you for your presentation, Assemblymember Lowenthal. And thank you, sir, for your testimony. Next we'll hear from people in support. Name, organization, and position, please.

Natasha Minsker, Smart Justice California, in support.

Hi. Dylan Hoffman, on behalf of the California Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, in support.

Danica Rodarmel, on behalf of La Defensa in strong support.

Antoinette Ratcliffe, Initiate Justice, in strong support.

Sherman Azami, Initiate Justice Action, in strong support.

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

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

Matty Hyatt, California Civil Liberties Advocacy, in support.

James King, Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, in strong support.

Jim Lindberg, Friends Committee on Legislation of California, in support.

Arianna Montes, on behalf of the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, in support.

Gretchen Burns Bergman, Executive Director, A New PATH (Parents for Addiction Treatment and Healing and Moms United to End the War on Drugs, in strong support.

Fidel Chagolla with Starting Over Strong and Starting Over Inc. in support

Jeronimo Aguilar on behalf of Legal Services for Prisoners with Children in strong support. Thank you.

Daniella Dane, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, All of Us or None, in strong support.

Jaubrae Dixon, on behalf of Changes, in strong support.

Abby Salim, with Empowering Women Impacted by Incarceration and Restoring Hope in California, in strong support.

Danny Gray, the Change Parallel Project, in strong support.

Bernice Singh, with All of Us or None - Sacramento and Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, in support.

Good morning. Claire Simonich with the Vera Institute of Justice. Strong support. Thank you.

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

All right, thank you all very much for making your opinion known today to the Committee. Next we'll hear from those in opposition. Again, once you get situated and start talking, you'll have up to five minutes to address the Committee.

Good morning again, Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee, Robert Brown of the San Bernardino County District Attorney's Office, and on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association. I'm glad to hear the witness testify about the Brady issue because that is actually what causes us a great deal of consternation with this particular piece of legislation.

It's familiar to me because I am the Chair of our office's Brady Committee and I deal with these issues on a regular basis. And the problem with Brady is that it's not just Brady. There are actually three different sources of law that address our obligations to turn over potentially exculpatory information in the form of impeachment.

When it comes to our peace officer witnesses, it's Brady v. Maryland, which many people are familiar with. It is 1054 at Sequitur of the Penal Code. And it's also Rule 3.8 of the California Rules of Professional Conduct, all of which address the duty of prosecutors to turn over information.

And unfortunately, it is not only convictions that compel us to turn over certain information. It is also underlying conduct, because the courts have interpreted the impeachment of witnesses to include the conduct that is underlying particular convictions. And so a conviction itself is not necessarily the end of the concern.

And the destruction of those records in association with this particular type of legislation would cause us a great deal of difficulty in fulfilling our obligations under the statute and the Constitution.

This actually came to a head very recently in our office where a peace officer had been prosecuted by us for a domestic violence case, and he received diversion and he completed it, and he petitioned for a sealing of the record.

And we had to address whether or not we could still turn over those records in any cases in which he was testifying as a witness.

And we studied the law as it currently is, and we believe that the obviously the constitutional rights of the defendant overrule state statute, but we believe it also was necessary under the state statute and under the rules of professional conduct.

And so, the legislation would put us in a very uncomfortable situation, particularly if we as an office have personal knowledge of the underlying events in the case. And so for those reasons, the California District Attorneys Association and San Bernardino County District Attorney's Office must oppose this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you very much for your testimony, sir. Next we'll hear from those who'd also like to be heard in opposition. Name, organization and position, please.

Chair Members Max Perry, on behalf of the California Police Chiefs Association, aligning our comments with CDAA, also in regretful opposition. Thank you.

All right, thank you. That was the only person I saw. So next we'll go to questions and or comments from the Committee. Would anyone like to get us started? Assemblymember Lackey?

Yeah, certainly. I think there's some merit to what you're trying to accomplish here. But, I have to tell you that one of my biggest frustrations is the fact that and this is not necessarily your fault, but anytime legislation considers people 18 to 25 as children and treats them as children, I have objection to that.

And that's what this Bill would include. People that fall within that age parameter would be considered the same as children. And I object to that. So for that reason, not able to support this measure.

Thank you very much, Assemblymember Lackey. Would anyone else like to weigh in with a question or a comment? Okay, I guess I. I have a question. I suppose it'd be for our witness testifying in opposition.

First of all, sir, I appreciate you delineating that the requirement of the prosecutor to disclose exculpatory information does stem from all three sources. It. We often simplify it to just talking about Brady. But you're absolutely right. Now correct me if I'm wrong, not all arrests and convictions would necessarily fall into the category of exculpatory.

So I'll give like an obvious example. A trespass would arguably not fall into a conviction that would bear on the credibility of a witness. For example, am I mistaken?

In general, I'd say that's correct. It's kind of a complicated question to answer, because if someone is on probation for a crime that itself is disclosable because the theory is it could make the person beholden to the prosecutor who's putting on the case with the witness. It also depends somewhat on the facts of the case.

It may have some bearing in one case and not in others. A trespass is probably one that would be difficult to discern how that might be disclosable to impeach the witness. But I'm sure we have a lot of creative people that can think of such things. I know attorneys are very creative.

But you're correct in the general assessment is that, often the question is whether the underlying conduct--is that a moral turpitude and whether that can be used to impeach the witnesses credibility? And to those unfamiliar with the term, it means a readiness to do evil, which actually can be more sweeping than one might think.

It usually includes all theft offenses or deceit or things of that nature, but includes a lot of violent offenses as well. So your example, I think is probably correct. As an attorney, I'm loath to commit completely to it, but I think you're probably correct with that, I really appreciate that.

This is the most fun I've had all day. I love going back and forth on this stuff. Thank you for indulging me, sir. Assemblymember Lowenthal, one question for you, and then we'll see if there's anything else from the Committee.

The way I've read your Bill, the way I understand it, is that a person petitioning to have the record destroyed, there would be a hearing. There would be an opportunity to object.

So my question to you is, I, as the prudent prosecutor, if I think I don't want this assault conviction record destroyed or whatever it is, there would be an opportunity, as codified in the language you've introduced, for the prosecutor to stand up and say, your Honor, I don't think the record should be destroyed.

And one reason could be we think this record needs to be maintained to potentially meet a future discovery obligation under Brady.

That's precisely the situation. As a matter of fact, this cannot take place without a hearing, and nothing is automatic in this process whatsoever. The burden is actually on the person requesting the ceiling to show all the reasons why the court. It's in the interest of justice to do so.

And I really appreciate the comments of the opposition and the concerns out of the opposition. I want to paint a completely different picture as somebody that I spoke with very recently who is a graduate student, a PhD candidate at UC Irvine, who can't get housing, who has paid their debt to society completely.

And because the expungement process as we know it today, with the way the Internet operates today, is, I think, an injustice in and of itself. To the point of the opposition earlier, expungement is already there today. Expungement should handle the processes that this Bill seeks to achieve.

This is simply to close that information gap in the digital ether. That's all it is. And to my colleague from the high desert, I certainly appreciate your comments as well. Would it be okay, Mr. Chair, if I asked him a question?

If Mr. Lackey is comfortable with it, if he was.

You're free to ask me anything.

My question, my friend, is would you be supportive of this legislation if it was not solely restricted to those that are 18 to 26 years old when they committed the crime?

Are you supportive of the concept that expungement, in the way that it was intended to be implemented, is not able to be implemented because of the digital age right now?

One of my primary concerns in that age group, too, is because a lot of them pursue careers. Not a lot, but there are some that may pursue careers as peace officers. And they would not have to disclose information that I think would be relevant.

But they don't have to do that with any expungement right now. That expungement that they already have. This is not granting an expungement. With the expungement that they already have, they're already able by law to say the very things that you're talking about.

That's debatable.

All right, well, thank you both for very spirited discussion. I probably should get a hobby, but I find this all fascinating. Does anyone else have a question or comment from the Committee? Okay, seeing no one else, I'll make the recommendation. You can close Assemblymember Lowenthal. Chair does recommend deny.

I think that it was very important that we had this conversation today so that we understand what the Bill does, what it doesn't do, what is already existing law, and certainly encourage, should it become law, every prosecutor's office to be closely following the Bill and developing their internal policy policies for how to handle such petitions.

But for today, I am recommending an aye. And Assemblymember Lowenthal, I'll turn it over to you.

I appreciate the consideration. Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Okay, thank you. Now would be the time and place for a motion. Is there a motion? Okay. Motion by Nguyen. Second by Gonzalez. Let's call the roll.

On AB 704 by Assemblymember Lowenthal. The motion is due passed to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

All right, congratulations. That one's off to the Appropriations Committee, and lucky for us, you're not going anywhere quite yet, Assembly Member Lowenthal. Next up in the hopper is gonna be Item Number 21. This is going to be Assembly Bill 812, and again, that is Item 21, Assembly Bill 812.

You guys aren't sick of me yet, are you? Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. I'm now pleased to present AB 812, to which I will accept the committee assignments. Hello, Danica. Again, thank you all for working with my team and myself on this one.

Second look sentencing authorizes courts to revisit sentences of incarcerated people when recommended by certain law enforcement authorities. AB 812 will expand these opportunities for resentencing for those that are incarcerated, working out on the hand crews with firefighting teams. California prisons are overcrowded. Per CDCR's latest report, the department's institutions camps are at 119% capacity.

Further, the recidivism rate in California is at 41.9%, meaning that just under half of formerly incarcerated persons have a hard time reassimilating into society and refraining from reverting back to illegal activity.

For these reasons, it's incredibly important to both work to reduce the incarcerated population and to incentivize the enrollment in programs such as the Conservation Fire Camps that offer transferable skills and pathways to empowerment outside of incarceration. AB 812 will instruct CDCR to establish regulations around recommending incarcerated firefighters for resentencing.

It will also allow for incarcerated firefighters to petition the court to be considered for resentencing. Not only will this incentivize the enrollment in this critical program, but it can also reward these individuals for their vital role in the prevention of and response to California wildfires. Again, this bill does not automatically trigger any resentencing.

It simply allows for resentencing recommendations to be submitted to the courts, who then have the discretion as whether or not granting this relief is in the interest of justice. Again, this bill does not automatically trigger any resentencing. In order to participate in the Conservation Fire Camp Program, volunteers must first meet a number of eligibility requirements.

They must have minimum custody status, the lowest security classification based on good behavior in prison, the ability to follow rules, and the participation in rehabilitative programming. There's also a number of serious crimes that automatically disqualify a person from even being considered for the program.

So not only do these volunteers play heroic and often vital roles in protecting the people and property of California, which they did very recently in the fires in Los Angeles, but they have also proven that they can be trusted in these extremely critical positions. These are exactly the kinds of people who should be granted resentencing eligibility.

I'm pleased to be joined today by Andony Corleto of Vera Institute, and Danica Rodarmel--I want to make sure I did that right--Rodarmel, on behalf of Initiate Justice, who are here to testify in support of the bill.

Thank you for joining us. You both have five minutes together. Thank you.

Good day. Thank you, Chair and committee members, My name is Andony Corleto, program associate with the Vera Institute of Justice and formerly incarcerated firefighter. We have, Vera, been working to end mass incarceration and build safe, thriving communities for over 60 years. In order to serve in the Prison Firefighter Program, I sat before a different committee, a committee composed of wardens, associate wardens, captains, counselors, and sergeants.

They did a full review of my police record, court records, and prison file. They made sure I met low level custody requirements, had no disciplinary infractions, and met a mental health evaluation and thorough physical examination.

Once in the program, we'd be testing on our endurance and intelligence. We will study fire behavior, the topography of California terrains, and strategies on battling wildfires. We'll be taught on how to detect and deal with various dangers and life-threatening conditions.

We hiked in the hazardous terrains not accessible by trucks, bulldozers, and helicopters, in a place where the smoke strains your breathing and impairs your vision, where you will feel the fire test the limits of your protective gears against your skin and test the limits of your courage. We would push ourselves to the brink of exhaustion and then we would push further. Graduation from CAL FIRE is not a given.

It is something you must earn. Assembly Bill 812 is no guarantee at an early release from prison. It would simply give an honored fire member an opportunity to go before a judge and be considered for a fair chance of receiving their freedom.

If found suitable, our society would receive a competent return of citizen from a group with a long track record of service to California and reduced recidivism rates. And the Fire Camp will have a vacancy to transform another life. I respectfully request an aye vote. Thank you.

Danica Rodarmel, on behalf of Initiate Justice, proud co-sponsor of AB 812, primarily here to offer technical assistance and answer any questions, but I do want to make one quick comment with regards to the opposition's concerns about how the bill might impact victims and survivors, that you know, I understand that that is a real concern and I want to acknowledge that really nothing about the criminal legal process adequately supports survivors.

And the more that we invest in punishment and incarceration, the less resources we have to reinvest in survivor support. So AB 812 offers the ability to reduce the sentences of people who have proven themselves to be safe to return back to their communities and be productive members of society and allows us to reduce some of those costs and really put them towards the kinds of things that really might adequately support victim survivors. And we request your support. Thank you.

Thank you for that. Anyone else in support, please step up. Your name, organization.

Antoinette Ratcliffe, Initiate Justice, proud co-sponsors in strong support.

Shervin Aazami, Initiate Justice Action, in strong support.

Ed Little, on behalf of Californians for Safety and Justice, in strong support.

Claire Simonich, Vera Institute of Justice, in strong support.

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

Raj Jayadev, Silicon Valley De-Bug, in support.

Jamilah Rosales-Webb, Silicon Valley De-Bug, in strong support.

Adrianna Griffith, also with Initiate Justice, in strong support.

In strong support. Thank you.

I'm Bernice Singh with All of Us or None and Legal Services for Prisoners with Children. I support.

Jeronimo Aguliar, on behalf of Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, in strong support. Thank you.

Jaubrae Dixon, formerly incarcerated CEO of C.H.A.N.G.E.S, in strong support.

Abby Salim with Empowering Women Impacted by Incarceration, Restoring Hope in California, and Jesse's Place Organization, in strong support.

Dani Gray, the Change Parallel Project, in strong support.

Joanne Scheer, Felony Murder Elimination Project, in strong support.

Matty Hyatt, California Civil Liberties Advocacy, in strong support.

Glenn Backes for Sister Warriors Freedom Coalition and Prosecutors Alliance Action, in support.

Gretchen Burns Bergman, on behalf of A New PATH, Parents for Addiction Treatment and Healing, and Moms Unite, End the War on Drugs, in support.

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

Ariana Montez, on behalf of the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, in support.

Jim Lindburg, Friends Committee on Legislation in California, in strong support.

Ayo Lewis, GRIP Training Institute, strong support.

Claudia Ceseña from the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, in strong support.

Natasha Minsker, Smart Justice California, in strong support.

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

Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else in support? Okay. Anyone in opposition, please come up to the table.

Good morning, and Mr. Chair, Mr. Vice Chair, and members of the committee. Robert Brown of the San Bernardino County District Attorneys Association--excuse me--San Bernardino County District Attorney's Office and the California District Attorneys Association. It seems like this is a lonely position being in opposition to this, this particular bill. However, we are opposed.

The academic reason that the California District Attorneys Association has opposed this bill is because that while the firefighters play a very vital role, as we've all seen in our society, they're not necessarily focused on the rehabilitation of those who are incarcerated.

And they can certainly support anyone who is seeking resentencing under current law, but giving them the power to petition independently seems like a bit of a stretch beyond their expertise. I do have another personal story from our office that impacts my view on this somewhat. It is not directly in line with the provisions of this bill.

It is, however, comes from the vacatur area where we had a firefighter who was--he didn't start as a firefighter. He was initially prosecuted by our office for a crime. He petitioned for a vacatur after he had done his sentence in prison and he had served in Fire Camp, and he was granted that vacatur.

And unfortunately, the court did not give us notice of when that was going to happen, which appears to be outside of what the law calls for, but it nevertheless occurred, and so we found out after the fact. Because that impact on his conviction occurred, his new employer, which was a firefighting division of a county, did not know about his past and he is currently being prosecuted. I don't think the case is done in Solano County for starting fires while he was working as a firefighter.

And had his past been part of their employment consideration, then it certainly may have given them a different point of view. Now, I understand that this bill is not exactly the same thing. I understand this is resentencing. Nevertheless, I think anything that changes the underlying nature of a conviction under these circumstances could have an impact that may not be foreseen. Therefore, we oppose this bill. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much for your testimony. Next, we'll hear from others in opposition. Come forward. Name, organization, and position.

Yeah. Mr. Chairman of members, Carl London, on behalf of Crime Victims United. We're sorry for our late letter of opposition to this bill, but we've looked at it and we also support the position taken by the District Attorney's Association in opposition to this bill. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else? Okay. Next we will go to committee questions or comments. Would anyone like to get us started? Assembly Member Sharp-Collins.

I would like to thank Assembly Member Lowenthal for bringing forth this bill. I truly appreciate this bill. Thank you so much for sharing your overall story as well. I want to point out and restate that this is not a get-out-of-jail-free bill. It's not. This is not a get-out-of-jail-free card at all.

This is something that I believe that it's earned and I believe that Fire Camp is a rehabilitation assessment tool. And then for the simple fact that these folks are being trusted to put their lives on the line as well to be out there to serve our community, I think that that is a true testament to reform.

So this bill to me is fair, it is equitable, and I do stand here or sit here actually in strong support of this bill. Once again, I do appreciate you bringing this forward because I can tell you now, their efforts for the Eaton Fire and Palisades and all of that goes recognized and they deserve the opportunity to be able to sit before any judge or any committee and to be heard so that way their voices can be overall heard and people can know that they have changed. So thank you so much for bringing this forward.

Thank you, Assembly Member. Would anyone else like to go? Assembly Member Lackey.

Yeah, I just, as I sit here and think through this, this is, it's a difficult decision for me to make because especially when I hear the Crime Victims United is opposed, because here's the sensitivity, and your--one of your witnesses addressed this.

I have a very strong commitment to victims because I feel like our system often overlooks them, and so--but what we're considering here is basically the power to petition, and it opens the door to granting the power to petition, which I think is something that scares me a little bit because I see how abuses work incrementally, incrementally, incrementally, and pretty soon everyone's going to have the power to petition a reassessment of their sentence, and I worry about that because that's even a greater affront to victims.

So--but I do believe that your proposal has merit and I do believe that the people who make the sacrifice to go fight a fire, that's a pretty big sacrifice, and not everybody qualifies. So I think it's a pretty small number that we're talking about here, and so I'm in a dilemma, to be honest with you. I don't know. I'm really wrestling with this one and I just wanted to think out loud. So thank you.

And thank you for sharing your thoughts, Assembly Member Lackey. Anyone else have a question or a comment carried away into the conversation? All right. Assembly Member Lowenthal, my only question is, I wanted to really sort of identify the only issue that gave me heartburn with the bill.

This was just my perspective, although I should mention, colleagues, I am recommending an aye. So incarcerated firefighters, as listed in Subsection E, the last provision that you're adding to the code, now, an incarcerated firefighter petitioning for recall and resentencing would be guaranteed a hearing. As I understand it, anyone else would not necessarily be guaranteed a hearing.

They could receive a hearing from the court. I was just wondering if you could speak to why that discrepancy. My position is I think everyone should get a hearing, but I don't have any objection to your bill.

Let me make sure I understand your question correctly. As I understand it right now, Mr. Chair, if CDCR writes a letter to the court, that effectively guarantees a hearing for somebody. So if there's somebody who has--an incarcerated individual is showing exemplary behavior and reform, CDCR, out of its own volition, can appeal to the courts and that person can receive a hearing. That does not happen right now out of the Fire Camps.

And so those individuals that are actually out there, and as my colleague from the high desert stated so eloquently, the courage and the valor that they've displayed, it's unfortunate that they're not in an environment where the authority has the exact same ability to write a letter and receive that automatically. This simply puts it in the same category, in that same category, and I don't know, Danica, if you'd like to chime in on that one as well? If that's okay, Mr. Chair, for her to answer this question.

Under current law--yeah. Only if CDCR or another law enforcement entity refers somebody back in to court is the court actually required to hear that petition. This bill wouldn't change that. If a defendant was to petition the court directly under this bill, it also wouldn't require the court to hear that petition. Yeah. So only still if it's referred by CDCR or a district attorney.

Thank you. I guess I'm identifying maybe an issue for another day, but with that said, I am satisfied. Does my comment or question beg any further comments or question from the committee? Oh, Vice Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I know, just working in courts, bailiff, all that stuff, I know people and I know the author and I had already spoke about this, that people are allowed to, in the interest of justice, maybe get their cases dismissed, and I understand we're making a new avenue for that.

We just did one earlier for judges under 422, so I get that as well and it'd be only fair to make sure that we take care of both sides, but as far as the Fire Camp goes--and, and sir, by the way, thank you for your courage and stepping up like that. I know we also just talked about inmate workers stepping up as well, and so I think yours is much different, higher level there--as far as the workers go, is there, is there a term that they can be in? I mean, is there--I know, I know he was in it, but how many people would normally qualify for this program, I guess, is more what I'd push for?

Assembly Member, I don't have an exact number for you. I could certainly try to get that information for you, but certainly not by the time you're going to vote on this right now.

Well, going back to the point that my colleague made, as far as the victims, and obviously, we care a lot about the victims--I think all of us do here on this panel here in this committee--but I also just want to, want to show that, you know, this is going to be a small amount and also making sure that restitution is still taken care of because as we pointed out earlier, also, we're victimizing the victims again on doing that. So it's just--I trust you as the author, as a person, as an Assemblyman, just expressing my concerns.

Assembly Member, I really appreciate your candor and your openness, and I respect, you know, immensely your experience, as I do yours, and certainly am supportive of our district attorneys and their points of view. And I applaud Crime Victims United for weighing in on this challenging debate.

Look, everybody knows that while these aren't actual firefighters and trained to be firefighters, that these are courageous individuals. Everybody knows that they're in the back part of their sentence--you have to be in the last eight years of your sentence and most are much far further beyond that--that you have to have the recommendation. Not everybody can join these fire crews. These are the best and the brightest, the most rehabilitative that are trusted to be out there.

And as was stated earlier, there are health risks associated with this. Let's think about the recent Los Angeles fires, when there could not be any airborne support, when there was no ability to have planes, helicopters, and so forth. It was the crews out there that were digging in the midst of 60 to 100-mile-per hour winds to try and stop those fires. The question is, is should they have the ability to go before a judge? I think that that's fair. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

All right. Anything else, Vice Chair? Okay. Oh, yes. Assembly Member Gonzalez.

I just wanted to thank the author and thank you for sharing your testimony. I stepped outside, but it did--was able to hear it. Look, I want to thank you for bringing this forward. We are the party of second chances, and having been out there and visiting these individuals, not one of them complained once. They were out there doing the work, and, you know, for what they've done in the past, you know, I believe history bends towards justice, and that's what we're, we're bringing today. I just want to thank and commend the author and for you for sharing your story on that and thank you again for your time.

Any other questions or comments? Okay. Chair is recommending an aye. Assembly Member Lowenthal, anything you'd like to add for closing?

Just appreciate the dialogue, very respectful, and where everybody's coming from, I think we all ultimately want the same thing. It's how to get there, and respectfully ask for your aye vote today.

Well said. Is there a motion? Second? Anyone? All right, motion by Sharp-Collins. Second by Gonzalez. Let's call the roll.

On AB 812 by Assembly Member Lowenthal, the motion is do pass as amended to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call].

All right, congratulations. That's off to Appropriations. And I heard it. Assembly Member Lackey gave you an aye. It was tough, but you got there. He's a tough sell. You got a--good job, Assembly Member Lowenthal. Okay, we're chugging right along. Next, we have Assembly Member Ortega. We have two items with Assembly Member Ortega.

If it's all right with you, ma'am, I would recommend we start with Item 13. This would be Assembly Bill 701. We'll do that first, and you'll have five minutes whenever you're ready to go.

Thank you. I also heard the barely aye. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members, for the opportunity to present AB 701 today. The United Nations Nelson Mandela Rules recommend that segregated confinement beyond 15 days be considered a form of torture. Segregated confinement is not just about human rights. It also bears a staggering financial burden.

The California Research Bureau estimates that restricted housing costs the state around 410 million per year. Simply put, segregated confinement is an ineffective practice, draining millions of taxpayer dollars, resources that could otherwise be directed towards rehabilitating and reintegrating individuals into our communities.

With no uniform statewide data collecting effort, we cannot accurately measure the scope or impacts of segregated confinement. Nor can we ensure accountability for regulations designated to mitigate its harms. AB 701 addresses a critical gap by maintaining comprehensive study to track every instance of segregated confinement and CDCR facilities, private detention centers, and local jails.

This data will conclude the frequency, rationale, conditions, and after effects of segregated confinement. Members, this issue is also a personal one. Last year in Committee, Assemblymember Holden had a similar Bill, in which my husband was one of the people here giving testimony, having served time in a federal state prison, was in solitary confinement for several months, if not years, and talked about the impact that this had on his mental health many years after the fact. He was last released when he was 23 years old.

Today, is a CEO of a company and still deals with the impacts that solitary confinement had on his mental health and physical health. It is why I brought this Bill forward, to allow us the opportunity to study this more and have the data we need to be able to move a future Bill.

With that, I have two witnesses testifying in support. Eric Harris and Hamid Panah.

Good Morning, Chair and Members. My name is Eric Harris. I'm with Disability Rights California. AB701 is a crucial Bill that increases transparency in California when we look at segregated confinement. This is a racial justice issue and a disability justice issue, as these populations are disproportionately represented in these settings.

Segregated confinement is considered torture by the United Nations and a growing body of legal and medical experts. People with disabilities, especially mental health disabilities, are particularly at risk for long-term damage from any amount of time in segregated confinement.

This Bill will require the Department of Justice and California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to conduct a one time comprehensive study on the use of segregated confinement in all detention facilities in California.

The study will include specified data about each instance of segregated confinement during the first nine months of the year 2026, including, among other data, the time and date segregated confinement began and ended, the facility in which it occurred, and the stated basis for the segregated confinement.

The Bill will require the Department of Justice to provide monthly data to the Legislature and a final report to the Legislature and the Governor by November 1, 2026. A key element of the Bill is that it also clearly defines segregated confinement, which is not done in any other part of the code.

AB 701 moves California in the right direction and is necessary if we ever want to make significant change to how we use segregated confinement in the state. We urge your aye vote today on AB 701.

I'm here just to answer questions. No testimony.

All right. Well, thank you for your presentation and thank you for your testimony. Thank you for being here today. Next, we'll hear from others wanting to voice support. You know the drill.

Jim Lindberg, Friends Committee on Legislation of California. In support.

Raj Jayadev of Silicon Valley De-Bug. In strong support.

Leslie Caldwell Houston, California Public Defenders Association. In support.

Jeronimo Aguilar, on behalf of Legal Services for Prisoners with Children. In strong support. Thank you.

Joanne Scheer, Felony Murder Elimination Project. In strong support.

Ariana Montez, on behalf of the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice. In support.

Abby Salim, with Empowering Women Impacted by Incarceration, Restoring Hope California, and Jesse's Place Organization. In strong support.

Gretchen Burns Bergman. A New Path (Parents for Addiction Treatment and Healing) and Moms United to End the War on Drugs. In strong support.

Daniella Dane, Legal Services for Prisoners of Children. All of Us or None. In strong support.

Susan Bustamante, part of the California Coalition Women Prisoners and Drop LWOP. In strong support.

Danny Gray, the Change Parallel Project. In strong support.

My name is Tramir Watson. I support Disability Rights of California for Bill 701. Please vote yes. Thank you.