Senate Standing Committee on Public Safety

The Senate Committee on Public Safety will now come to order, and we do not yet have a quorum, so we'll meet as a subcommittee. But good morning. This is our second of five hearings to hear Senate bills before the May deadline. We have 12 bills on the agenda and three are proposed for consent.

The bills on consent are SB 459, Grayson, Peace Officers Confidential Communications, Group Peer Support Services. File item 7, SB 552, Cortese, and file item 8, SB 553. So we will proceed with our bill presentations. And our first bill is file one, SB 93 by Senator Dr. Weber Pierson. Good morning. And if there are any support witnesses, please come forward to the table here. Thank you. And you'll have two minutes to support witnesses. And good morning, Dr. Weber Pierson. You may present on your bill.

Thank you. Good morning, Chair and Members of the committee. Today I am here to present SP93, which is a common sense public safety measure which establishes some basic guardrails to ensure the safe and ethical use of advanced robots by prohibiting a person from operating a weaponized robot or drone.

I want to first thank the chair and also the committee staff for meeting with me and discussing this bill and also the amendments that you have suggested. We will be accepting those amendments today. Advanced robots are enormously beneficial to many industries, including energy conservation, construction, manufacturing, health, and public safety.

These technologies keep people safe by performing dangerous or difficult tasks and helping people to do their jobs efficiently. However, the misuse of weaponized, remote controlled or autonomous robots is unethical, poses a serious public safety threat, and damages the public's acceptance of these beneficial technologies in society.

The goals of these bills and the sponsors are to limit the spread of weaponized robots. There are advertisements showing devices capable of dropping explosive devices from aerial drones, videos of people mounting firearms to robots, and companies that make flamethrowers attached to robots as well.

Following extensive conversations with legislative colleagues, stakeholders, the governor's office, and through the committee process last year, the bill before you simply prohibits members of the general public from weaponizing robots and drones.

The bill provides specific use case exemptions that ensures that this prohibition will not impact California startup economy, academic research, the use of robots as props in film and television, and robots used to support the work of government agencies acting within the scope of their mission.

It is our goal to support the safe, ethical use of these robots, foster confidence and community support, and further this important source as an innovation in California.

Robots are slowly beginning to have a bigger presence in our lives, and I think this bill is an important first step to start laying out important ground rules to protect people and our communities. With that said, I would like to address the concerns raised by the opposition.

This bill does not authorize law enforcement to utilize a weaponized drone or device. This bill intentionally does not regulate any government uses of weaponized robots or drones.

In fact, this bill has a provision which states, quote, this section does not in any way sanction, authorize, prohibit or regulate the procurement or operation of a robotic device by any governmental entity.

I'm being responsive to feedback received last year, including from the governor's office, that addresses the public's use of robots in a completely separate and distinct issue from addressing government and law enforcement use since they are completely different code sections and considerations.

As such, I am attempting to tackle the use by public with this bill and have little doubt that there will be future legislation at another time to examine government use. The lack of law enforcement presence in my bill is being responsive to the governor's veto message from my bill last year.

I have run this bill in the past three years with it reaching the Governor's desk last year with no no votes and bipartisan support. This is the first step to eliminate the proliferation of weaponized robots for the safety our community.

In closing, this bill is simply trying to prohibit individuals in this world from weaponizing robots and damaging the ideas that robots can be used and helpful in society. Testifying with me today is Grant Baker with AUVSI followed by Mckinley Thompson-Morley for Boston Dynamics. Thank you.

Thank you very much. You have two minutes each.

Thank you very much, Chair Arreguín, Vice Chair Seyarto, and members of the committee for allowing me the opportunity to speak today in favor of SB93. My name is Grant Baker, Senior Manager of Government affairs at the Association for Uncrewed Vehicle Systems International, also known as AUVSI.

We are the world's largest nonprofit organization dedicated to the advancement of uncrewed systems, autonomy and robotics. We represent corporations and professionals across all 50 states from more than 60 countries that are involved in industry, government, and academia. AUVSI's primary advocacy mission and membership spans the defense, civil, and commercial industries.

We are also proud to have more than 30 chapters around the country, including our California chapter, with over 570 active members in the state. AUVSI is proud to co sponsor SB93, which promotes the safe and ethical use of robotics in the State of California by prohibiting the operation of robotic devices equipped or mounted with a weapon.

This is crucial not just in promoting public safety, but in ensuring public trust and confidence in advanced robotics. The bill also includes carefully crafted exemptions for government officials, military, law enforcement, and those involved in research, development, testing or manufacturing for government use to allow for continued advancement in this field while mitigating potential risks to the public.

As the use of uncrewed systems continues to grow from aerial drones to humanoid robotics, the promotion of the safe operation of these systems is of paramount importance to the AUVSI and to our industry. We are working closely with manufacturers and users of both ground robots and drones around the country to promote these values.

We actively supported a proposal similar to SB93 in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, which was ultimately signed into law with respect to aerial drones. Our drone prepared campaign advocated for similar policies that promote the safe operation of uncrewed aerial systems based on model legislation that has been heard and enacted in multiple states.

When we envision large scale commercial and civil adoption of drones and robots, weapons are not a part of that picture. Outside of a limited scope of companies, users, and use cases, we and our members work closely with the Department of Defense and our service members to provide them with specialized technologies to keep them and others safe.

Given this experience, we uniquely understand the varying needs these technologies serve, as well as the need to appropriately establish guardrails and guidelines for the responsible and safe use in the State of California and around the world. California is considered, with good reason, to be the innovation capital of the world.

The state is not only home to many companies leading the way in the development of advanced robotics, but also to those developing technologies and components critical to robotic platforms, as well as researchers and users across the state.

And if you can, please complete your thought. Thank you. Thank you.

No further comment. I'll cut it off there. Thank you so much. Be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Our next witness, please.

Good morning, chair and members. My name is Mckinley Thompson-Morley and I'm here today on behalf of Boston Dynamics. Boston Dynamics is the proud co sponsor of SB93 and we thank Senator Weber Pierson for again introducing this critical public safety measure. Boston Dynamics designs and manufactures the world's most advanced mobile robots.

Since our founding by an MIT Professor and his students over 30 years ago, our vision has been to create a general purpose robot that benefits humanity by keeping people safe from harm, increasing productivity at work, and furthering education and safety in our communities.

Advanced mobile robots have become enormously beneficial to workers in many industries across the world, including energy, conservation, entertainment, construction, manufacturing, and more.

However, as advanced mobile robots have become increasingly accessible, we've seen repeated examples of people mounting dangerous weapons to robots capable of navigating locations where people live and work, which raises new risks of harm and serious ethical concerns while generating widespread fear and condemnation in the press, government, academia, and communities.

SB93 is a critical first step for the ethical and safe use of robots in society by prohibiting the operation of a robotic device, including a drone that is mounted with a weapon designed to threaten, cause, death, incapacitate, or physically injure a person.

As the Senator mentioned in her presentation, the bill, through negotiations last year with the legislature and administration, contains exemptions which permit educational institutions to continue their BattleBots programs, doesn't interrupt the use of robots in filming or startups, as well as governmental employees only within the scope of their work.

In summary, SB93 is a balanced, narrowly focused and effective solution to address real concerns about weaponized robots in public hands, while supporting public trust in the robotics industry. We urge your support of SB93. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We'll take any other witnesses and support. Please come forward and state your name, affiliation and position for the record. Is there anyone else who wishes to come forward in support of SB93?

Hi, Nate Fairman from San Diego Local 465 in support. Thank you.

Any other witnesses in support, please come to the microphone. Okay. Seeing none, we'll take any principal witnesses in opposition to SB93, please come forward and you'll have two minutes each to address the committee.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. My name is Yoel Haile. I'm the Director of the Criminal Justice Program at the ACLU of Northern California. A little over two years ago, a broad coalition of San Franciscans that we were part of successfully fought back an attempt to authorize SFPD to use killer robots.

Today, we are here to oppose SB93, which legitimizes the ability of police departments, among other public agencies, to deploy weaponized robotic devices, including land based robots and flying drones. This bill invites an unprecedented expansion of the police state that would harm public safety while lining the pockets of corporate interests.

We strongly oppose the use of weaponized robots for several reasons. First, weaponized robotic devices exacerbate the epidemic of police violence in this country. In 2022, the San Francisco Police Department was 11 times more likely to use force on black people than white people. And in 2023, it was 18 times more likely to do so.

We knew then, as we know now, that arming police departments with killer robots would exacerbate police violence, especially for black and brown communities. Second, weaponized police robots also threaten other civil liberties.

If SB93 was to become law, we should expect robotic devices equipped with not only weapons, but also with invasive cameras and sensors that monitor and scrutinize Californians going to work, attending school, or engaging in protected activism. If we do not ban police killer robots, lethal robots will violate rights, kill and maim Californians in terrifying new ways.

Finally, it's worth noting that the problem this bill purports to address, which is civilian use of armed or killer robots, is something that to our knowledge, has not happened in California.

We remain open to a big tent approach to this problem that includes the author, the sponsor, the governor's office, civil society, grassroots organizations, impacted people, industry and everyone else. An approach that studies the problems and tries to craft a real and lasting solution. But SB93 is clearly not that. We respectfully ask for your no vote. Thank you.

Thank you.

My name is John Lindsay-Poland of the American Friends Service Committee. SB93, as amended, carves out use of weaponized and killer robots and drones for law enforcement, but explicitly does not regulate them. The lack of regulation matters. Currently, there is no adequate escalation of force training for officers to use weaponized robots.

We monitor California law enforcement policies and reports required by AB41 on the use of military equipment, including robots and drones. Hundreds of California law enforcement agencies have acquired robots or drones in recent years. Agency policies commonly define the authorized uses for military equipment in broad terms or not at all.

Local governing bodies charged in AB41 with reviewing those policies usually do not have bandwidth or expertise to evaluate them. Dozens of agencies are not compliant with AB41's provisions for public meetings where the community may know and comment on the use of robots and drones.

In San Francisco and Oakland, agencies propose to jerry-rig rep weapons of their existing to their existing robots in an emergency with no training. Many local policies already authorize agencies to acquire and use drones and robots in quote, exigent circumstances, bypassing approval processes in the state law.

Of 29 law enforcement agencies with robots that we surveyed, all but four have policies that would allow weaponization, and the four that prohibit weaponized robots allow use in exigent circumstances. Robots and the training time required to use them safely are expensive, yet many robots remain idle for years.

In a time of tight city budgets, the state shouldn't send a signal to industry to open new markets for dystopian weapons. Finally, SB93's exception for federal agencies, including ICE, to use weaponized drones and robots opens the door to use them against undocumented migrants in California. Recent federal actions show this possibility is all too real.

We urge you to remove the carve out for weaponized drones and robots for law enforcement or vote no on this Bill. Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much. We'll take any other witnesses in opposition to SB93. Please come forward to the microphone and state your name, affiliation and position for the record.

Taina Vargas, initiate Justice action. In respectful opposition.

Danica Rodarmel, on behalf of law, defense and respectful opposition.

Aubrey Rodríguez with ACLU California Action representing all ACLU affiliates. In opposition.

Kellie Walters, Legal Services for prisoners with children. In opposition.

Margo George, on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association. We haven't taken a position on the bill. We are in discussions with the author and hope that we're able able to work that out. Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much. Any other witnesses in opposition? Okay, seeing now we'll bring it back to the committee for discussion. Colleagues, any questions or comments? Senator Seyarto.

All right, thank you to the author for bringing this forward and thank you for the carve outs. As technology advances, I think it's safer for both police officers and people that are committing crimes to be faced with something that is not going to kill them. But they know that they can't kill because guess what?

That de-escalates the situation. I'm sick and tired of going to police officer funerals, I really am. And most of them get ambushed because they're going into dangerous situations. And those ambushes end up in everybody being dead.

And with technology and robotic type of technology, the new stuff that they have nowadays helps de-escalate that because they can go in and, you know what, the robot can be shot at all they want, but they're not going to. The robot doesn't shoot back because the robot's not in danger of dying.

Police are in danger of dying when they go in. When they send a dog in, the dog is in danger of dying. Robots aren't.

So it doesn't make sense to me that we're concerned that somehow that the police are just going to use it to have a robot go in and kill somebody unless there is a serious threat, unless somebody is using gas, unless somebody is using is continually spraying bullets in a neighborhood or in any situation.

So I don't buy that. I just don't buy that. If there are issues, we'll address them. But right now I think her bill is good. It's a good first step in trying to control some of the things that we do need to control.

But at the same time, I'm sick and tired of trying to limit the ability of our police officers to do their jobs. Which winds up only limiting the amount of time they get to live because the bad guys got weapons, and they got weapons that we're trying to not allow police officers to match. Match their, what they carry.

And so for that, for that reason, I think this has enough protections in it to go forward to help where we need it, but at the same time, not limit the ability of law enforcement to continually update what they're doing to respond to what the criminals are updating to their capabilities. Thank you.

Any other questions or comments, Senator Caballero?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, you know, I look at this a little bit differently. The purpose of the bill is to prohibit drones from having weapons flying around in our neighborhoods. I mean, it's enough of a,

it's enough of a violation to be sitting out in your backyard reading a book, and then beautiful day, birds are tweeting, and then a drone comes flying over and hovers over your backyard. I mean, somebody's looking at your yard, right? They're looking at what's going on for whatever reason. And so I think it's.

I think it's a good bill. You don't always get everything you want in a bill. And I think that was. That was pretty clear the last time the bill was run. I'm as concerned as you are about police use of weapons. I want to make sure that they make sense for the. For the work that they do.

And it's one of the reasons I supported local electeds requiring or required to have a hearing where they invite the community in. And if we need to change it so that they have two or three hearings before they buy any of that military equipment, we should do it.

Because I think it's good for the community to know what the police have. I think they're good. It's good deterrent. Right. And I also think that each community is a little bit different and has a different view of what kind of equipment should be purchased from the military and whether any should be purchased from the military.

And when I was in local government, we had those hearings, and they were robust hearings. And I think we came to some compromises in many instances. So I appreciate this bill that the police use of resources is, I think, a different bill, not to get them confused.

And a lot of times what we do is we do things incrementally. We get little pieces that make sense to us, and this one makes a lot of sense to me. So I appreciate you bringing it forward. Thank you.

And thank you for meeting with myself and committee staff and for accepting the amendments on aligning the definition of weapon with that, establishing case law and ensuring that the applicability of the employment exception to the bill's central prohibition on the use of weaponized drones.

Just making sure we that that exception isn't so broad as to negate the clear intent of the bill, which is to prohibit individuals from whether it's drones, whether it's other robots affixing weapons to them. You know, appreciate the comments of opposition.

The issue of whether law enforcement agencies should be able to use weaponized drones is a separate but related policy matter. But that's not what the purpose of this bill is about. This bill is about private individuals.

And I think, as Senator Caballero said, legislation was passed several years ago to allow for hearings and actions by legislative bodies before the purchase of any militarized equipment. And that ensures that there's transparency and public input as those decisions are being made. But that's a separate policy matter for today. The question for today is individuals.

And certainly we want to limit and prohibit the ability of individuals to, you know, to use robots or drones as weapons. It's an alarming trend that we're seeing. And I really appreciate you bringing for this bill. I will be voting for your bill today. So, Dr. Weber Pierson, would you like to close?

Thank you. I would love to close. Thank you once again for all of your assistance with this bill. Want to thank the comments from my fellow Senators and do want to address once again the opposition.

I know I had stated it in my opening, but I will state it again right now here in California, every single person in this room could get a robot or a drone and put some kind of weaponized device on it, whether it be a flamethrower, a machine gun. Everybody can do that at this point, including law enforcement.

There are no guardrails. This is a very simple bill. It just says that I can't, you can't, individuals cannot do this. And it was stated in already multiple times. It's in the analysis. Currently, law enforcement in California are not prohibited from using weaponized robots or drones. So this does not allow something that is. Is not already allowed.

I hear your concerns and like I said at the beginning, that's a separate issue. You can run a separate bill. This is focusing on prohibiting individuals. But as far as law enforcement is concerned, there is existing law that requires police agencies to seek approval before acquiring such devices.

Specifically, existing law requires law enforcement agencies to get approval from the local governing body, which is what happened in San Francisco, which is why you were aware of what they were thinking about doing and law mandates that the public must have an opportunity to comment on property of law enforcement acquisition or the use of weaponized robotic drones.

So there is some guardrails for that. But this bill does not touch law enforcement. This basically states that individuals cannot, as they should not be able to purchase these drones on the internet, weaponize them, which is what they are able to do at this point.

And so with that, to save, to protect the citizens of California, I respectfully ask for your I vote on SB93. Thank you

Thank you so much senator, aren't you in a motion on SB93? zero, we have a quorum yet? Okay.

All right. So we'll come back to entertaining a motion when we establish a quorum. But thank you very much. Thank you for coming today and presenting your Bill. Our next Bill in file order is SB221. But I don't see Senator Ochoa here, but I do see Senator Dr. Wahab here.

So we'll go to her bill out of order, SB 260. Good morning, Senator. Former Chair.

All right. Thank you, Chair, colleagues, and members of the public. I first want to thank the staff for their help with amendments to this bill. We will be accepting the proposed Committee amendments. I'm here to present SB 260, which establishes updated guidelines on the use of unmanned aircraft or drones over critical infrastructure, as well as their use when making insurance assessments and private property inspections. Since SB 260 is double referred, I'm going to keep my comments just to the public safety aspects of the bill.

And I want to highlight that drone technology has developed at rapid pace. Unfortunately, state regulations typically do not keep up with the growing concerns and needs of our own critical infrastructure sites holding important community institutions such as schools and prisons and things like that, you know, at a standard where we're kind of able to protect what we can from drones.

I will say that regulations across the state are a little bit uneven, with some cities and counties exceeding state standards, while in other places, regulations remain inadequate to ensure the safety of important infrastructures and personnel, as well as students and their families. I do want to highlight that drones are extremely cheap at this moment and they're getting cheaper with a lot more ability. So without state regulations, we will not be able to meet the ever improving levels of sophistication of this type of technology.

So along with assuring citizens about freedom and privacy, which I wholeheartedly support, we also need to just also make sure that the public institutions that are served are free from interference and harm. With me, I'd like to introduce Jonathan Feldman who is with the California Police Chiefs Association.

Great. Good morning, Mr. Feldman. You have two minutes.

Can you hear me through this one? Okay, great. Chair and Members, good to be seated with you here today. Jonathan Feldman, California Police Chiefs Association. Legislature has recognized the need to address the emerging threats caused by expanding commercial and recreational use of drones. This includes the protection of public services from interference and damage.

Existing law establishes penalties for drone interference that impedes public safety officers, firefighters, and emergency medical professionals in the performance of their duty. But these are not the only essential critical public services that our communities rely upon. As proposed to be amended, SB 260 takes a similar approach in protecting critical infrastructure by prohibiting interference or otherwise compromising flights.

The types of facilities or locations deemed critical under this bill are those that Californian's rely upon. Energy production, essential transportation and trade hubs, specified government buildings, and operational and command centers during emergencies. Opponents will argue the discretion given to law enforcement in these provisions is too broad.

But the standard of proof to prove a violation of this is intentional and knowingly, which is one of the highest standards and most difficult standards to prove in a courtroom. And we think that that sets the bar very, very high. Lastly, the Committee analysis correctly points out that there are likely preemption issues in play.

But the latest FAA guidelines that they cite from 2023 do suggest that SB 260 is in line with federal rules. The FAA fact sheet establishes that tailored security related restrictions over certain types of critical infrastructure would likely be permissible where the restrictions were limited to lower altitudes, which the bill does. For all the public safety reasons I noted, we are in strong support of the bill and ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any other principal witnesses in support? Okay, we'll take witnesses in support. If you can please come forward to the microphone and state your name, position, and affiliation for the record.

Good morning. Lieutenant Julio De Leon from the Riverside Sheriff's Office in support.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support of SB 260, please come forward. Okay. Seeing none. And we'll now take any principal witnesses in opposition to SB 260. If you are a principal witness in opposition, please come forward to the table. I don't see any principal witnesses in opposition. Are there any other general witnesses in opposition to SB 260? Please state your name, affiliation, position for the record.

Aubrey Rodriguez with ACLU California Action in the most respectful opposition.

Okay. Any other witnesses in opposition to SB 260? Okay. If not, I'll bring it back to the Committee for questions or comments. Say thank you for working with Committee staff on a few amendments to the bill. I really appreciate bringing this forward.

While it's not the subject of this Committee's jurisdiction, addressing in particular the issue of using drones to conduct inspections to ensure people's eligibility for insurance coverage is a major issue affecting people throughout California, in addition to the public safety issues associated with having drones near critical infrastructure in your schools and even near state buildings. So I appreciate you bringing this bill forward, and I will be voting for your bill today, and thank you for accepting the amendments. Any other questions or comments? Okay. Would you like to close, Senator?

Yes. One, I just really appreciate the entire Committee's effort on this bill. I want to highlight that this was, you know, largely the concept from my own district, visiting with our county sheriff and much more, and the jail facility that they have there, you know, just the inquiries regarding a wide variety of concerns with people held there, as well as schools and much more, and having the conversations with some of the subject matter experts on a statewide level really elevated this issue.

I will say also as a Bay Area Member, where we are talking about a wide variety of different international events and things like that. So I understand a lot of the safeguards that we put in place is to help people, and I really do support this bill, and I appreciate that, and I respectfully ask for an aye.

Thank you very much. We do not yet have a quorum, but at the appropriate time, we'll entertain a motion on SB 260. And thank you very much, Senator Dr. Wahab. Okay, we'll go back to file item two, SB 221. I see Senator Ochoa Bogh here. Good morning, Senator. If there are any principal witnesses in support, please come forward as well.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Senate Bill 221 is a reintroduction of SB89 from last year. SB 221 will better protect victims of stalking by amending state penal code to conform to the federal stalking statute by including threats to a victim's pet as a component of threatening behavior that could be used to establish a pattern of conduct.

The crime of stalking is composed of a pattern of conduct that places victims in fear for their safety or the safety of their family Members or pets.

The standard of proof to convict a stalker is very high, the highest of the standards in the law, meaning there must be proof beyond a reasonable doubt of a pattern of stalking behavior to convict a perpetrator. Unfortunately, stalking victims are unprotected by state law when it comes to threats against their pets.

If example, if a stalker threatens a victim's pet to instill fear in and control their victim, this behavior cannot currently be used to establish a pattern of stalking. Pet owners consider their animals to be a Member of their family or to be a necessary part of their lives.

If we're talking about service animals and stalkers should not be able to use threats against the animal as a means to harass, manipulate or terrorize their victim. Threats to family Members are already covered under state law.

SB221 would simply update California's anti stalking law by adding threats to pets to the list of behaviors used to establish a pattern of stalking. Joining me in support of this Bill is sponsor Nicholas Sackett with the Social Compassion in Legislation and Managing Deputy District Attorney Nick Peterson from the Riverside County District Attorney's Office.

Great. Good morning. zero, it's not on.

There we go. Good morning, sir. Good morning, Committee. Thank you for your time. My name is Nicholas Peterson. I'm a Managing Deputy District Attorney from Riverside County. And I'm not here to tell you that stalking is wrong, dangerous, or criminal. We all know that.

What I do want to talk about briefly is the fact that the current law is leaving unprotected a critical area of vulnerability. You see, stalking is a crime at its heart about control. The stalker inappropriately fixates on a target of obsession, driven by this imagined love, this future that they foresee together.

But when the stalker realizes that that's not going to happen, they enter what's called the devaluation stage, which is incredibly dangerous, where they seek to punish and isolate the victim. Their mentality is that if I can't have you, no one can.

And the goal of the stalker in this stage is to rob the victim of any comfort or any love that comes from anybody else.

So who do we turn to in those, in those times of need for unconditional love, who's always happy to see us first thing in the morning, at the end of the day, a short trip to Sacramento, our beloved animal companions. Right, our pets.

And for this reason, stalkers often target the pets of their victims because that's where they can inflict the most pain. So I offer you the example of Brianna, 18 year old from my county, whose stalker threatened to take her beloved kitten Wally and quote, unquote, skin him alive.

Under the current law, that statement that he would skin her cat alive was not protected, was not considered stalking because the law didn't recognize Wally as an immediate family Member.

If the law had recognized that, law enforcement could have intervened and the Story could have ended differently, but it didn't because of the distinction between pets and family Members.

But that distinction meant nothing to her stalker, who a few days later took her kitten and used him as blackmail to lure her to a field where she found the kitten dead.

Sadly, Brianna is far from alone in her experience and under the current law, we have to wait until the animal is taken are killed to consider that conduct criminal. Even then, it's defined as theft or animal cruelty. But we have to call it what it is. It's stalking.

And let's not wait until a pet is taken or killed to make that recognition. In cases like Brianna's, we're missing a golden opportunity to intervene before a tragedy occurs. All it takes to change that is the recognition that animals are family. Please consider the proposed legislation.

Please give protection to the most innocent and vulnerable Members of our community. I thank you for your time. Thank you very much.

There we go. Good morning, Chair Members. My name is Nicholas Sackett, Director at Social Compassion in Legislation and Animal rights Advocacy Non-Profit founded in 2007 and proud sponsor of SB221. The reason that we and other animal rights organizations support this bill is because we are acutely aware of the bond that our supporters have with their animals.

We see every day the lengths that Californians will go to save their pets from harm. This bill isn't about protecting those animals from harm, although in practice we know that it will do so. This bill is about protecting people from being terrorized by their stalker, using the human animal bond as a point of vulnerability.

A 2024 Pew Research poll showed that 97% of Americans consider their pet family, with 57% of women and 64% of lower income demographics considering their animal to be as equal to a human family Member. This Bill recognizes the reality of those figures.

If your loved one came to you and said they had an ex who was committing all the components of the Stalking Crime Willfully, maliciously and repeatedly following or harassing them and making a credible threat with the intent to place your loved one in fear for the safety of their animals.

Would you want to tell them that unfortunately that kind of behavior is not against the law, that there's nothing the law can do for them until some future animal abuse is carried out? To me, our supporters, that behavior should be criminal. Thank you for listening. Appreciate your consideration and urge your ibook. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Before we go to any other witnesses in support, we do have a quorum, so I'd like to ask the Committee assistant to call the roll Here. Say Arto. Here. Say Arto. Here. Caballero. Caballero. Here. Gonzalez. Gonzalez. Here. Perez Wiener. And ask that the other Members. We are meeting in Room 2021021 O Street.

As soon as you are able, please join us so we can record your vote respectfully on the bills. So are there any other witnesses in support of SB221? Please come forward to the microphone and state your name, affiliation and position for the record.

Chiefs Association in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Chair Members. Usha Mechler, on behalf of the California State Sheriffs Association, in support. Thank you. Thank you.

Good morning. Chair and Members. Karen Stoud, on behalf of the Animal Legal Defense Fund, we're in strong support. Thank you.

Good morning. David Boyd for the California District Attorneys Association in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Lieutenant Julio De Leon from the Riverside Sheriff's Office in support.

Any other witnesses in support of SB221? Okay. We'll now take. Any principal witnesses in opposition to SB221, please come forward.

Alright, Chair Members, My name is Aubrey Rodriguez and I am a legislative advocate. ACLU California Action. Our organization is in opposition to SB 221, which would greatly expand the definition of stalking, a crime that carries with it a punishment between 1 and 5 years in prison.

The ACLU is concerned that broadening this language could lead to the over criminalization of actions that, while insensitive or unwelcome, do not rise to the level of true stalking and warrant imprisonment. Criminalizing behavior that is insensitive is not only impractical but dangerous.

Over criminalization exacerbates existing racial and economic disparities in the justice system while also disproportionately affecting individuals who are low income and unable to afford legal representation or pay fines.

This expansion of criminal activity can ensnare and vent individuals in the criminal justice system for relatively minor infractions leading to long term consequences such as loss of employment, housing and civil liberties.

As advocates for community members who do not have the privilege of addressing policymakers directly, we ask you to be mindful of these impacts when considering legislation that seeks to expand criminal penalties for nonviolent offenses.

Lastly, it is important to note that existing law already provides protections to animals under the animal cruelty laws at the state and federal level.

And as noted in the analysis that was provided to everyone, a prosecutor can already argue that any person who would reasonably fear who would reasonably fear for their own safety if the perpetrator was threatening a person's pet in addition to committing other harassing or threatening behavior against that person, which ultimately makes this bill unnecessary.

For these reasons, we urge your no vote on SB 221. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Any other principal witnesses in opposition to SB 221?

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

Any other Witnesses in opposition? SB 221.

Danica Rodarmel, on behalf of Initiated Justice and the LA Public Defenders Union Local 148 in respectful opposition.

Any other witnesses in opposition to SB 221? Okay, thank you. I'll bring it back to the committee for questions and comments. Before we go back to the author, any questions or comments, I just want to say. Oh, Senator Seyarto.

Yes, thank you very much. So, you know, I kind of look at this as if you're going to threaten somebody's pet. There's something wrong with you already. If you are stalking somebody, you know you're being stalked.

And if you take it to another level and it's threatening a pet or doing something to that pet and you're only- you're only if you're the victim of that. In other words, you're the pet owner. Your only recourse is to watch them get charged with animal cruelty instead of the stalking that that person so well deserves.

I don't agree with that. You don't? There's no thing in high school occupation stalking and pet killing, so maybe we ought to take that seriously when people are doing that. And also, pet killing is related to going into being serial killers later. So maybe we're taking a serial killer off the- off the, out of the public.

And so, you know, I think your bill is a good bill. It's not about the pet, even though for me it would be. But it's about the progression of a serious threat to a human being with stalkers, because sometimes those stalkers turn into murderers. And I think intervening at an earlier stage is probably a good idea.

So I'll be supporting your bill.

Thank you. Any other questions or comments? Senator Caballero?

So, you know, I mean, the bottom line is we're talking about stalking here. And so the challenge. I'm going to support your bill today. But to me, when. When I look at the way that the law is set up, it's continued and repeated behavior, threats and actions that lead a person to feel unsafe.

And if we have to wait until someone actually injures or kills an animal, then we've not done enough. And that all we're saying is that if the behavior is repeated threatening behavior and it includes the animal of an individual, that it should be included as part of the stalking statute. So I don't see this.

I mean, this is really a fairly minimal kind of expansion. And I think it's really true that if someone is likely in their stalking behavior to include an animal in it, there's an- there's an increased threat because you're not always with your animal. And people really do love their animals like they're part of the family.

It's intended by a stalker to be the family member that they know that the person loves and wants to protect. So I'm going to support your bill today. I think it's a fairly narrow addition to the bill, and I appreciate you bringing it forward. Thank you.

Any other questions or comments following up on Senator Caballero's comments. You have to may mutilate, torture, or wound or kill an animal for that to meet the standard of animal cruelty. And that is a very high bar.

And that does not provide protection for people who are intending to threaten people's pets as a way to intimidate or harass an individual. So I think this provides added protections for Californians as well as their pets. And I will be voting for your bill today.

And just note that this is a reintroduction of a bill, SB 89, that was introduced and passed out of this committee last year here. I think for the same reasons, I will be voting for your bill today. So I'll turn it back over to you, Senator Ochoa Bogh, to close.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, once again, the crime of stalking is composed of a pattern of conduct that places the victims in fear for their safety and the safety of their family members or pets. And the standard of proof to convict a stalker is very, very high in California, the highest of standards of all in law.

In the law, meaning that there must be proof beyond a reasonable doubt of the pattern of stalker behavior to convict a perpetrator. Current law ignores how powerful a threat to beloved pet can be. Not updating statute, state statute leaves the victims vulnerable and gives stalkers a method of perpetrating fear in their victims without consequence.

California's anti stalking law must be updated to cut off this loophole for stalkers and better protect the victims. I thank the the committee for their support and their witnesses for being here today. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Moved by Senator Seyarto.

Alright.

SB 221, Ochoa-Bogh. Motion is do pass to Appropriations. [VOTE IS CALLED]

Okay, we'll keep that bill on call. Thank you very much, Senator Ochoa Bogh. Before we go to Senator Jones, who I see here, since we do have a quorum, I'll entertain a motion on the consent calendar, which consists of SB 459, Grayson, SB 552, Cortese, and SB 553, Cortese. Unless a Member would like to pull an item for further discussion. Motion on the consent calendar by Seyarto. Let's call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay, we'll keep that motion on call. Let's go to SB 93 as amended. I'll entertain a motion. Moved by Caballero. Let's call the roll.

SB 93, Weber Pierson. Motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations. [Roll Call]

And then that bill will be on call. And file item 3, SB 260 as amended, Wahab. Moved by Senator Caballero. Let's call the roll, please.

Motion is do pass as amended and re-refer to Insurance Committee. [Roll Call]

Okay, we'll keep that bill and call as well. Thank you very much. And thank you for waiting very patiently Senator Jones. I'll turn it over to you to present on SB 379.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members, I have before you today Senate Bill 379, which brings additional oversight and accountability to the process for releasing sexually violent predators back into the community.

A sexually violent predator, or SVP, is an individual convicted of a sexually violent offense and diagnosed with a mental disorder that causes them to be a danger to others and a high likelihood to reoffend.

When an SVP is determined ready for release from civil commitment under the Department of State Hospitals, a process known as conditional release program begins. Currently, the department uses a third party contractor to execute the entire process, taking little to no personal responsibility for the oversight. This bill will make two important updates to this conditional release process.

First, SB 379 will require the Department of State Hospitals to ensure that department vendors consider public safety as a priority when placing SVPs into communities. Second, SB 379 requires the department to take a bigger role in the process by mandating that they approve any lease before the department employee or vendor can sign any leases for placements locations.

While the department is within its right to contract out for services, it was never the intent of the legislature to fully privatize the process and relinquish all control and and oversight of the release program to third parties. These common sense updates will afford more oversight to the process and help ensure more appropriate placements for SVP's.

I'd like to introduce my witness today, our advocate, Mary Jeters, to speak on the bill.

Good morning. You have two minutes.

Good morning and thank you all for everything you do to keep our communities safe. I live in the Antelope Valley on the outskirts of unincorporated Los Angeles County. 10 days ago, a sexually violent predator named Christopher Hubbard, also known as the Pillowcase Rapist, was placed in a home in the small community of Juniper Hills.

Christopher Hubbard has committed heinous sex crimes against dozens of women over decades and reoffended repeatedly each time he was released.

About 10 years ago, he was placed on a property less than 10 miles from where he is now, because of significant public safety concerns, protests went on at the location for nearly two years, with Hubbard breaking the terms of his release several times before he was finally sent back to the mental hospital.

Our rural community now has three SVPs on release in LA County. We have very little phone reception and poor roads. Even worse, if something were to happen and we happen to have service to call for help, we have very limited law enforcement coverage and long delays for them to arrive.

How is this a safe area for these predators? Repeatedly, Liberty Health Care and the Department of State Hospitals have placed extremely dangerous serial rapists in very remote rural areas surrounded by families and single women with little to no infrastructure and support services nearby.

Clearly, this predator release process does not consider the public safety aspect when choosing where to put these SVPs. This seems to be typical of these placements throughout the state, rural neighborhoods with limited law enforcement and few services. The state's contractor, Liberty Healthcare, has complete control of the release process from beginning to end, with little to no oversight.

The department overseeing the process and supposedly the contractor refuses to be involved when asked questions. There's no accountability from either party as they point fingers back at one another. It's unbelievable that they currently don't even consider safety at all.

We need Senator Jones bill to force Liberty Health Care and the Department of State Hospitals to consider the public's safety when choosing where to put these very dangerous sexually violent predators. Furthermore, Senator Jones bill will require the department to get involved with these placements and take ownership.

Right now, Liberty Health Care has no accountability for their leases, allowing them to spend thousands of dollars before a judge can even approve the placement. This is wrong. And Senator Jones bill will fix and force the state to have oversight of a rogue contractor.

Please help us repair this broken system and pass the SAFE Act, Senate Bill 379. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Sir, would you like to also testify or are you just here to provide moral support?

Moral support.

Okay. Why don't you just say who you are?

Oh, good morning. Kelly Jeters, better half or other half of Mary. I'm in support of this- of both bills that are coming before you.

Great. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Okay, we'll take any other witnesses in support of SB 379. If you can please come forward to the microphone and state your name, affiliation and position for the record.

Good morning, Mr. Chair, Members. Usha Mutschler, on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association, in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

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

Thank you.

Dylan Lisofsky with the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department in support.

Thank you very much.

Senator Suzette Valladares on behalf of the community of Jup- Jupiter Hills in support.

Thank you. Senator.

Kayleigh Kozak, namesake of Kayleigh's Law, in support.

Kristen Von Waldburg, victims advocate and California constituent, in full support.

Okay, thank you. Any other witnesses in support of SB 379? Okay, thank you all for being here today. We'll now take any principle witnesses in opposition to SB 379. If there are any principle witnesses, please come forward. Okay. If not, we'll take any witnesses in opposition to SB 379.

Can please come forward and state your name, affiliation and position for the record.

Taina Vargas, Initiate Justice Action in opposition.

Thank you.

Stephanie Gonzalez, Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, in opposition.

Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in opposition to SB 379? Okay. If not, I'll bring it back to the committee for any questions or comments. Senator Gonzalez.

Thank you Mr. Chair. Just question to the author and certainly understand the issue here, but per the analysis, the Department of State Hospitals already has the authority to do this. So how would we differ and what, you know, obviously this is an important issue to continue raising, but how do you see this?

Sure. And you know, this is the normal give and take between the administration and the legislature. You are correct. They do have the authority to do this. They've just refused to do so.

We've asked, many of us have asked both in the senate and in the assembly for the state hospitals to take a more direct approach to this process, and they've just chosen not to. And so this is the legislature saying to the state hospitals we would really now we're requiring you to do this.

Okay, thank you.

Senator Seyarto.

Yeah. I want to thank you for the bill because I have several of these type of small communities that are in rural areas that it seems to be convenient, a more convenient place to put these sexually violent prisoners, I'm sorry, offenders, and nobody has been reeling them in. And we can't get anything done.

And no matter how much people come, you know, complain, they talk to us, we can't seem to get a handle on that safety aspect of it because for all the reasons your witness mentioned, those are the problems out in those rural areas.

And there are also, you know, some instances where the state or us is paying twice as much for rent. So that's how they're buying their way into these communities, by spending twice as much of our taxpayer dollars to pay rent. And so anyway, I appreciate your bill, obviously going to support it, and I'll move the bill.

Okay. We'll enter that motion at the appropriate time. Senator Perez.

A couple of questions just so I make sure that I understand apologies for just getting here. So I missed the comments that you made. This is a new topic for me. So the Department of State Hospitals is the one that releases sexually violent predators.

So they're the ones that are then making the decision as to which community that they're placed in. So that's ultimately up to them. This is a surprise to me. So that's why I'm asking for clarity.

So that. And the clarity would be this bill.

Because right now, state hospitals, once the SVP is qualified for release, it is a long process, typically, and a lot of times the contractor that's in charge of this program that the state has contracted with will look, you know, throughout the state, I think the SVPs require to be released into the county that they came from.

So it can take up to two years for the contractor to find a house, what the contractor would consider a proper housing situation. Usually it's in a rural area. There have been situations where it's been in an urban area. Not as often, though.

And so to answer your question directly, once the state hospitals turns the sexually violent predator release over to the contractor, state hospitals pretty much washes their hands of the situation and leaves everything up to the contractor. And so what we're asking here is that state hospitals have a little bit more accountability in the process.

So it's the contractor that's making the decision as to where they're placed. I just didn't know that.

And the state is paying that contractor a monthly fee the entire time while they're looking for the house to put them in.

Okay. I just didn't know that was the responsibility of DSH rather than CDCR.

Right, yeah. This is a separate. This is a different program than CDCR.

Okay, excellent. Thank you.

Any other questions or comments on SB 379? Okay, I'll turn it back over to you, Senator Jones, to close.

Thank you, Chairman. I want to thank Mary and Kelly for coming and being here this morning and those of us that have been here for a while.

I think every senator and every assemblymember has been impacted by this SVP release program, especially those of us that represent rural areas. While Mary and Kelly are from the high desert in LA County, we've seen these situations in San Diego County, El Dorado county, all over the state.

And it's becoming more and more prevalent that these sexually violent predators are being released from State hospital, according to law, by the way. I will, you know, underscore that, but it's important that state hospitals take a position of responsibility and accountability in this. In keeping our neighborhoods safe.

So this is a very small incremental step in requiring that accountability from state hospitals. And so SB 379 holds the Department of State Hospitals accountable for the placement of SBPs and prevents the Department from offloading its duty onto a private contractor and prioritize. And prioritize the profits. I respectfully ask for your aye vote this morning. Thank you.

Thank you. The Chair is recommending an aye on this bill. And Senator Seyarto, I think you moved the bill already. So we'll call the roll on SB 379.

SB 379. The motion is do pass to Appropriations. [ROLL CALL]

Okay, that bill's out. Thank you.

That bill's out. Thank you, Senator. Okay, before we go to our next file item, which is file item 5, SB 421, let's lift the call on the bills that we've already previously taken roll on.

SB 93, Weber Pierson. The motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations. The current vote is for 4 to 0. [Roll Call]

That bill is out. Thank you.

SB 221, Ochoa Bogh. Motion is do pass to Appropriations. Current vote is 4 to 0. [Roll Call]

Okay. And SB 221 is out. Thank you.

SB 260, Wahab. Motion is do pass as amended to and re-refer to Committee on Insurance. Current vote is 4 to 0. [Roll Call]

That bill is out as well. Thank you. Okay. And on consent... And once again, consent consists of file item 6, SB 459, Grayson. File item 7, SB 552, Cortese. And file item 8, SB 553, Cortese. And so if you can please call the roll now and consent.

[Roll Call]

Okay, Consent calendar is now approved. Thank you very much. So we'll now proceed to our next file item, file item 5, SB 421, Valladares. And Senator Valladares is present. Good morning. You may now present your bill.

Good morning and thank you, Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee, I'm here today to present Senate Bill 421, also known as Kayleigh's Law. And let me start by saying that I will not be taking the Committee's amendments provided by the Committee.

My office received them at 4:55 this past Friday, and that's technically 33 minutes before this hearing. And these amendments do not reflect the intent of the bill, and I cannot accept them. SB 421, as written and as intended, allows a judge the discretion to issue a lifetime injunction against a defendant at the time of sentencing for a serious felony, a violent felony, or a felony sex offense.

Right now, California law only allows temporary restraining orders, meaning survivors have to return to court over and over to reface their abusers and relive their trauma just to maintain basic protections. And that is, frankly, unacceptable. Now, why does this matter? Let's talk about a high profile example, Megan Thee Stallion.

She had a restraining order against Tory Lanez, the man convicted of shooting her. But once it expired, she had to return to court to seek another because of continued harassment. That's someone with money, with resources, and with significant visibility. Imagine what happens to survivors without those advantages.

We shouldn't need a celebrity case to show us that survivors deserve lasting protection. Under Kayleigh's Law, survivors of some of the worst crimes, attempted murder, rape, kidnapping, child molestation, human trafficking of a minor, can begin healing without the fear of retaliation of harassment or further violence.

Kayleigh's Law is already in statute in Arizona, in Wisconsin, in Colorado, in Tennessee, in Texas, in Virginia. It's moving through the process in Oregon and Missouri and Wyoming. This is a standard now, and California should be leading, not lagging. Today testifying in support of the bill are Kayleigh Kozak, the namesakes of the bill, and Kristy von Waldburg, a resident of Orange County and a survivor who will speak to the importance of this legislation.

Good morning. My name is Kayleigh Kozak. I would like to thank Senator Valladares for sponsoring this bill. I stand before you as a survivor of childhood sexual abuse, an advocate for change, and the namesake of Kayleigh's Law. This law has become a symbol of hope for survivors across the nation, gaining widespread bipartisan support in transforming lives.

But here in California, this critical protection for victims remains unfulfilled, leaving countless victims without the safety that they need and deserve. The current standard in California allows protection orders for up to 10 years, but more commonly falls within 4 to 6.

While this may seem sufficient on the surface, it forces victims to endure their ongoing trauma of repeatedly justifying their need for protection from the person who has harmed them. A 10 or 15 year extension only prolongs the cycle, continually reopening wounds rather than providing the security and the peace survivors need to rebuild their lives. Why is a victim who suffered at the hands of someone else's actions only worthy of 10 or 15 years of protection? California ranks among the top three states for incidents of sexual violence, highlighting the urgency of addressing this crisis.

Additionally, members of the LGBTQIA community face disproportionately higher risks of of experiencing sexual violence, making this protection a critical component for them. Aren't we still fighting to protect them, too? This law matters because it positively affects victims of these heinous crimes every single day. This is about real people, real lives, and the very real pain that we endure as we strive for safety and healing for what was done to us. Without this protection, so many are forced to live in fear, unable to move forward.

There is no contradiction in striving for protection of victims and pursuing criminal justice reform that California seeks. Both goals can coexist. I ask you to please support this bill. Every 68 seconds, an American is sexually assaulted. These aren't just statistics. These are human lives changed forever by the violence of the hands of another individual.

Each number represents someone's pain, someone's story, and someone's fight to survive. I see the millions of survivors behind these numbers. I see their resilience, their courage, and their fight. I will fight for them. But today, I ask you to fight for them, too. And to anyone who has become a victim of someone else's selfish actions, know that I will never stop fighting for you because you still matter. Thank you so much for the opportunity to speak.

Thank you very much. Good morning.

Thank you to the Chair and the Committee Members. Hello. My name is Kristy von Waldburg. I'm a wife, I'm a mother, and I'm a survivor of childhood sex sexual abuse. I want to thank Senator Valladares for sponsoring this much needed legislation. I know firsthand the impact physically, mentally, spiritually, and emotionally and financially that this trauma takes on a person and their loved ones. In March of 2019, my identical twin sister and I faced our childhood sex abuser in court. It was over 35 years since he took our innocence at the age of 7.

Statute of limitations prevented us from seeking legal recourse. However, we were able to assist the prosecution with victims impact statement letters and we were present at his sentencing. It was a very traumatic experience. He is currently serving 30 to 60 years in prison for raping an innocent girl under the age of 14. And he will most likely be up for parole in nine years.

Healing from my childhood trauma has not been, has been a lifelong journey. I am here today from the grace of God as a survivor, using my past and personal pain as a voice for others. I met Kayleigh four years ago and knew immediately that California needed this law. It gives much needed and overdue support to victims, survivors adding another level of protection for their healing and justice. We want to see an increase in legal advocacy and trauma informed justice for victims.

We need to swing the pendulum back, balance the justice process indefinitely for the good of all of our communities. Like Kayleigh said, every 68 seconds another American is sexually assaulted, and every nine minutes that victim is a child. Nearly half of all women and one third of men have experienced sexual violence.

Not everyone has a strong support system when they report abuse. If these victims are brave enough to step into a courtroom, face their perpetrator, go through the legal process, let's offer them protection and safety. This legislation enhances victim safety from the most dangerous offenders pathways.

It is critical tool to protect victims of serious violent and sex related felonies from lifelong threats while incorporating mechanisms to ensure fairness and avoid undue punishment. We must protect victims without forcing them to repeatedly relive trauma through renewal processes. I urge you to vote yes on SB 421 for all Californians. Thank you so much.

Okay, thank you very much. We'll now take any other witnesses in support of SB 421. If you can please come forward to the microphone.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Usha Mutschler on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association in support.

Good morning. Julio De Leon on behalf of Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco in support.

Chair and Members, Jonathan Feldman. Apologies our letter didn't make it in in time. We are in support. California Police Chiefs Association.

Ashlie Bryant, 3Strands Global Foundation, proud supporter and co-sponsor of this legislation.

Kristi Merrill, 3Strands Global Foundation, and proud support sponsor of this bill and survivor of human trafficking.

David Boyd, the California District Attorneys Association, in support.

Aisha Davis, local Sacramento County resident, in support.

Thank you. Are there any other witnesses support of SB 421?

Good morning. My name is Satnam Singh. I'm a resident of City of Stockton, and I'm in support. Thank you.

Okay. Unless there are any other further witnesses in support of SB 421, we'll now take any principal witnesses in opposition to SB 421.

Good morning. I'm Margo George on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association and also the San Francisco Public Defender's Office. As noted in the Committee analysis. Well, first, I want to say I'm really sorry for what happened to you both.

I know that that is not uncommon for women, you know, both women in public defenders offices, the general public and everywhere. So I'm really sorry and my heart goes out to you.

But I do want to say regarding the wisdom of this policy, that it's a drastic expansion of the long term protective orders from being narrowly tailored to just domestic violence and sex offenses to some 80 offenses such as robbery and carjacking, where the defendant and victim are most likely strangers.

In order to comply with the stay away order, they would have to be given, a defendant would have to be given, notice of the general area the victim resided in. Additionally, SB421 would apply retroactively. It would create log jams in the court of misdemeanor contempt charges.

People who are in prison now who had no idea that they had such a protective order would come out without any notice. And finally, the research has shown that the efficacy of such orders is not really there.

The research by the National Institute of Health of a large group in Dallas, Texas, of primarily women who were seeking restraining orders for domestic violence two year restraining orders showed that the violence decreased when the individuals applied for the orders, regardless of whether the court granted the order or not.

And the author's hypothesis was that just by the individuals coming forward and having agency and taking action, that that might have been the reason that the violence was reduced, that they were acting on their own behalf. Some of the earlier studies had mixed results. Sometimes the violence decreased with the orders and sometimes it actually increased.

And that was eight studies that the NIH researchers looked at and had methodological problems. Finally, I would just say, as a public defender, many times I had the victims coming to me and asking how they could lift the existing orders. And they thought that merely by saying that that's what they wanted to do that it would happen.

And what happened, of course, was that people would be found in violation and this would have drastic consequences, including it could lead to deportation. So for those reasons, I respectfully asked for no vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any other principal witnesses in opposition to SB421? Okay, if not, we'll take any other witnesses in opposition to SB421. Thank you.

Danica Rodarmel. On behalf of Smart Justice, the LA Public Defenders Union - Local 148, Initiate Justice, and La Defensa in respectful opposition.

Thank you.

Aubrey Rodriguez with ACLU California Action and strong opposition.

Saray Soto with the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights. In opposition.

Kellie Walters with Legal Services for Prisoners with Children. In opposition.

Thank you. Are there any other witnesses? In opposition SB421. Okay, so that completes our testimony. I'll bring it back to the Committee for any questions or comments. And Senator Caballero.

I want to thank the witnesses for, for sharing your stories with us. It's not easy to. I know how difficult it is. Let me just say that there are problematic issues with making it forever for all of the serious and violent felonies. I think the Committee amendments really target it.

I think it gets exactly at what you're concerned about, which is the, the violent felonies that are sex crimes where the person has the, they know who it is that they've assaulted and violated.

I think some of the issues that were raised in regards to having to know, I mean you have to, you have to know where, where the victim would be living in order to not be in within a certain distance of them.

And I don't think we want to be giving out victims information in order to keep people, the perpetrators away anyway. I think the Committee recommendations were well suited to what you were trying to achieve.

And I'm disappointed to hear that you're not taking the Committee amendments, but that's totally up to you and so I won't be able to support a Bill today

just to, just.

That's my statement. And I think you'll have an opportunity to close as well.

Yes. Yeah. Unless there's a question directed to the author. If you can hold your response to your closing statement. I do want to ensure the Committee has an opportunity to ask questions. So Senator Seyarto.

I have. Wasn't going to have, but now I do. Any restraining order can be violated unknowingly by anybody, any, anytime. This sends a strong message that not only strong message, but it keeps people from having to repeat the trauma of having to go time after time because when it becomes that inconvenient to keep a bad person away from you.

A. Lot of times it doesn't happen. And then the bad person does finally get his, just gets his. What he wants, which is, or he or she, which is to cause harm. I've seen too many of these, too many, too many of these where they, they don't get the restraining order.

And you're saying that just the act of getting a restraining order will, will sometimes reduce that violence? Well, I don't understand this argument that, you know, hey, they may drive by and then they're going to get arrested. That's not really what happens.

What happens in real life is they appear and they appear on purpose, whether they were stalking or whatever. And that enables them that puts them back in the system. And so I will be supporting your Bill as it is. And I moved the Bill. Thank you.

Unless there's any other questions or comments. Yes. Senator Perez.

Yeah, I want to make sure that I understand clearly what your Bill is trying to do and also what some of the amendments were trying to do. So the Bill would require a court to consider issuing a lifetime criminal protective order. So it would be a consideration.

So it would still be up to the judge, is that correct?

Correct. And thank you for that question. And that is very clear in my Bill that this does give discretion to the judge. So, you know, and I would have gladly been able to have had more conversations with the Committee, but they sent these amendments to me at 4:55 on Friday. I couldn't.

I didn't have the availability to have those conversations. But what it's also doing is taking out serious felony and violent felonies. And serious felonies and violent felonies included in this are rape, sodomy, lewd acts with a minor murder or voluntary manslaughter.

How am I supposed to tell that rape victim or somebody who was forced sodomy or human trafficked that their trauma wasn't enough to be included in this Bill? And I think that the witnesses may have some additional information about why this is important.

And then I'm also happy to if you have a question about the Committee amendments, I'm happy to address this.

I think I'd love to, I guess, hear more on this piece. I think also the opposition mentioned a piece around whether a victim wanting the order to be reconsidered, but it looks like that I'm just it looks like that language is included in here. And you mentioned that the victim wouldn't be able to have a reconsideration.

Sometimes there are cases where victims maybe through a process of restorative justice might want for a protective order to be lifted. So wanted you to speak to that a little bit and then want to talk more about the amendments.

So most of my clients and their families were not terribly sophisticated. So they would reconcile either during the pendency of the court case or after the case was over. And they would think since it was a protective order that protected one party that the party themselves could say, I no longer need this order.

And they didn't have to go back to court. And so they would reconcile, they'd live together, they would come to court together sometimes and sit together in court. And they didn't understand that they actually had to come back to the court and let the court decide whether or not to drop the protective order.

So that would be fine, you know, if there were no problems.

But if they were stopped, for example, for a traffic violation and the police officer ran both of them and saw there was a restraining order keeping one party from the other party, even though the complainant or victim said I don't want him arrested, the officer would say, well there's a restraining order, I have to arrest them.

So that is part of the problem that we would see as public defenders. Other times victims would, the judge would say, talk to the District Attorney.

The District Attorney would make a paternalistic decision that the person you know was not qualified or didn't know what she wanted and recommend to the judge that the restraining order or protective order not be dropped.

Thank you. And then to the Committee amendments and I don't know, we could maybe have a, Sheriff maybe you wanted.

Yeah, I can. And Stephanie can elaborate as well. Just to clarify, all the amendments that we have proposed were submitted after consultation with Committee staff. Committee staff meets with me the week before. We set bills to discuss their recommendations and to get my recommendation. And so those Committee amendments were drafted and provided to everyone on Friday.

We had a three day weekend. I apologize. That wasn't not enough time. I respect the fact that you don't want to accept those amendments. That's your prerogative. You could have pulled the Bill. We could have had more discussion. But I respect your position.

But the amendment was limiting it to felony sex offense offenses only, those that require registration pursuant to Section 290 of the Penal code, and to allow for protective orders up to 15 years as determined by the court.

And that's really to get to the specific issues that I believed and staff believed were the impetus for this Bill, which is dealing with the very real and unacceptable situations of people that are victims of felony sex offenses. The list of serious felonies is a very, very long list as the principal witness in opposition had said.

And so it's really trying to narrowly tailor the Bill. And I think it's for already existing law.

Just in the record as stated on in the Committee analysis does provide a much more expansive period of time for on page five of the Committee analysis for people that are convicted of domestic violence that allows for a period of up to 15 years.

But for felony sex offenses, it's subject to the current 10 year period for a protective order. So this would be trying to align those felony sex offenses with the provisions of penal code section 273.5 that allow for protective order up to 15 years for domestic violence. That was the amendment that we had proposed trying to narrowly tailor.

And I totally respect your position and your willingness to not accept the amendments. And that was what we had proposed.

And so I'll just expand that. I don't. The intent of this Bill is that people that, and victims and survivors that experience serious bodily harm, rape, sodomy, human trafficking, don't have to relive that trauma by allowing them to have a permanent injunction.

That a judge looks at that crime, whatever it was, and makes that determination on whether or not the victim or survivor would be eligible for a permanent injunction. And I do think that the witnesses wanted to weigh in on this as well. So if, if so, would you allow that? Mr. Chair?

I mean Senator Perez has the floor. So if she has a question for a specific for you or a witness, that would be in order. But she has the floor currently.

Yeah, no, I, I appreciate the answers to my question just so I can get a better understanding of kind of what happened and how the process is moving.

As someone that, you know, is very, very familiar with the process of restraining order and also how challenging it is to even get one to begin with, especially for those that are survivors of whether it be domestic violence or rape and just having to prove that in a court.

I understand your intention with trying to protect victims here and, and how challenging it is to face the person who attacked you, violated you, whatever it may be in court and how emotionally painful that is, but can appreciate what also the, our expert in opposition had shared just around these domestic violence cases.

Unfortunately, I am familiar with those situations as well where you do have folks that reconcile, you know, despite what the situation might be, whether or not it's dangerous or it's no longer dangerous. And that creating challenges and issues as well. So and unfortunately quite familiar with these types of situations. So. Yeah, thank you.

Before we go to the author, any other questions or comments from Committee Members? Okay, Senator Valladares, so I'll turn it back over you to close.

Thank you. Kayleigh's Law is more than just about protecting survivors. It's about improving efficiency in our legal system and providing defendants clarity on their restrictions from day one. It allows survivors to move forward, preventing retraumatization while ensuring that those convicted of these horrific crimes who fully understand the scope of their consequences.

And I can personally speak to the deep, lasting impact that trauma on a person, that trauma has on a person's life. In 2006, I was working as a server at a restaurant in Pasadena when a man walked in the door with a gun. As he approached, time seemed to slow down. Time seemed to seemed to slow down.

And every moment felt like an eternity. Panic surged over me. I ran out the back door yelling, "Run, he has a gun." I leapt over a wall and found safety with a few of my friends at the gas station across the street.

My friend in the back office had a gun pressed to her head and she handed over money from that night shift. Even as I recall that moment now, my heart races and I'm transported to that place of raw fear. A feeling I will never forget.

I never needed a restraining order, but I can't help but think about the trauma that others must endure. The ones who have been kidnapped, assaulted, trafficked, or endured far worse harm. The pain and fear they carry are unimaginable. And I know the scars left behind are not just physical. They're emotional and they're forever.

Kaylee's law will help provide survivors with the protections that they deserve, ensuring that they can begin to heal without the constant reminder of the fear and the uncertainty that came with their victimization.

It's time to ensure that those who commit the most violent crimes understand the lasting impact on survivors and that we give them the tools and resources to rebuild their lives. Which is why I ask you for your compassion to support survivors and support this Bill. They thank you.

Thank you, Senator. I think Senator Seyarto did move the Bill as presented. And I want to thank you for sharing that very painful, difficult story, Senator Valladares. And I totally respect your intent about what you're trying to accomplish with this Bill, and I really feel for our witnesses and really appreciate your bravery and courage being here today.

My concern, as I had stated, is the permanency of the protective orders that could be issued under this and the long list of serious offenses that don't just include violent sex offenses. So I will respectfully be not supporting your Bill today. But I appreciate you bringing this forward and appreciate the thoughtful discussion that we've had.

So we'll now call the roll on the motion.

SP421. Valladares. Motion is due. Pass to Appropriations. Arreguin.

Arreguin. No. Seyarto.

No.

Seyarto. Aye. Caballero. Gonzalez.

Aye.

Gonzalez. No. Perez.

No.

Aye.

Perez. Aye. Wiener.

No.

Wiener. No.

Okay. That motion did not carry.

Reconsideration, sir.

Okay. Is there any objection to reconsideration? Okay. Hearing none. That that motion does prevail.

Thank you.

Thank you. Ok. We'll now move to Senator Seyarto. Thank you. And we'll now proceed to SB432. Seyarto. And I need to step away very briefly, so I'll turn the chair over to Senator Caballero. Nothing personal.

I'll be right back and turn the floor over to you. If you'd like to present the Bill and if you have any principal witnesses, if they can, please come forward as well.

Thank you.

Senator Syarto, the floor is yours.

Thank you, honorable Chair. I am here to present SB 432, and I'll begin by stating that I will be accepting the Committee Amendments to this Bill. However, I want to be transparent in saying that this was not the direction I originally intended.

The initial version of SB 432 sought to send a clear and uncompromising message. Furnishing fentanyl to a minor would be treated as both a serious felony and a strike offense, under California law, just like many other hard drugs.

While I am disappointed that dealing fentanyl to a minor will be treated as a less serious offense compared to other drugs, I also recognize the need to advance this measure in a form that can survive this process and still deliver meaningful protections for our youth.

By now, we are all aware of the devastating impact fentanyl is having across California, often taking lives of people who had no idea they were consuming it. Tragically, even children are falling prey to this opioid. In 2021, fentanyl and synthetic opioids were responsible for 80% of drug-induced deaths for those 14 to 23 years.

And that's not just a statistic, it's a public health emergency. While the Legislature has acted to equip schools and even public entertainment venues with lifesaving medications like Narcan, our laws still lag behind in holding accountable those who knowingly put children in harm, children in harm's way.

SB 432 sends a strong message—if you knowingly give fentanyl to a child, you will be held responsible. I respectfully ask for an "Aye" vote. I did not bring any witnesses with me today.

Is there anyone that would like to give testimony today on this Bill? If not, anybody in support, please come forward.

Good morning, Chairmembers. Usha Mechler, on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association, in support. Thank you.

Dylan Lisowski, with the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department, in support.

Thank you.

Lieutenant Julio De Leon from the Riverside Sheriff's Office. In support.

David Boyd, on behalf of the California District Attorney Association, in support.

Thank you.

Chair Members, California—Jonathan Feldman, California Police Chiefs Association, in support.

Thank you. Anyone else in support? Is there anyone that would like to speak in opposition?

Welcome. If you could state your name for the record. Name and affiliation.

There we go. Hello. My name is Alex Kral. I'm a distinguished fellow at the nonprofit research Institute RTI International. And as a researcher, I've been conducting research now for 30 years in California on drug use, law enforcement, overdoses, et cetera. I received my master's at Harvard University, my PhD at UC Berkeley.

I've been an author, a co author of over 230 papers have been published in peer reviewed medical journals, and as you pointed out, you know, over 11,000 Californians are dying each year now of overdose. This is a really serious issue and I'm really happy that you're taking some sort of action towards- towards this problem.

However, while increasing legal penalties to drug sales might seem like a good solution, the science proves quite the opposite. And so there's currently no peer reviewed literature anywhere that shows that increasing sales, drug sales penalties, actually reduces drug use or any of the health complications of drug use, including overdose, like none writ large.

Okay, and so what at this point, even if you think about the three strikes law that SB 432 is trying to, you know, amend, since then the problems associated with drug use in California have gotten much, much worse. Adding fentanyl to that list of drugs is only going to continue to make it worse rather than make it better.

We conducted a rigorous study which was published last week in the Journal of the American Medical Association, which is the top most prestigious journal in the United States, which showed that in San Francisco, between 2020 and 2023, drug, you know, enforcement of drug sales laws actually increased overdose mortality. So it's an unintended consequence.

Obviously, we weren't expecting to find that, but I think that's what we're looking at. And so consistently, you know, and this has been shown in Indianapolis and nationally as well. And so the scientific findings consistently show that increasing policing of drug sales actually leads to quite the opposite. It actually contributes to morbidity and mortality in California.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. You have two minutes.

Good morning, Chair and Committee Members. My name is Gretchen Burns Bergman, and today I'm speaking as founder of A New Path, Parents for Addiction Treatment and Healing, and lead organizer of Our Moms United Today and the War on Drugs campaign in respectful opposition to SB 432.

I'm also speaking as a mom of two sons, both now in long term recovery, who struggled for decades with addiction to heroin and a criminal justice response to a health problem. It may seem strange for a mother to oppose a bill that would make selling Fentanyl to a minor, a serious felony under California's three strikes law.

But this law is not only regressive, it will fail to achieve its goal. Preventing drug use and drug deaths. I know firsthand the impact of criminalization as my older son spent 11 years cycling in and out of prison for possession of Marijuana which used to be a felony.

Incarceration didn't help him overcome his addiction, but it hindered him and his path to recovery and undermined his self worth. Taking years to build back even after he found recovery. Fentanyl is replacing heroin in the drug supply and it's being mixed in other drugs and we are experiencing a tragic loss of lives to overdose.

But there's been a lot of misinformation about fentanyl leading to public hysteria and a misguided return to drug war tactics. This is counter to an evidence based approach that drug use should be handled as a public health issue.

This bill would reboot the war on drugs which is an abject failure with a return to mass incarceration, increasing family trauma, economic hardship, prejudicial policies and goes against an amassing body of evidence that shows that harsh crackdowns and lengthy incarceration leads to more overdose deaths.

These are some health centered strategies that are effective in improving people's recovery and keep communities safe. Honest evidence based drug education for our youth. Overdose prevention services that reduce the harms associated with drug use.

Through our Ask Mom How to Save a Life campaign we have 3,439 overdose reversals reported by distributing Narcan Naloxone throughout the County of San Diego. We need a massive investment in a healthcare infrastructure that supports people who use drugs. Making voluntary treatment recovery services available that include medication assisted treatment is critical.

For these reasons I urge a no vote on this bill. It would set us backward repeating the mistakes of 50 plus years of drug war tactics at a high cost to so many families in California. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. We'll now take any other witnesses in opposition to SB 432. If you can please come forward and approach the microphone and state your name, affiliation position for the record. Thank you.

Danica Rodarmel on behalf of Smart justice, the LA Public Defenders Union Local 148, Initiate justice and La Defensa in opposition.

Thank you.

Taina Vargas with Initiate Justice Action and also an individual who lost her mother to overdose. In opposition.

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

Thank you.

I'll Chan on behalf of Drug Policy alliance in opposition.

Thank you.

Stephanie Gonzalez with the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights. In opposition.

Aubrey Rodriguez with ACLU California Action, in strong opposition.

Kelly Walters with Legal Services for Prisoners with Children. In opposition.

Thank you.

Katie Dixon with the California Coalition for Women Prisoners. In strong opposition. Thank you.

Margo George on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association and the San Francisco Public Defender's Office. In opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in opposition to SB 432? Okay. If not, I'll bring it back to the committee for questions or comments. Senator Wiener.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. First, I want to thank the author for accepting the committee amendments on this and the original. And I appreciate and respect the opposition. I've now in my ninth year on this committee with some scars to show for it, some really intense debates and conversations about critical issues.

And I think that I would not have supported the unamended version of this bill, but with the amendments, I'm willing to. I'm willing to support it.

And, you know, we know that this is an issue and putting these constraints on it, so it's not a strike requiring knowledge that it contains fentanyl, I think, for me is sufficient to be able to support it.

You know, one of the challenges in this committee is that we're writing the penal code for 40 million people and we see it. So to my colleagues who are now new to the committee, welcome. Because a lot of times we have situations where really horrific facts come to the committee in terms of terrible things that have happened.

And we need to really be able to step back and write law based on the entire spectrum of situations that arise. Because if you legislate only keeping in mind the most horrific situations, you end up sweeping up people who, I think most people would not want to be swept up in terms of long prison sentences.

And so it's hard and it's often unpopular, but it's important work. And so I say all that out of appreciation for the chair and the committee and the author working together on these amendments. And with those amendments, I'll support the bill and I'm happy to move it.

Thank you. Any other Senators? Senator Perez?

Yeah. First, I just, I, I want to take a moment to just thank the witness and opposition for coming here and for sharing her story. I've. I've lost several family members to, to accidental fentanyl overdose and to the opioid crisis. And it's the reason why I ran for office.

And so I appreciate you being here today and raising the concerns that you've raised, because that is a very real concern. That oftentimes, unfortunately, fentanyl is- is placed within drugs and. And then those drugs are sold and people have no idea and whether that's, you know, children, adults, and that is the way many of these overdoses happen.

So, you know, my understanding is the amendments that were added into this bill do make it so that there has to be some knowledge that the individual is actually being placed in there.

We know oftentimes the way that the, you know, drug market works is these things are getting, you know, passed off from person to person, so people don't necessarily know what is contained within these substances. And the fact of the matter is that oftentimes folks that are using these substances are also dealing these substances as well.

So appreciate you accepting the amendments, but also just want to acknowledge and appreciate you being here in opposition, sharing your story. It's really powerful. And, you know, I think so many of us that have experienced these horrific tragedies are trying to come together now to find solutions. So thank you.

Any other questions or comments? If not, I'll turn it back over to you, Senator Seyarto, to close.

Thank you. I want to clarify something. This was never meant to be the single thing that cures the issue with, or addresses the issue with fentanyl. I had a fentanyl task force bill that was supposed to do that. It's never been. It passed, but we've never. We've never funded it.

And that would give us this opportunity to look at every comprehensive approach we could, which includes education. A big part of that is education. But at the end of the day, what this bill says is if you knowingly go to a minor and give them fentanyl, you are committing a serious felony. That's all it does.

What they're doing is grooming that child to be part of their expanded market later on, if they survive. That's if they survive.

Because remember, for every dead child out there, there's also a bunch of children out there that have brain damage from it, that are permanently addicted to fentanyl and they have a lifelong struggle with drugs because a person who knew what they were doing went to that child early on and gave them that.

When they are most vulnerable, they're least able to make rationally good decisions for themselves. Sometimes that's all this is trying to do, is hold those people accountable. Because the other person that we haven't talked one bit about today is the victims.

Those are the moms, the dads, the grandmothers, the sisters, the brothers that have to live the rest of their lives without that victim. And that is a victim. That person is a victim. So this bill simply makes somebody accountable so they can go and maybe they can get on the right track.

And I've seen all those studies, and not one of those studies tries to figure out, you know, what the victim. What the effect on victims is. So they need justice, too. But that's not all this is about. This about trying to help people, not poison our children and make them think twice about it.

So I simply ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. So we have a motion, I believe, on SB 432. If we can please call the roll and thank you for your testimony.

SB 432, the motion is do pass as amended to appropriations. [ROLL CALL]

I'm sorry. I just. I just need to take a moment because I- I'm- Senator Seyarto- I'm happy to support your bill with the amendments, but the people that were just sitting in front of you were victims as well. And, you know, I just want to respectfully remind you of that.

You had a mother here that just talked about the impact that this had on two of her children. And I know there's other victims in this room, so I just want to make that crystal clear.

Okay. We- We've taken action on the bill. That bill's out. And as authors are closing, please direct your testimony to the committee. And- And, you know, we can have respectful, reasonable disagreement on issues, but let's- let's have a respectful dialogue. Okay. We'll now go to our next bill, which is file item 10, SB 509. Senor Caballero, good morning.

Still morning. Senator Caballero, do you have any principal witnesses in support?Okay.

I have Jon Feldman with the California Police Chiefs Association and Hamid Yazdan Panah with the Immigrant Defense Advocates.

Okay, thank you. And Senator Caballero, I'll turn over to you to present.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members, for the opportunity to present SB 509, which will require the Office of Emergency Services to work in cooperation with the Commission on Police Officer Standards and Training, or POST, to develop a specialized training for local law enforcement to recognize and respond to members of their own communities who feel a growing threat posed by foreign governments targeting their diaspora communities.

Marginalized groups identified as dissidents in their home country and asylum seekers in the United States include ethnic and religious minorities and are increasingly facing attacks on their human rights while in the US from foreign governments hostile to their concerns.

These countries see their diaspora communities as threats to their political stability and often extend their repressive measures beyond their own national borders. Authoritarian regimes have made use of advanced technologies such as digital surveillance and social media monitoring to track, intimidate, and threaten individuals living in democratic countries.

Tactics such as harassment, threats, and even physical violence, often carried out covertly or with the assistance of international law enforcement, undermine the right to safety and freedom of expression in this country. Transnational repression is a direct violation of the human rights of those living in the diaspora, especially those who have sought refuge in democratic societies.

While the United States has mechanisms in place to protect individuals from transnational repression, the current system is not fully equipped and local police departments are not trained to know how to document the growing scale of these potential threats.

A more comprehensive and coordinated approach would help to ensure that California can provide adequate data and information to the victims of transnational repression and to the federal authorities. SB 509 strengthens our country's commitment to human rights, safety, and justice for every law abiding individual, regardless of their background or country of origin.

The bill ensures that law enforcement officers receive training needed to recognize and to document the unique threats posed by targeting individuals on US soil. With me, as I said, to testify is Jonathan Feldman and Hamid Yazdan Panah. And I also want to recognize and thank Assembly Member Dr. Jasmeet Bains, who's a co-author. I believe she's also here in the audience.

Okay, thank you. So each of you will have two minutes to present to the Committee and... Yes, sir.

How about now? Okay. Good morning. My name is Hamid Yazdan Panah, and I'm the Executive Director of Immigrant Defense Advocates. We work directly with immigrant communities across California, focusing on policies that protect the civil rights of immigrants, refugees, and asylum seekers.

As an Iranian refugee myself and former immigration attorney, I've seen firsthand the dangers people flee and the threats that can follow them. My family came to the United States to escape political repression in Iran. Nearly three decades later, the Iranian regime still targets dissidents here on US soil.

Just last month, two men were convicted in New York in a murder for hire plot against an Iranian journalist. A textbook case of transnational repression. Unfortunately, these threats are far more common than most people realize. California is home to over 125,000 torture survivors, more than any other state.

Many fled regimes that punish free expression with prison or worse. And even here, they aren't always safe. Victims often stay silent out of fear of law enforcement, immigration consequences, or because of trauma. That's why SB 509 is so important. This bill provides training for law enforcement to recognize and respond to transnational oppression.

It helps ensure immigrant communities can access protection and support without fear. The bill is more than a policy. It's about people. It's about ensuring California remains a true place of refuge where we protect those who stood up to tyranny. I urge you to support SB 509. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Chair and members, I thank the last time today, Jonathan Feldman, California Police Chiefs Association. Strong support of the bill. I won't spend too much time being redundant, but as the author had stated, these are complex situations with geopolitical undercurrents that the average officer on the streets isn't going to be aware of or be able to identify and pick up on. And from talking to the police chiefs, I can tell you there is no standardized training.

There is not even, I would say, a common awareness of what transnational repression is. And so we really do think that this is warranted. Developing statewide standard training and information for officers is going to help them understand when they are potentially investigating this type of an incident. And that will ultimately lead to better justice outcomes for everybody involved, better safety for everyone. So we respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you very much. I know we have a number of people here to testify on this bill. And we're going to ask anyone who is here to support SB 509, if you can please line up, state your name, your organization, if you're representing an organization, and your position on the bill.

We're only just going to take your name, your organization, if you're representing organization or whatever community you're from and your position on the bill. I see Assemblymember Bains is here.

I'll start off. Thank you so much Senator Anna Caballero. Dr. Bains, State Assemblymember for Kern County. Thank you guys so much for your efforts on this bill. Thank you for everyone testifying and support. I myself have been a victim of transnational repression. I've been called a terrorist by organizations that oppose this bill.

And it is so important that we protect U.S. citizens from threats from foreign countries. So I just want to fully, I'm a proud co-author of this bill, and thank you Senator Caballero, and thank you for all the support.

Thank you. Once again, your name, your organization or whatever community you're from, and your position on the bill.

Kashmir Singh Shahi, Gurdwara Sahib Fremont in support of the bill.

Pritpal Singh from American Sikh Caucus Committee. I support this bill.

Rajkaranbir Singh, Punjabi Radio USA in support of SB 509.

Jasdev Singh, member of Supreme Council, Gurdwara Sahib Fremont, in support of the bill.

My name is Jasbir Singh, and I am a 1984 Sikh Genocide victim and eyewitness. Jagdish Tytler, Member Parliament, and Sikhs for Justice member, and I support this bill.

My name is Gurcharan Singh. I'm from Hayward Radio from Radio Chardi Kala, a volunteer from Sikhs for Justice. I support Bill SB 509.

My name is Amardeep Singh. I am from the Silicon Valley Gordon, Santa Clara. I Support this Bill 509. Thank you.

Nav Gurm here on behalf of Jakara Movement in strong support of the bill.

I am Gagandeep Singh, I'm from Sikhs for Justice and I support this bill.

I'm Gurjeet Singh Brar. I'm from Fremont Gurdwara. I support this bill.

I'm Rajinder Singh, I'm from Fremont Gurdwara. I support this Bill 509. Thank you.

I'm Nepal Singh Bhashyana, Fremont Gurdwara. I support this bill.

I'm Sar-de Singh from Kurnman. I support this bill.

Gurcharan Singh Mann from Fremont Radio Punjab USA and I support this bill.

I'm Justdeep Singh Bal from Fremont Gurdwara. I support this bill.

I'm Gurcharan Singh Braich from Fremont Gurdwara. I support this bill.

Hi, my name is Avtar Singh Rewal. I'm from Bakersfield California and I'm also concerned with Kisan Morcha, Bakersfield. I support this bill. Thank you.

My name is Rajpal Singh from Bakersfield, Kisan Morcha. I support this bill.

My name is Fluendo Singh Pabla. I'm from Vacaville Sikh community. I support this bill. Thank you again.

I'm Satnam Singh. I'm Commission Chairman for the historic Stockton Gurdwara. And I want to thank you Anna Cabellero and the Chair and the members. I have been a victim myself while running for City Council in 2024 out of City of Stockton. And I do support this bill very strongly. SB 509. Thank you.

I'm Squander Mishana from Fremont Gurdwara. I support this bill. Thank you. Thank you.

John Singh Gill. I support this bill.

I am Jahar Singh, I support this bill.

Thank you. I am Narendra Pal Singh, Fremont Gurdwara Sahib. I support this bill. Bill number SB 509. Thank you.

I am Harjeet Singh, Gurdwara Fremont Sahib. I am very supportive.

Dave Atwal from Stockton. Support this bill.

Karan Deep Singh from Sacramento. I support this bill.