Assembly Standing Committee on Public Safety

Good afternoon, everyone. I'd like to call the Assembly Public Safety Committee to order, and we'll begin today with a couple housekeeping items. First, as a reminder, there are some General rules of conduct before we start our hearings today.

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 hearings, I want to ensure that everyone understands that the Assembly has rules to ensure we maintain order and run an efficient and fair hearing.

The Committee will not permit conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of today's legislative proceedings. And lastly, please be aware that violations of these rules may subject you to removal and or other enforcement actions. Before we proceed, I'd like to just mention that we do have our off calendar items today.

Item number four, Assembly Bill 710 by Irwin, has been pulled by the author. And item number eight, this is Assembly Bill 848 by Assemblymember Soria, has also been pulled by the author. We're still waiting to establish a full quorum, but we can proceed as a Subcommitee for today.

So we will dispense with the roll call and the consent calendar. Later. Disregard. We just have the quorum. Thank you all so much for showing up with enough Members to establish quorum. Madam Secretary, please call the roll..

[Roll Call]

Okay, with a quorum present, we'll next move to adoption of today's proposed consent calendar. We have six items on today's consent calendar. Very nice job to Committee staff for making that happen. We'll read through it once and then, Madam Secretary, we'll see if there's a motion and we'll do the roll.

The six items include item number one, Assembly Bill 276 by Assembly Member Bennett, labeled or titled background checks. We have item number five, Assembly Bill 788 by Assembly Member Quirk Silva entitled prisons facilities for female offenders. We have item number six, Assembly Bill 802 by Assembly Member Sharp Collins entitled juvenile justice Commission hunger survey.

We have item number 7, Assembly Bill 824 by Assembly Member Stefani, entitled protective orders, firearms and ammunition. We have item number nine, Assembly Bill 952 by Assemblymember Elhawari entitled youth offender program, Camp pilot program. And lastly, we have item number 10, Assembly Bill 1013 by Assemblymember Garcia entitled peace officer training, Behavioral health. Is there a motion? Do we have a second? All right, I have motion by Harbidian, second by Gonzalez. And a third by Ramos.

[Roll Call]

Okay, consent calendar has been adopted. Great work, everybody. We are hearing today's measure in sign in order with standing Committee Members, including myself, presenting their bills towards or my case probably at the end of the hearing. We appreciate everyone's patience in advance.

As a reminder, authors will have five minutes to present and main witnesses will have a combined time of 5 minutes per side as that is the Committee standing practice. First up, we have Assembly Member Stefani presenting Assembly Bill 458. This is item number three. Assembly Member Stephanie. Once you're seated, you are welcome to begin and you'll have up to five minutes to present.

Thank you so much. Good afternoon. I would like to begin by thanking the chair and his staff for their work on the bill. And for the record, I will be accepting the Committee amendment, so thank you very much. Colleagues.

Every day, 125 people in the United States are killed with guns, and more than 200 are shot and wounded. Gun violence is now the leading cause of death for children and teens in our country. It is incumbent upon all of us to pursue all appropriate measures to bring these numbers down and to keep our communities safe.

In alignment with those goals, I present to you AB485, the firearm procurement act, which would ensure that when our state law enforcement agencies are buying weapons and ammunition from firearm dealers, that there are measures in place to make certain we are not buying them from irresponsible vendors.

Every year, the State of California spends millions of taxpayer dollars to procure firearms, ammunition and firearm accessories for various state law enforcement agencies and departments. However, the state does not require law enforcement agencies to vet firearm vendors or even ensure that they comply with local, state and federal laws meant to protect the public.

In the absence of a vetting system, the state has purchased firearms, ammunition and accessories from irresponsible vendors who have failed to perform background checks, prevent straw purchases, or whose guns have ended up in numerous crime scenes.

Dealers with these violations impede law enforcement investigations and contribute to the gun trafficking and gun trafficking and crime that fuel America's gun violence epidemic.

In a nationwide report conducted by the Brady Campaign that evaluated firearm sales to both state and local law enforcement agencies, one particular dealer was found to have had multiple dangerous violations, including failing on multiple occasions to submit sales reports, which is a critical tool used by the ATF to investigate illegal gun trafficking and straw purchases, selling a gun to customers who indicated that they were not the actual buyer, thus a straw purchaser and failing on multiple occasions to properly follow procedures to certify that customers were not prohibited from owning guns.

If law enforcement agencies had inquired about the ATF inspection history for this dealer, they would have learned that ATF officials had found violations of federal firearms laws more than once warranting what's called a warning conference, the most severe administrative action that the ATF can take before revoking a dealer's license.

While this example of non compliance may be the exception amongst firearm dealers, there is no reason that we shouldn't be using our procurement processes to check for this type of negligence when awarding lucrative contracts with state agencies, particularly those charged with protecting public safety.

This Bill will ensure that state agencies and departments that make these purchases have the information necessary to assess whether potential vendors are in compliance with existing laws intended to reduce the likelihood of trafficking, gun crime and violence.

It also ensures that the state has a mechanism to reject bids or cancel contracts by dealers with dangerous violations of state and federal laws. Members this Bill is not about infringing on any Second Amendment rights, but rather it ensures responsibility with taxpayer funds.

While I was on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, I worked with law enforcement agencies, especially our San Francisco Police Department, to enact this same type of law for the city and County of San Francisco.

And together we made sure that taxpayer dollars are not spent on law are not are spent on law abiding firearm dealers who who don't endanger public safety. I'm very grateful to be joined today by Rebecca Marcus from the Brady Campaign and Jonathan Feldman from the California Police Chiefs Association to speak in support of the Bill.

Good afternoon Members. My name is Rebecca Marcus and I'm here on behalf of Brady testifying in strong support of AB458. Taxpayer funds are used to purchase more firearms than any other purchaser in America. These tax dollars are spent by local, state and federal law enforcement agencies to to purchase or procure service firearms, ammunition and accessories.

While these items are procured with the intent to promote public safety without proper vetting, many purchases are made from firearm dealers who have violated firearm laws and regulations meant to protect the public.

In our 2023 report, the gun Violence Prevention Organization Brady found that at least 90 California law enforcement agencies across the state had contracted with gun dealers that had been cited by violating federal laws, sometimes repeatedly. This means that taxpayer money has been supporting vendors that engage in dangerous or even illegal business practices.

Assembly Bill 458 will allow this to happen. Not happen. Sorry. By implementing a process that allows state agencies to conduct proper due diligence and vetting of firearm vendors and to enable these agencies to have all relevant information when determining where to spend these tax dollars.

This will work to ensure that firearms, ammunition and accessories are acquired from responsible sellers. This policy will prevent the misuse of taxpayer funds and will incentivize safe business practices, ultimately reducing gun trafficking and saving lives. Thank you. And I urge your support of this common sense Bill.

Good afternoon, Chair Members. Jonathan Feldman with the California Police Chiefs Association. We believe AB458 is intended to meet the same type of goals that the California Police Chiefs Association shares in terms terms of benefiting public safety on behalf of the chiefs who respect and support the laws to allow citizens to purchase legal firearms.

They also expect firearm dealers to take extreme precautions and care in the sale of these deadly weapons. Mismanaged inventory, inadequate security measures and illegal sales to prohibited persons are all errors that can have fatal consequences.

Providing the specified information required in AB458 helps enable state to ascertain which dealers are operating with adequate care and award the contracts accordingly. And to the extent again that AB458 incentivizes more dealers to enhance the necessary protections and safeguards of firearms and ammunition. We do believe this will have an overall public or positive impact on public safety.

And for that reason, we do respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you, Assemblymember Stephanie, for your presentation. Thank you to both of our witnesses in support. Support. Next we'll hear from other Members of the public who'd like to voice their support for the Bill. At this time. Please line up and state your name, your organization and position, please.

Clifton Wilson, on behalf of the City and County of San Francisco Board of Supervisors in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. Members. Beverly Yu on behalf of every town for gun safety and support. Support. Thank you.

Mary Lou Rotto, on, excuse me, Yolo County Moms Demand Action volunteer. Former police officer in support. Julie Chapman, volunteer with Moms Demand Action. In support.

Kimberly Manfredi. I'm a volunteer from Roseville with Moms Demand Action and support.

Zero, sorry.

Mary Duplaw, volunteer for Moms Demand Action. Gun violence survivor in support.

Thank you all very much for taking the time to have your voices heard today by the Committee. Next we'll go to any witnesses testifying in opposition to the Bill. Do we have anyone here? Okay. We do, Sir. Once you come up and get situated and start speaking, you'll have up to five minutes to present to the Committee.

Committee?

All right. Sing on. All right. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Thank you for having me. My name's Adam Wilson. I'm the legislative liaison for Gun Owners of California. Speaking today in opposition of AB458, which seeks to impose additional bureaucratic requirements on firearms vendors when dealing with state agencies.

This bill forces legal vendors to submit five years worth of trace data, compliance reports, theft records. Meanwhile, criminals keep getting guns off the street with zero paperwork required. I'd like to know, which other state industries does the state scrutinize the same way they do firearms vendors.

Such as, if the state were to enter into a contract with a car dealer, do they require trace data for DUI drivers? AB 458 allows state agencies to deny contracts based on adhering to undefined public safety values.

This deliberately vague term translates to, we don't like the way you do business, so we're not going to give you a contract. It's not about compliance, it's about political gatekeeping. The scoring system that this Bill aims to develop is eerily reminiscent of the social credit score system employed in Communist China, where subjective government approval dictates.

Dictates business success or failure. For these reasons, I respectfully ask for a no vote.

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

David Bollog from the 40th Assembly District in opposition. Thank you.

Okay, I believe that completes our testimony. Thank you, sir, for having your voice heard today in our state's capital. Are there any questions or comments? Comments from Members of the Committee? zero, yes, Assemblymember Harbedian.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd just like to thank the author for bringing this Bill. And I think that the state should be doing everything that it can to make sure that more guns are not illicitly being procured on the street.

And one way of doing that is using our procurement power to make sure that anyone that the state is purchasing guns from is actually following the law. I think this is very common sense. I appreciate your hard work on it and I'd like to move the Bill.

Great. We have a motion. Is there a second? Okay, we have a motion and a second. We'll dispense with any other questions or comments before we take the vote. Vice Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. For the author, the opposition had some. Had some concerns in regards to the values, the cooperating, the investigating. Did you have a response to that?

Those were dealt with in the amendments from the Committee and I accepted those amendments in terms of the public safety values that they disagreed with. And my understanding was those were addressed in the Committee amendments, and I was happy to accept those.

Awesome. Thank you.

All right, anyone else? All right, I'll give the Chair's recommendation and then you'll have the last word. Assemblymember Stephanie. I want to follow up on the Vice Vice Chair's point. When I first read the language of the Bill, I had a similar concern about the ambiguity of California's values related to public safety.

I think that what we've come up with, striking that language and looking at the new language, which is on page three of four of the mock up, I think it strikes the right balance. It provides a little bit more clarity to the issue.

And like my colleague to my right, I applaud Assemblymember Stephanie for your collaborative approach in this, and happy to recommend an aye to the Committee. Assemblymember Stephanie will give you the final word.

Thank you. Just one last thing to say. Vendors that fail to follow our laws should not be allowed to profit from California taxpayer funds. And I respectfully ask for your. I vote.

Thank you. We have a motion and a second.

[Roll call]

All right, you're on call. We'll let you know how it turns out. Thank you all very much. That brings us to Assemblymember Wilson, who will be presenting item number two. This is Assembly Bill 394. Assemblymember Wilson, whenever you begin, you'll have five minutes, and then your witnesses will have five minutes as well.

Sounds good. Thank you. Excuse me. Good to see you. I love it. Good.

All right. Thank you. Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee, I'm pleased to present AB 394, a bill focused on protecting frontline transit workers and the riders they serve. I very much appreciate the efforts you, Mr. Chair, and your staff have done to work with me to find a pathway forward.

As you are aware, California transit workers are essential personnel who help millions of people reach their destination safely every single day. Unfortunately, they and our system riders are increasingly targeted by assault, stalking and harassment while simply doing their jobs and riding the systems.

This rise in violence not only endangers the safety of our transit workforce and our riders, but also undermines public confidence, disrupts service, and increases operating costs for transit agencies statewide. Now, AB 394 takes several key steps to address this.

First, it clarifies that existing enhanced penalties for battery cover all transit employees, not just the operators, think transit ambassadors, ticket agents, mechanics and more.

Second, it clarifies that existing law allowing employers and labor representatives to petition for temporary restraining orders, also known as TROs, on behalf of employees who face harassment, violence or credible threats while on the job, apply specifically within the public transit context. Finally, AB 394 ensures that existing TROs apply systemwide across all vehicles, stations and facilities.

This is to fully protect workers and prevent repeat offenses. Public transit is both a shared and functional space. It is a privilege, not a right. If someone endangers others, they should not have access to the system. I'd now like to invite my two witnesses to speak.

We have with us today Bill Churchill from County Connection and Crystal McGee, President of ATU Local 256 in Sacramento.

Good afternoon. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. My name is Crystal McGee Lee. I am ATU Local 256 President/Business Agent. I'm also the first African American LGBTQ women of color in Sacramento Regional Transit. Our ATU established in 1902 here. I am on leave of absence and I've been a bus driver for 23 years.

The ATU is proud to sponsor AB 394 because it comprehensively addresses the alarming rise in violence against bus operators and transit workers such as myself. And I am very encouraged that Sacramento Regional Transit is also pushing for AB 394. This isn't just hypothetical for us.

Violence in transit is real and my members and other transit workers experience it on an everyday basis. Just a few weeks ago, one of our members was assaulted at the job by a passenger and asked just to put the bike rack slowly down. This is the actual umbrella that this young man had pointed at my Vice President.

He currently is not here because he didn't know that we were gonna have this. He's on a much needed vacation. Six inches from his face. Luckily, a supervisor was standing by and was able to intervene. After the police came and were called, my Vice President decided to press charges.

While we still wait for the police report, that same passenger who assaulted him is back on that bus that very next day. This is unacceptable for our members' safety and safety for our passengers. What did the passengers sitting there wonder, how did they say what is happening with the bus driver is what can happen to me?

The impact of going around the corner and meeting your assailant is mentally challenging. I'm sure you're expressing finding that today as members now the community are coming against us. ATU Local 256 is lucky to have not had a serious encounter.

I know you heard about in October, the LA Metro rider who was murdered and stabbed during a bus hijacking. AB 394 is exactly what we need today and I implore you for the reasons that ATU is proud to co-sponsor AB 394, we urge you and please, please, please respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to be here and share our thoughts. Again my name is Bill Churchill. I'm the general manager of County Connection, a medium sized transit operator serving 10 cities in Central Contra Costa County.

You know, as a general rule, our operators and supervisors do a fantastic job of mitigating conflicts, disruptions with and between our riding public. However, there is an extremely small group of individuals that are violent, not just with our employees, but with their fellow riders as well.

And that requires just a little bit more intervention to ensure the safety of our system. Under current state law, Civil Code 527.8, employers may seek a temporary restraining order or TRO on behalf of their employees. Over the past five years, County Connection has sought and received TROs against seven individuals for repeated violent behavior while riding our system.

This equates to 1/100th of a percent of our riding public, but it represents over 80% of the serious disruptions to our service and 99% of those disruptions resulting from violent action. When violent incidents occur on our buses, the operator immediately parks the bus and calls for support, transit supervisors and police are dispatched.

This results in students late for school, workers not getting to their jobs on time, and people actually missing medical appointments. And you know, we generally think of those 15 to 30 individuals on that bus being the only ones impacted, but it's really much larger than that.

Our buses are all interconnected with time transfers with each other and with BART trains, Amtrak trains and ACE trains. These disruptions create a ripple effect impacting passengers on other buses and trains that may have needed to connect with the bus that is now not moving.

Obtaining TROs against a few individuals has had a profound impact in protecting our employees and passengers. It's important to recognize TROs are temporary and the length in time that they are in place is commensurate with the danger an individual poses as determined by a court.

Our many years of experience has demonstrated that individuals who have had TROs in the past, but are now allowed back on our buses no longer engage in the same violent behavior. In fact, County Connection has only had to seek an extension for one individual--

Sir, you're at about time. I'll give you 30 seconds to wrap up.

Thank you. A transit agency's ability to seek TROs against individuals engaging in violent behavior is an absolutely imperative tool for protecting our employees, the riding public, and the fundamental reliability of our transit systems. As such, we are pleased to join our partners in labor in supporting AB 394 and respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Okay, we have a motion and a second. All right, we'll hold that for now. Thank you for the presentation and both of you for your testimony. Next we'll hear from other members of the public. Name, organization and position, please.

Mr. Chairman, Chris McKealey on behalf of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, in support. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Matt Robinson on behalf of the California Transit Association. We are one of the co-sponsors. Very quickly, thank you to you, sir, and your staff for working with us to get us to this place.

Mr. Chair and Members, Matt Broad here on behalf of the Teamsters and ATU, proud co-sponsors of this bill. Thank you for all your hard work.

Hello. Carlos Lopez with the California School Employees Association, in support.

Mr. Chair and Members. Michael Pimentel here on behalf of the Monterey Salinas Transit Agency, San Francisco Bay Area Water Emergency Transportation Authorities, San Mateo County Transit District, Santa Cruz Metro and SunLine Transit Agency, all in support. Thank you.

Mr. Chair, Members. Matt Roman here on behalf of Union Pacific Railroad, here in support of the measure.

Hello. McKinley Thompson-Morley on behalf of SBCTA and their transit partner Omnitrans, in support. Thank you.

Charles Watson on behalf of BART, the Bay Rapid Transit District, in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Moira Topp on behalf of the Orange County Transportation Authority, in support.

Chair, Members. Jonathan Feldman on behalf of the California Police Chiefs Association, in support.

Stephanie Jimenez on behalf of Bay Area Council, in support.

Mr. Chair, Member. Sara Flocks, California Federation of Labor Unions, in support.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair Members. Nina Salerno, Modoc County District Attorney, on behalf of California District Attorneys Association, in support.

Beverly Yu on behalf of AAA Mountain West Group, in support. Thank you.

Mark Vukcevich on behalf of Streets For All, in support.

Mr. Chair, Members. Louie Costa with the State Safety and Legislative Board of SMART Transportation Division, in support.

Paul Hewitt, bus operator, city of Santa Monica, Big Blue Bus, in support.

Meghann Adams, President of Smart 1741, representing school bus drivers in San Francisco, in support.

Good afternoon, Chairman. My name is Angela Watson and I am Vice President of Smart 1741 representing San Francisco school bus drivers and all school bus drivers.

Jimmy Paquette, Smart T-D, in support.

Scott Brent, SMART Local 1201, Stockton, California, in support. Thank you.

Robert peck, SMART Local 1570, supportive. Roseville. Thank you.

David Bollog, public transportation user, in support. Thank you.

Ryan Sherman with the Riverside Sheriff Association and the other peace officer groups listed in the analysis, in support. Thank you.

All right, thank you all very much for your testimony. Next, we'll move to witnesses in opposition to the bill. Do we have anyone here? We do. So once you get settled, you'll have up to five minutes.

I will not take anything close to five minutes. Lesli Caldwell Houston for the California Public Defenders Association. First, I want to thank my representative, Assemblywoman Wilson, for working with us on the amendments and working with the committee on the amendments. We are in a tweener position.

I don't know if that's an official word, but we can't fully pull our opposition right now as we feel that there's further work to do to clarify language that I debated with my colleagues for quite a while yesterday about what it even meant, to solve inconsistencies, resolve restrictions on judicial discretion, and ensure access to food and medical treatment. Thank you.

Brandon Greene, the Western Center on Law and Poverty, also my representative. We similarly were in opposition and don't think we can take a neutral stance as of yet. Would like to see a little bit more clarity, recognizing that there is no longer a permanent trespass, there's no longer a permanent ban.

But in particular, as we all know, if people are utilizing public transportation, and that is their main means from getting from point A to point B, restricting that can obviously have lots of downstream consequences. And so would like to look further at that as well as for there to be some more clarity around the.

The duration of a temporary restraining order, which is currently undefined. I was a public defender in Contra Costa County, so I know that it can look different ways, but I think having it be very vague right now is something that we still have a concern about.

All right, thank you both very much for your testimony today before the Committee. Now we'll hear from any other members of the public who'd like to be heard on the matter. Name, organization and position, please.

Danica Rodarmel on behalf of the LA Public Defenders Union, Local 148 and La Defensa, appreciate the amendments to the bill. We're still reviewing them and may be updating our position accordingly. Thank you.

George Parampathu, on behalf of ACLU California Action, we remain opposed. Thank you.

Okay, thank you, everyone, for all of your time and your input to the committee today. Next, we'll move to questions and comments. Assemblymember Harabedian.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the author. Obviously, this has been an important bill that you've worked so hard on and just want to appreciate everything that you put into it, all the testimony that we heard here at the table and obviously for every operator that came here, thank you for being here and for weighing in.

I think the intent of the bill is not controversial whatsoever. We should be trying to protect operators, anyone using our public transit system to the fullest extent of the law in the most efficient way possible.

And that is where my questions are, because I think the bill, while having a very meritorious intent, I think it still has some questions from my perspective, and I don't think it's all the way there. And so let me go back to part of the testimony from the gentleman from, and I apologize, the--

Mr. Churchill.

Mr. Churchill, thank you for being here and very helpful testimony.

You did kind of end on a point which actually brought up a separate question for me, which you had explained that the current TRO system is extremely effective in actually deterring and changing behavior for those that have actually done things like assaulted or threatened transit operators.

So I guess the question then that begs your, you know, from your testimony is then why do we need to change the current system, which seems to be working so well, at least in your jurisdiction?

Before you answer, I'd also like to note that Matt Broad, who gave a me-too testimony, is also here for technical support. He's from the California Conference of ATU and the California Teamsters. So as an addition, if something becomes technical, do you want to answer that first?

Thank you. So in terms of the changes that need to take place right now, it's a fairly narrow interpretation of what you can do through the current-- So I can seek a TRO and I can keep individuals off of buses, but we can't keep them necessarily out of stations and other areas where they can interact with other transit employees as well.

So we're just trying to find a way to make sure that we've got-- we can shore that up and protect other transit employees as well.

And one thing to add is that this expands who it applies to. So right now that just applies to operators. So not a transit ambassador, the mechanic, the ticket agent, all of those folks. So now it expands to more employees within the system. So it's narrow in just the bus--

The current law is narrow in just the bus and who it is, but where this expands is to the workers in the transit system that you interact with as you navigate the system, as well as all aspects of that system.

Understood, and I appreciate both of those comments. I do think that the analysis by the staff, which I thought was excellent, does address that. I mean, there are existing laws that would address if anyone at the station, whether they were an employee or someone who was riding the system, were assaulted or stocked or anything of that nature.

But putting that aside, I guess it's just when you are going to implement such a broad TRO, and I do really respect what we're trying to do here, but judges usually take TROs very seriously. Discretion at the judicial level is very important.

I do have the same questions as folks on the other side about how long would those be implemented, what would the specifics of it be? But the question really to the proponents of the bill is how do we propose that we are actually going to enforce such a broad TRO?

I think that a lot of these problems are really stemming from-- as someone who uses public transportation all the time, sat on metro boards, overseen bus operators, we really have a lack of enforcement of simple things, just like paying fares and making sure that people don't just come onto our buses and light rail for sport, if you will, or just to use the system for things other than getting to and from work or home.

I'm very skeptical, given that lack of ability just to enforce fares, that they're going to be able to enforce a TRO across a whole system against a single individual. So how are they even going to do that?

I think it comes into-- it's the same thing that each one of us who drives a vehicle, we're not supposed to speed, right? And if we speed, we get caught and we have some type of penalty associated with that. But as long as not we're speeding, we're okay.

And I think the same thing when you have a broad system, of course, if something is, for instance, the person who had a violent crime, I mean, it might be easy for some time to be able to recognize that individual, but otherwise the person wouldn't probably get recognized if they weren't doing anything else wrong.

And so in some ways, and we see this with all of our laws, right, we can't enforce things 100% of the time that someone could come and be on a bus and if they weren't doing anything wrong, no one would know, but the moment they did, it would be immediately apparent that person was not supposed to be there.

I'll turn it over to Mr. Broad.

Through the chair. So Matt Broad here on behalf of the Teamsters and the ATU, just to expand on that a little bit. This statute, its existing practice, the TRO authority has existed going back a number of years to there was a Senator Blakespear bill and then a Senator Cortese Bill.

What's different and what we really appreciate about this statute is that it also confers on the union's ability to go out and get the TRO. And so we agree with you that there are enforcement issues.

But right now it's very hard for the union to make sure that anybody who's dangerous or has assaulted an operator is actually off the system. And so we actually view this as more declaratory of existing law precisely because this code section does exist.

We're just eliminating the ambiguity and clarifying that it really does belong in the transit space as well. And then when you look at the transit space, obviously a workplace is different for a transit operator than it would be for you or I.

I appreciate that. And my question really goes to, and this is something that I'll just discuss maybe later. And I think it's coming to another committee with law enforcement. Really, it's just a practical consideration of you have an individual. This TRO would be system wide.

We have-- Law enforcement resources are very strained to the point where they really can't even police everyday users using the system without pain. My point is, how are we going to practically actually implement this? We're not going to have this answer here maybe-- Mr. Churchill, please.

So I have extensive years in doing this. I began the TRO process when I was running the transit division as the Director of Operations and began initiating these in 2007. So I do have quite a few years of going through it. And you're not wrong. It is challenging and difficult.

Our supervisors carry with them copies of all the TROs. County Connection alone, we have 10 cities, but we have 13 different police jurisdictions that we work with on a daily basis. It does take a lot of work. It takes a lot of effort and education.

And we continually have to work at making sure that everybody is aware of what's going on. When an incident occurs in the field, the supervisor that responds has all the paperwork. It's not that many. You don't generate a ton. We have over six-- No, we have over almost 10,000 separate individuals that ride our system.

I have seven TROs. So it's not too difficult to have the paperwork when they respond to an incident, they're able to share that paperwork with the responding officers. And it's amazing how quickly field officers begin to know and understand and quite frankly, in general, they already know the individuals that are causing the problem.

We are not talking about a large cross section of society. We're talking, at least in the transit side of it, 1/100th of the representative riders. So those individuals that are causing trouble on buses are causing trouble at Safeway and Vons and other situations and they are very well known.

So it has not actually been an impossible thing for us to enforce systemwide.

Appreciate that. Thank you all. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Great. Thank you Assemblymember Harabedian. Who'd like to go next? Assemblymember Lackey.

Yeah, to my colleague, it is agreeable that there is enforceability challenge. But I will say this, that it's-- I think this proposal is very much in demand because it currently exists in certain circumstances. For example, consider if an employee was attacked in a grocery store in some kind of violent manner.

And I believe that this is a fine tuning and it deserves to be supported. And it's just exciting to see diverse minds meet together to support something that is in demand. So I'm proud to support it.

Thank you for being a co-author.

All right, thank you. Next we have Assemblymember Sharp-Collins.

Thank you so much, Assemblymember Wilson, for bringing forth the bill. And you know, I share in some of the same sentiments as my colleague as well, of me asking and wondering how we can make sure that we're not overly, how can I put it, overly being punitive, you know, particularly for those that may not have the resources to be able to obviously go up against any type of restraining order and so forth.

So when I was speaking and my staff was talking to committee, these are things I wanted to make sure that we were clear on is as we continue to move forward, and yes, I get that this bill, it is needed, I just want to make sure that we are addressing those that are also in need and not really punishing those that are not necessarily bad actors per se. It could be a one time thing, could be a bad day, it could be different types of things. And now they're punished and their jobs are impacted and et cetera, et cetera.

But I know that safety is extremely important. I know by you bringing up grocery stores. My daughter used to work for Albertsons, so I know because she was attacked at Albertsons, not attacked, but she had an issue at Albertsons.

So I totally understand, but what can we do to reconfigure the bill to avoid being overly punitive? But also, will there be some type of review and process to, let's say, the order's for a year or two years, is there a way to come back and, you know, and try to reevaluate it so that way these people will be able to move forward and work, should they rely on public transportation?

And I think that there's something to be said for opposition's testimony in regard to having consistency and clarity as it relates to judicial discretion. So that's something we're open to. Our initial bill had it was way more prescriptive in this space, but it also created a separate TRO system that existed already in law.

And so we appreciate the work of the committee to have what we're doing bring more in line so we can provide clarity. But also recognizing, touching the clarity there touches protections that exist already for other people. And so we're really mindful of that.

But we're-- it's something, as I've said, I think the legislative process is extremely important and valuable for every bill. And I'm open to that level of critique from each one of the chairs that considers this as well as the committees.

And so we'll continue to work and fine tune to ensure that my colleagues have something of value that they can vote for on the floor that not only, you know, demands accountability for bad behavior, but also balances that with the human need to be able to access transportation and get the resources they need, whether it's a healthcare center, job center, you know, food, whatever it is.

So we recognize that that exists, and I'm sensitive to that.

All right, thank you, Assemblymember. Next we'll go to our Vice Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I'll make this very brief. Just a statement I want to make. I know in this body, we're trying to push public transportation. Transportation Chair's in front of me. And so as we all know, the biggest reason people aren't using public transportation is because they don't feel safe.

So I think this bill helps address a lot of those concerns. And it is unfortunate that restricting transportation to those that do, the seven TROs that you say you have, but the seven versus the 10,000 or so, obviously, I think that's the majority that we're trying to help. So I appreciate this and I'm just happy to move the bill.

Thank you. Are there any other questions or comments? Okay, I'll bring it to a close with the recommendation, then I'll give you the last word, Assemblymember Wilson. Just want to thank you and your team and your sponsors for working with Committee staff.

As you know, we had some concerns about the original couple versions of the bill, but we think that where it's at, we're certainly leaving it in a much better position, which is always the goal of our committee process. I just want to echo-- it will have my aye as amended recommendation today.

Just wanted to flag one consideration for you as you navigate the process. I do agree with many of the points raised in the analysis prepared by staff. You know, the other thing I will note is while I'm comfortable moving it forward today, stems from Subdivision K of the Civil Code of Procedure section. This is 527.8.

It says that 'if the judge finds by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent engaged in harassment, engaged in unlawful violence, or made a credible threat of violence, in those instances, an order shall issue prohibiting further harassment.'

And then the added language under what would be N1 further clarifies that the protective order would apply to the entirety of the public transit system. So I bring that up to say this is not criminalizing someone who's unhoused. It is taking a preventative step to prevent someone who's now engaged in violent and disruptive conduct on public transit.

The one thing I would flag for you, though, Assemblymember Wilson, is that if you look at Section L1, the court has the discretion to issue the order for up to three years without without the hardship exemption or more discretion baked into the bill, it could actually have a disincentive for the courts to extend it very long.

A court looking at the hardship components could say, sure, I'll issue the order for a week or a day. So just as you move through the other Committee processes, that might be something that you want to take a look at.

Because if I was a good defense attorney, I'd make the case to say, absolutely, you can issue the protective order for a day and the court would be empowered to do that under the code as written. So it's just something you might want to consider looking at.

With that said, we'll leave that to our fine colleagues in the Senate if it gets there. And with that, I am recommending an aye today. So we have a motion and a second. Let's-- Oh, Assemblymember Wilson, you get the final word. My bad.

I believe that this bill is timely and a necessary response to real safety challenges facing our transportation system or transit system here in California. And that's why I've brought the bill.

And I appreciate my co-sponsors and witnesses who've been able to testify and very much my colleagues for your discussion to ensure, as always, when we do these types of measures that increase accountability, that we also balance the human need. And that's consistent with California's values. With that, Chair, I thank you.

And to the Members, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

All right, thank you. Assemblymember Wilson, let's conduct the roll call.

On AB 394 by Assemblymember Wilson, the motion is due pass to the Judiciary Committee. [Roll call]

You're off to the Judiciary Committee. Good luck.

Thank you.

Thank you all very much for your attendance today and participation. Next we're going to be hearing from Assemblymember Bains. This is item number 13. This is Assembly Bill 1094. Assemblymember Bains, once you're all set to go, you'll have five minutes and so will your witnesses.

All right, thank you, Chair, Members. Let me start by stating that I am happy to accept the Committee amendments and thank the Committee for your work on this bill. As amended above, 1094 imposes a minimum term of 20 years before eligibility for parole for any person convicted of torturing a child under the age of 14 when the perpetrator is in a position of care or custody over the victim.

Our children are our most vulnerable citizens. They rely on us to provide a safe and nurturing environment, free from cruelty and abuse. Yet too often, the very people tasked with their care betray that trust, inflicting lasting harm on their young lives. In case of child torture, the damage goes far beyond physical injury.

It leaves deep psychological scars and alters the course of a child's future.

As a physician who provides care to many kids right in the Central Valley, I can attest to the important work that ACEs has done to increase trauma screening amongst children and the work that physicians do to make sure that we capture a lot of the abuse that's been happening.

Under current law, a life sentence for torture carries a minimum term of only seven years. This statutory minimum does not reflect the preferred profound and enduring harm inflicted on a child who is subject to such a horrific abuse.

Consider the tragic case of a 10 year old who endured unimaginable suffering at the hands of her caregiver, a case that left a judge lamenting the inadequacy of the sentencing the Allah allowed him to impose.

AB 1094 directly addresses this failing by ensuring that perpetrators of such heinous crimes are sentenced to to a minimum of 20 years behind bars instead of just seven. Critics argue that existing law provides sufficient safeguards. However, our experience tells us that these measures fall short.

This bill is designed to close the loopholes in our sentencing framework that have allowed offenders to reenter society far too early, putting more children at risk of further harm. And as a physician, I can attest I've seen many cases in the clinic of kids that have been abused by perpetrators who reenter society and continue that abuse.

Furthermore, this legislation is a call to accountability. It recognizes that crimes of torture, especially when committed against children, are not merely violations of the law. They are profound betrayals of public trust in and humanity.

By raising the minimum term for such offenses, we not only honor the suffering of the victims, but also strengthen our community's confidence that justice will be rigorously and fairly served.

Passing AB 1094 reaffirms our commitment to justice, ensures that those who inflict unimaginable pain on our children face the full consequences of their actions, and strengthens our collective resolve to safeguard every child. With me in support, I have Bethel Cope-Vega with the Orange County District Attorney's Office.

Good afternoon. My name is Bethel Cope-Vega. I've been a Deputy District Attorney in Orange County for about 10 years. My caseload consists entirely of serious and complex child abuse and child homicide cases. To be clear, it is my honor to fight for these vulnerable victims.

So, as you probably know, torture is one of the most heinous crimes that can be committed in California. And it requires inflicting great bodily injury with plain cruelty. By definition, torture requires a sadistic intent. And as current law stands, the punishment for torture is a potential life sentence with the possibility of parole after just seven years.

But the torture of a child is an even more cruel and depraved crime. Children are inherently vulnerable. Their injuries tend to be more serious because of the vast size difference between their perpetrator and their victim. If you don't know babies' bones actually break differently and their brains get injured in a different way.

And child torture is almost always at the hands of a caretaker. It's a parent, it's a nanny, it's a step parent, a family member. Child victims rely on and trust in their perpetrators, the very person who is supposed to protect them betray them.

I think of Valeria, who was singled out from her siblings, who had also turned against her.

She was almost 3, but she was the size of a 10 month old when she presented to the hospital with a deep stab wound with knife carvings and burn marks all over her body caused by both her mother and her father in their efforts to get back at each other.

I think of Aiden, who was only two when his new stepmom taunted him, mutilated his genitals and systematically beat his head on a wall. He is now 7. He's paralyzed on the left side of his body and so developmentally disabled that he will never be able to live independently. And I think of 10 year old Natalie.

She was zip-tied to the TV stand by her wrists and her ankles with a pee pad under her for months and that's when she wasn't being thrown hogtied into furniture or ice baths. She endured over 17 surgeries and five months in the hospital and will never again walk or run normally.

Her five siblings who were in the house with her were forced to participate by tying her up and withholding food. They were threatened with torture too if they didn't participate.

I told the jury in that case that although Natalie's physical torture has ended, the mental torture for her and her siblings is just beginning as they grow up attempting to make sense of what they've lived through. For these young victims, a parole hearing after seven years is just too soon.

Healing both physically and mentally takes years, which is interrupted by having to prepare for that traumatic parole hearing. Even when parole isn't granted, hearings typically get reset every three years.

If we look at sentencing schema for sex crimes against children, which are also heinous, but those crimes are crimes where the perpetrator can often convince themselves that the child actually enjoys the act, sentencing regularly allows for multiple enhancements of 25 to life.

But in child torture cases, where cruel sadism is actually baked in, it is an element of the crime, right now, the punishment is parole after only seven years and it is simply not enough. Let's allow these children, the ones lucky enough to survive, to grow up without the shadow of their victimhood looming.

For the child survivors who've suffered unspeakable acts of cruelty, who were failed once already at the hands of a trusted protector. Let's not fail them going forward. I respectfully ask for your aye vote today.

Thank you for your presentation, Assemblymember, and for your testimony, ma'am. Next we'll hear from members of the public. Name, organization and position, please.

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

Chair, Members, Jonathan Feldman with the California Police Chiefs Association. We apologize that our letter wasn't in on time, but we are in support.

Good afternoon, Chair, Members. Nina Salerno, Modoc County District Attorney, on behalf of California District Attorneys Association, in support. I'm also here as a victim of crime, on behalf of Crime Victims United, who's also in strong support.

David Bullock, on behalf of all my fellow advocates who are parents across the states. The list would be too long to read, and I'm not going to bore you with it. We're all in support of this legislation. Thank you.

Ryan Sherman with the Riverside Sheriff Association and the other POAs in support. Thank you.

Thank you all very much for your testimony. Next, we'll hear from any witnesses in opposition. Once you're both set up and started, we'll give you five minutes.

Good morning Chair and Members. George Paramthu, Legislative Attorney with ACLU California Action Rising in opposition to AB 1094 everyone agrees that torture of a minor is terrible, yet harsher sentences do not make victims whole. Additionally, we must oppose AB 1094 because it disregards the rigorous of the current parole system and ignores parolees exceptionally low recidivism rates.

At every parole hearing, the panel asks is this person a threat to the public? The panel reads a 15 page risk report written by a parole board psychologist. These reports are extremely impactful. Individuals who are rated as high risk are denied parole more than 99% of the time.

The board also considers statements from the individual requesting parole, their CDCR files and their criminal history. They hear testimony from the prosecutor and the law enforcement agency and they hear statements from the victim and the victim's family.

If after all of this the board decides that the person is not a threat in grassland parole, that decision is still subject to review by the Board's legal division and the Governor's office. Notably, California has the third lowest parole grant rate in the nation.

AB 1094 overrides this case by case public safety focused system and replaces it with a blanket policy of 20 years of prison. The bill's distrust of the parole process also ignores parolees exceptionally low recidivism rate.

According to CDCR's own numbers, people with life sentences who are granted parole have a recidivism rate of 2.7%, 16 times lower than the General population. Looking at just felonies against another person, the recidivism rate is a mere 0.5%.

In other words, 99.5% of people with a life sentence who are released on parole never commit a felony against another person. AB 1094 looks past these facts and pours millions of taxpayer dollars into an approach that will not improve public safety or make victims whole. For these reasons I urge a no vote.

Thank you. Danica Rodarma on behalf of Initiate Justice. We absolutely agree with the author and the proponents that torturing a child is abhorrent and deeply disturbing behavior and appreciate the amendments to the bill understand the underlying motivation and the desire to punish in response to those kinds of acts.

I could say more about deterrence and the real questions that are raised by the evidence about the ability to increase deterrent effect by increasing criminal penalties. But I really want to focus my comments on how we may actually be able to prevent these kinds of acts from happening rather than simply trying to deter them.

I've said in this Committee time and time again that when we increase punishment and investments in incarceration, we are taking scarce resources away from being able to invest in prevention and care and support for survivors in these kinds of cases.

So I would encourage us to instead think about investing in prevention programs, things like family counseling and home visits by nurses for people with young children and social workers who can help to identify patterns of harm and refer families to supportive services and teaching children their rights.

When children are taught that they're special and have the right to be safe, they are often more likely to report abuse than they are when they're not. And I also want to just speak to achieving the goal of justice for victims and survivors.

I want to emphasize that not all victim survivors feel like increased punishment is justice for them. I absolutely do not deny that that's true for some victim survivors. But in my work with many, they have said that their biggest hope is that what happened to them never happens again.

And I think we really need to honor that request in trying to really think about how we invest in the kind of preventative measures that may actually stop this kind of conduct from starting before it ever happens. And for those reasons, we urge a no vote. Thank you.

All right, anyone else in opposition, please come up. State your name and who you with.

Leslie Caldwell, Houston, with the California Public Defenders Association and on behalf of the. San Francisco Public Defender's office. In opposition.

Thank you.

Tyena Vargas. Initiate Justice Action. In opposition.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Jasmine Harris, on behalf of Smart Justice, Los Angeles Public Defender Union Local 148 and La Defensa. In opposition.

Thank you. Anyone else in opposition? Seeing none, we'll bring it to the Committee. Lackey?

Yeah. First of all, let me just say that the opposition is not wrong to support any kind of prevention. I think we all work towards that, but it's unfortunately not a reality at this point. We have people who are actually caregivers who are torturing our young people.

And if that's the case, let me just bring to your reminder a very tragic circumstance that happened in my district. You probably have, if you've been paying attention publicly. Gabriel Fernandez was tortured by his caregivers to the point to where he had to kneel on carpet tax.

He was held by his feet over the banister for extended periods of time. He was fed fecal matter. Very disturbing circumstances that I think we would all object to.

But the fact remains that had there been intervention and had there been some sort of penalty and these people brought to justice, we may have been able to save his life and prevent his death. And suffering. And so we've got a lot to to do on this front.

In the district that I represent, we lead LA County and LA County leads the state in foster care circumstances. And Gabriel Fernandez, it was his biological mother. So it's not just those circumstances that deserve attention. Our whole system is flawed because it relies on action and there's a lot of documentation that goes on needlessly without action.

And so I think measures like this that show that our society is willing to take action will prevent tragedy, unfortunately. And so it has my full support because there's no greater affront against decency than attacking children and actually engaging in torture. It's so inexcusable.

And I know you don't support that, but I believe that these consequences are well deserved, unfortunately, and they will prevent further torture. So I'll be supporting it.

Okay, we have a motion. Is there a second? Okay, we have a motion and a second. Is there any other questions or comments? Yes, Assemblymember Harbedian.

Just thank you very much for. To the author and both sides for the testimony. I have just a practical question about the new sentencing guidelines that have been proposed. And we have someone here who's obviously prosecuted these cases and we have a Doctor who's seen these cases and we have folks who have probably defended these cases potentially.

But I can fully stipulate and agree that seven years on child torture does not seem sufficient. Just doesn't the singleton case in the analysis. First of all, this is some of the hardest stuff to read, period. And I thought that again, the analysis was spot on.

And I think the singleton case can make anyone extremely worried about a minimum of seven years. Just doesn't seem like enough. But on the flip side, I know we're at 25 and now we're at 20.

This doesn't seem completely scientific, but do you think that 20 is the right spot or do you think that it's somewhere in the middle? Because I can stipulate 7 isn't enough. 20 does seem like a knot, like a lot.

That being said, I understand that these underlying crimes can be some of the most grotesque that we, that we read about, but I'm struggling with the number and I don't know if you can speak to that and why you think 20 is the right number. Thank you.

Yeah, well, I mean, I'll deter to Bethel, but I mean, honestly, you know, this is a first step. I think that the biggest ugly elephant in the room that people don't want to acknowledge is that children don't vote. So who's going to raise that voice to for justice. This is not about punishment.

This is about justice for kids that had everything stolen from them before they even figured out what they wanted to be. What they some kids before they even took their first word. This is just the first step and I'll defer to thank you.

Your point is well taken. Assemblymember Harbidian I will say this in the practical sense. What we are finding is that that first of all, most of the people who end up abusing their children don't actually end up having much of an extensive criminal record.

So when they arrive to the CDCR to begin with, right, they're facing an 85% credit but they don't when they're getting to that parole hearing, which ends up being much sooner. So at the seven years now, our children are beginning to prepare for that parole hearing sometimes as soon as their perpetrator is sentenced.

Because these cases take a while to. Get to trial to begin with. So there's the pre trial credit. Some of the. The last case that I did last summer, torture was a five year old case. She was sentenced to seven to life.

And we immediately began to get that child ready for a parole hearing and then it's every three years after that. I personally think that 25 to life, 25 to life is appropriate. But I understand where my bias is, right? I represent these kids.

I think anything under 20 we begin to sort of dance the line with children losing their childhoods, preparing and living in fear of what happens if I truly think there is a deterrence to it. And I think that the higher the sentence the better.

But if we're really looking at it from what is best for the victims, right.

So many times these parents are trying to contact them from prison when they get out, when they are paroled, which again a lot of for some reason, and this is just anecdotal, but a lot of in my experience, a lot of torture perpetrators end up being women.

And women tend to get out on that first, second, third parole hearing. And so they are getting out, they're trying to find their children, they're trying to contact their children, even against protective orders.

I think 20, when we're truly facing 16 to 17 years of actual time before that first hearing is about an appropriate amount of time for that child to turn 2021 and decide how they want to confront what's happened to them in their adult life.

Thank you Assemblymember Harbedian. Next we'll go to our Vice Chair.

Thank you Mr. Chair. I apologize I missed most of the time testimony. But I obviously in my past being a Crimes Against Children's detective, I know as we mentioned, we have prosecutors and defenders and the Doctor here.

And so I'm, I'm my old role as a Crimes Against Children's detective was interviewing and following through and making sure the services were there. So seeing this Bill come forward, I'm very happy to see this happening.

Obviously, I, I share the same what it should be, maybe more, but baby steps, I guess, sometimes as long as we keep moving that direction. So I applaud you for that. And I'd ask to be a co author.

Thank you, Vice Chair. Any other questions or comments? Okay. Seeing none. I'll give my rationale and recommendation and then you'll have the last word. Assemblymember, I agree with many of the comments from again from my colleague here to my right, who also has a background in progress prosecuting all kinds of crime.

These are really tough cases to discuss publicly. They are they're more prevalent than we like to admit and they're the most disturbing of fact patterns. What I would just say is, you know, I really struggled with that number as well.

But where I agree with the Committee staff in making these amendment offers and thank you to Assemblymember Baines for accepting it really comes from an understanding of the conduct that we're trying to penalize in the torture statute.

So I'll be very brief, but I just want to mention that and this is all, by the way, in page three of the analysis, which I think does a really good job of laying it out. Torture requires a showing that the defendant intended to inflict great bodily injury for a specific purpose.

I think the first excerpt I'd like to highlight is from People vs Mejia, and I'm quoting here from page 1044. Torture requires the infliction of great bodily injury with the intent to cause cruel or extreme pain and suffering.

To satisfy the element, the statute necessarily requires the Intentional Commission of one or more assaultive acts committed with the intent to cause cruel or extreme pain and suffering. And I think the other provision that I'd like to call out is from People vs Pre. This is on page 424 of that decision.

In there, the Court noted that the Supreme Court has explained that the additional punishment imposed for the torture statute is because of a defendant's intent to inflict pain for a sadistic purpose, and that reason is deserving of the additional punishments. So while I agree with you, Assemblymember Harabideen, about the difficulties of landing on that right number.

I think what makes the torture statute very, I would say unusual is that we're really looking at a sadistic intent of the perpetrator. And I think for that reason, the 20 year number at least sounds like a good starting point to me. With that, I am recommending an aye as amended.

Assemblymember Baynes, I'll give you the last word.

I appreciate all the comments that are said. I appreciate all the work that's been done by many experts, prosecutors, law enforcement in the room. As a physician, you know, I provide care to kids. I also am a rehab specialist as well. I understand the other side as well as I see kids.

As a physician, I not only hear those stories, I see the impact on the body. I see these kids being impacted developmentally. I see these kids being impacted emotionally. I as a family doc, see them from day one till the day that they take their last breath. And I see the impacts. I understand rehabilitation is definitely amazing.

There are people that can be rehabilitated, of course, child torture somebody with the intent to torture a child, take a life away from them mentally. This is no joke and I'll end with this. I was working in Taft when Covid hit. And I know there was mentioning of social workers and follow up.

Everybody in this room knows during COVID there was a shutdown of social workers. I was a provider in Taft.

I had many cases that I followed up with CPS where before I would call cps, all of a sudden there was nobody to pick up on the other end those stories, those experiences that I had and the stories that still have yet to be told, especially when we went through COVID 19.

I think we all agree that there's a lot that is still going to come out during COVID 19. And strengthening our laws to make sure that we protect victims is a necessary first step. And I respectfully ask for your I vote.

Thank you, Assembly Member. We have a motion and a second.

[Roll call]

All right, congratulations, you're off to Appropriations. Thank you everybody for weighing in today. We have two more items, colleagues. Next we're going to go to item number four. My appreciation to Assembly Member Castillo for being so patient with us. We next have Assembly Member Castillo presenting item number 12. This is Assembly Bill 1092.

You know the drill by now, assembly member, but you'll have five minutes and so will your witnesses. Time doesn't start until you start talking.

Thank you Mr. Chair and Vice Chair and Committee Members. I'm here to present AB 1092 which would extend the renewal requirement of concealed carry weapon licenses from two to four years. Assembly Bill 1092 is a common sense measure that would realign California CCW requirements with the overwhelming majority of states across the country.

For example, historically liberal states like Oregon and Washington allow their concealed carry permits to last for four years to five years. Even Illinois, which has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, grants a CCW for five years.

Furthermore, a recent Supreme Court ruling in New York Rifle and Pistol Association versus Bruin in 2022 adds further evidence in support of this measure, emphasizing the states must not unreasonably restrict a citizen's right to carry a firearm.

Oftentimes, these overburdensome restrictions can disproportionately impact vulnerable populations by creating barriers to self defense in regions that have historically been reported to be unsafe. As the Assembly Public Safety Committee, you cannot stand for this.

While I understand that California prides itself in being different from the rest of the country, I hope that we can reevaluate our current CCW renewal time frame in order to ensure that this process is fair to gun owners and efficient for the law enforcement agencies tasked with facilitating renewals. I want to be extremely clear.

Clear CCW license holders must remain vigilant in their safety standards and responsible when handling a firearm. It is a matter of public and personal safety and general access to firearms comes with great responsibility.

However, re-examining the comprehension of basic gun safety laws and reviewing the tactical preparedness of CCW license holders every two years seems redundant and unfairly penalizes law abiding Californians.

With me today to provide testimony is Rick Travis, Legislative Director for the California Rifle and Pistol Association and Deputy Joe Pender, CCW Investigator for the Solano County Sheriff's Office and statewide CCW Conference Director.

Thank you Mr. Speaker, members. Rick Travis, Legislative Director, California Rifle Pistol Association. As Assemblywoman Castillo has stated, one of the things that we're looking at is we've been around for 150 years. We have pride ourselves on safety for 150 years.

With firearms here in California going on publicly speaking many times, I find myself in communities of color mostly with women right now because women are the largest growing segment in the self protection area and the continuing issue and complaint we hear is that in many jurisdictions the pricing is so high that for them it's a choice of do I protect myself and my family being a single mother or do I put food on the table by being able to do bring this in alignment with many other states where it's a four year license, this reduces that cost over the term of four years instead of every two years, thus providing an opportunity to be able to have equity in the state and access to this.

I would also point out that all the studies over the last 25 years from the Center for Disease Control and the Federal Bureau of Investigation have showed that CCW holders are the most law abiding citizens in the country. Seven times more law abiding than even our own law enforcement.

And as former law enforcement, I'm not trying to put any of us down that have served in that area. But I think that's very important to understand. These are not the criminal people. These are the people that are actually getting trained and actually save lives every year. And that has been well documented. And so for those reasons I'm asking for an aye vote.

Deputy Joe Penner from Sloan County Sheriff's Office representing the CCW unit. I'm here to support the CCW extension to four years. This will allow us to process the new applications faster as well as do. A more thorough background because we don't. Have the renewals hanging on us as quickly.

I'm here to answer any questions you have regarding the CCW and the length and the process at this time as well.

Thank you very much for your presentation, Assembly Member, and to you gentlemen for testifying today. Next we'll hear from other members of the public.

Mr. Chair, Members. Corey Salzillo on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association. In support.

David Bullock on behalf of the legal law abiding concealed weapon holders chivalrously provide an extra layer of protection to to society and support. Thank you.

Adam Wilson with Gun Owners of California strong support.

All right, thank you all for your testimony as well. Next we'll hear the witnesses in opposition. Do we have anyone here testifying in opposition? Okay, seeing no witnesses in opposition. Is there anyone else who'd like to have their voice heard on the matter? Okay, seeing none, we'll next go to questions or comments from the Committee.

Would anyone like to get a start started? Vice Chair.

Thank you Mr. Chair. And thank you to the Assemblywoman for bringing this before us. I used to also do the CCWs for my Department back in the day and granted I have a large stack with every two years going on taking it to four, man, that would relieve the unit so much.

Also I know of CCW holders, especially in my district, that have also been asking for the four years. You know, they're not, they're not asking it to extend it out any further or they understand at some point people need to go back, get the training, making sure they're updated on any laws.

So I think that's a happy medium to make that happen. So I appreciate that and I'm looking forward to voting on this and I move the bill.

Okay. We have a motion and a second. Are there any other questions or comments? None. Okay. Assembly member Castillo, do you want to make a closing statement?

I just want to say thank you and I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you colleagues. Chair is recommending a no. I appreciate the assembly members initiative. I'll just say that I respectfully disagree with the author's statement. I don't believe that the two year renewal cycle unfairly penalizes law abiding citizens. I do think that there are issues that need to be addressed in our CCW program.

I think we should be talking about fees and more resources for public agencies to administer the program and do it more efficiently. But I would humbly submit the reason for my no recommendation is that this is a bill with a solution in search of a problem. With that, I am recommending no.

Let's conduct the roll on AB 1092 by Senator Castillo. The motion is due. Pass. Schultz. No. Schultz. No. Alanis. Aye. Alanis. Aye. Gonzalez. Haney. Harbedian. Harbedian. Not voting. Lackey. Aye. Lackey. Aye. Nguyen. Not voting. Ramos. Ramos. Not voting. Sharp. Collins.

This item will remain on call until our missing members are back. So we'll let you know the outcome.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, everybody. All right, colleagues, we're down to one more item. This is your chance to take out all your frustration on me. Today I'll be presenting Assembly Bill 1036 and turning the gavel over to our Vice Chair.

All right, looks like item 11, AB 1036. Mr. Chair, you have the floor.

Colleagues, thank you very much for indulging me. Hopefully we'll have you out of here very shortly. I'm pleased today to present Assembly Bill 1036. Assembly Bill 1036 would expand access to discovery materials for individuals convicted of felonies, resulting in a sentence of one year or more.

I do want to note that my colleague, Assemblymember Lackey has previously legislated in this area. Appreciate your prior work there, but I think there is clearly more work to do, as will be explained in my presentation and of course from our witness today. So why is this Bill necessary?

Current law only allows individuals with a specific sentence length of 15 years or more to request their post conviction discovery. In my view, this arbitrary sentence requirement prohibits worthy petitioners from accessing discovery when they are preparing to file a post conviction motion. Also, there is no codified right to post conviction Brady materials or jury selection notes.

However, these materials are vital to individuals seeking relief under statutes such as the Racial justice act, resentencing petitions under Penal Code 1172.6 and or habeas corpus claims. By broadening discovery access, AB 1036 enhances fairness, transparency and efficiency in our criminal justice system.

Many post conviction claims, such as those based on new evidence, prosecutorial misconduct, ineffective assistance of counsel, racial justice acts claims or changes in sentencing laws require access to original discovery materials. Without them, courts often lack the full picture necessary to make informed decisions. AB 1036 does not create new appeals or delay mechanisms.

It ensures, however, that individuals have access to evidence that could prove wrongful conviction or an excessive sentence, thereby reinforcing public confidence in our criminal justice system. I will note that my office has had several early productive conversations with the bill's opponents, the California District Attorneys Association.

And while we are asking you to hopefully approve it through Committee today, we are confident that we will be able to resolve some, if not all, of their concerns should the Bill pass out. And we'll continue to have those spirited conversations with that, I'd like to turn it over to our witness today.

This is Jasmine Harris, Director of Policy with our sponsor, the California Innocence Coalition.

Thank you so much and good afternoon. I'll keep this very short and sweet. I know we're the last Bill of the day, but as mentioned, my name is Jasmine Harris. I'm with the California Innocence Coalition, so I represent all four innocence organizations here in the State of California. We are proud sponsors of AB 1036.

AB 1036 does a few very simple things. We want to expand access to discovery materials. As previously mentioned, we actually worked with Assemblymember Lackey many years ago to get the first version of this Bill through, and this is just a natural extension to that. We do believe that it doesn't matter what your sentence is.

That doesn't make you any less innocent of the crime, and it also ensures access to exculpatory evidence or Brady material, mitigating evidence, and also jury selection notes, which I'll touch on in a moment. You know, access to crucial discovery materials is limited right now based on that sentence.

And as I mentioned, we think that that is unfair to those with lesser sentences. In order to challenge a wrongful conviction in our offices, we have to have access to that discovery material before we even file a petition.

When we're deciding how we're going to investigate a case, which angles we're going to go out at a case, we need to have access to that discovery materials. And because of the law that sent that Assembly Member Lackey passed many years ago, the cost is borne to the petitioner.

And we must make a good faith, show a good cause, showing that we are actually filing these petitions. So that will still remain. We're not changing that part of the Bill at all. And lastly, I just want to reiterate that we are working very closely with cdaa.

We just went over some amendments this morning with my colleagues to present back to them. And I also note the concern that was in the Committee analysis as well around shielding work product when it comes to the jury selection notes. And that's something we're actively working on as well. So thank you so much.

I urge your I vote today. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Thank you for getting in line. Those in support, please give your name.

Natasha Minsk, Smart Justice California in strong support.

Leslie Caldwell, Houston with the California Public. Defenders Association and on behalf of San. Francisco Public Defender's Office in support. Thank you.

Danica Rodarma on behalf of the LA Public Defenders Union Local 148 initiate justice and Law Defensa in support. Rogers Al Baker, Center for Human Rights and strong support.

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

Ariana Montez on behalf of the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice and Exonerated Nation in support.

Good afternoon. Glenn Bacchus for Prosecutors Alliance Action and Initiate Justice Action in support.

Thank you Glenn. Anyone else in support? Seeing none opposition please come to the table. Thank you. You'll have five minutes.

Thank you. Nina Salerno, I'm the Modal County District Attorney. I'm here on behalf of California District Attorneys Association. We want to thank the chair and his office though. First of all I know we're all working together to do amendments are currently in negotiations.

Were hoping to be able to come to agreements but as it stands right now, the California District Attorneys Association is opposed to this Bill in the current state. It's in for the following reasons.

1054.9 currently provides safeguards against unnecessary and burdensome requests for discovery by requiring since 2019 that the person that is trying to be exonerated, get the discovery from the attorneys of the case, the defense attorneys, and that they have to show a good faith effort in doing that before they then request it from the prosecutor's office.

And that's really important because of the volume of cases that the district attorneys have. This could be over, overly burdensome for us. And so we'd like to keep that requirement in place that they have to go first to the defense attorney who by law is obligated to keep that information.

The other problem that affects the attorneys Association in 1036 is the expansion of this to our jury selection notes.

Currently, there are safeguards so that when a defendant raises an issue about jury selection, it has to be a claim or show a colorable, colorable claim or a claim of misconduct in jury selection, such as racial bias, that is then brought before the court.

The court makes a determination before turning requiring a prosecuting officer to return turnover their jury selection notes. And that is important because often as a prosecutor doing cases, and I do murder cases in my county, our jury selection notes also include work product and trial strategy. So they need to be scrutinized before being turned over again.

We are deeply appreciative of working with the author's office to resolve this. But at this point, we are asking, we are in opposition and asking that this not move forward because it will create an overly burdensome and broad discovery request upon the District Attorney's offices.

Thank you and thank you. Anyone else in opposition, please come forward. All right. Seeing none, I will bring to the Committee. Mr. Lackey.

Yeah, well, clearly I'm very committed to avoiding wrongful convictions. I was, as you've mentioned, one of the pioneers of the previous Bill. But I, I have to share the concern that's being expressed by the District Attorneys Association that it seems to me that it's amendable to where it could be supportable. But I think it's unreasonably burdensome.

I mean, prosecutors, jury notes, discoverable post conviction. I think that goes overboard. And I think it's workable, though.

Other than that, I think that I'm going to lay off today and I can change my vote to an affirmative if you can work through some of these issues that caused me concern because I think your heart is in the right place.

I appreciate that, Assemblymember Lackey. And yes, I think that we have had some good early conversations. I think that we definitely, we definitely can get there.

Thank you.

Anyone else on the Committee? Okay. See, no one else. I also want to echo Mr. Lackey's comments as well. I have full faith in the author and our chair just with the short amount of time that we've worked together. And I look forward to being a yes vote on the floor. And do I have a motion? Second.

Okay, got our motion in. Second. I am assuming the chair is going to recommend an I vote. And with that would you like to close, Mr. Chair?

No. I respectfully asked for an I vote. And you have our full commitment to continue those good faith negotiations. Appreciations.

Thank you very much, Madam Secretary.

On AB 1036 by Assembly Member Schultz, the motion is do pass to the Appropriations Committee. Schultz. Aye. Schultz. Aye. Alanis. Alanis. Not voting. Gonzalez. Haney. Haney. Aye. Harbedian. Harbedian. Aye. Lackey. Lackey. Not voting. Win. Win. Aye. Ramos, Ramos. Aye. Sharpe, Collins. Measures out.

Measures out. Congratulations. Thank you.

All right, let's get to our procedural matters so that those of you who are here can get on to your next thing. Okay. We will now do any add ons lifting of calls and or vote changes. Madam Secretary, please go through all of the measures taken up at today's hearing.

[Roll Call]

This is Castillo's Bill. Chair is recommending a no. Chair is recommending a no on Assembly Bill 1092, which has to deal with the length of time that a carry concealed weapon permit.

[Roll Call]

Gonzalez, I think we need you on a couple more things here.

[Roll Call]

All right, colleagues, I believe at this point we're just waiting on Assemblymember Sharpe Collins to return. So everyone else, you're welcome to leave. We'll be in a very short recess until she arrives. As a reminder, our next hearing is a week from today at 8:30am so we're starting again at 8:30am in this room, room 126 of our state Capitol. We'll go into a short recess.

All right, we are back. And we have assemblymember Sharp Collins with us. And now that we're back, let's do the add ons.

[Roll Call]

Okay. That takes care of all of our business for today. The Assembly Standing Committee on Public Safety stands adjourned until next Tuesday at 8:30am right here in room 126.