Senate Standing Committee on Public Safety

The Senate Public Safety Committee meeting of Tuesday, April 8, 2025 will now come to order. Good morning, everyone. This is the third of five hearings to hear Senate bills before the May deadline. And we have 12 bills on the agenda. One is on consent.

We're entering a motion on the consent calendar, which consists of one item file item 13, SB830 out of game. Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Inspector General. We'll enter a motion on that when we establish a quorum. As we do not have a quorum, we'll meet as a Subcommitee, but begin with our first Bill presentation.

And now would like to go to. Well, and before we go to the first file item, I want to note that file item 4, SB758 by Senator Umberg has been pulled from the agenda. And we will now go to file in one SP38 by Senator Umberg. And good morning, Senator, turn the floor over to you. Morning.

Thank you. Mr. Chair and Members, I want to thank you and I want to thank Ms. Stephanie Jordan for the work on this Bill. It's improved the Bill. I am accepting the Committee's recommended amendments. As I think we all know, Prop . 36 passed overwhelmingly.

The big challenge with respect to Prop 36 now is actually funding some of the fundamental changes made in Proposition 36. One of the most important aspects, maybe the most important aspect of Proposition 36 is the funding of drug treatment courts and making sure that drug treatment courts basically have a baseline of efficacy.

And that's what this Bill does. It simply allows that in terms of applying for grants, that drug courts that are established under Prop 36 are eligible for grants. With that, I have with me Danielle Sanchez, representing the chief probation officers of California. Sanchez, thank you. Good morning. You have eight minutes.

Thank you. Good morning. Chairmembers Daniel Sanchez. On behalf of the chief probation officers of California, very pleased to sponsor SB38. Probation. Probation recognizes both in practice and research that incentivized drug treatment and collaborative court approaches, when paired with supervision and accountability, delivers effective results.

As noted by the Senator, this past November's voters overwhelmingly approved Proposition 36, which, among other things, established the treatment mandated felony option, which importantly would allow people with serious addictions to choose drug treatment rather than incarceration as a pathway to recovery and rehabilitation.

This Bill makes important updates to the existing Proposition 47 grant program administered by the board and state and community corrections, which we believe is very consistent with the programs and goals sought via Proposition 36 and just adds express clarity that drug court and collaborative court approaches, as well as the treatment mandated felony Programs are eligible under the existing program.

So while we recognize that additional resources are needed to fully implement and support Proposition 36, the changes in this Bill are very much consistent with supporting and carrying out both the will of the voters in enacting Proposition 36, but also importantly, remaining consistent with the goals outlined in the existing grant program to achieve substance use and mental health services and support.

So for those reasons, we're pleased to sponsor SB38.

Thank you very much. Are there any other principal witnesses in support of SB38? Okay, before we take me to.

I just want to note for the record, the amendment that the Committee proposed that the authors accepted is under Section 6004c, subsection C, striking the language and shall not require specific percentage allocations in applying for or awarding the grant.

So that just ensures that the Department can retain flexibility to pass through funds to CBOs, which is what's been happening since Prop . 47 was first established. So we'll now take any other witnesses in support of SB38. If you can please approach the microphone, state your name, position, an affiliation for the record.

Morning, Senator. My name is Maureen Byrne, Ventura County District Attorney's Office. I represent here the District California District Attorney Association, and we are in support of the Second Chance program.

Thank you so very much. Are there any other witnesses in support of SB38? Please approach the microphone. Okay. If not, we'll proceed now to principal witnesses in opposition. We'll take two principal witnesses. You'll have two minutes to address the Committee on SP38. And if you can also please state your name and affiliation for the record.

There we go. Good morning, Chair and Senators. My name is Anthony DeMartino and I am the Director of Government affairs at Californians for Safety and Justice. We're here today in respectful opposition. SP38 seeks to Fund treatment mandated felony programs through the Second Chance Fund, which is primarily funded by Prop. 47 savings. SB38 is counterproductive.

A Prop 36 funding plan that focuses on utilizing resources from a Fund that will be significantly depleted is not an effective funding solution. While we agree with the Senator, in order to implement Prop . 36 effectively, programs and resources need to be identified and made available to counties.

However, this Bill will further result in significant cuts to effective community based programs from a depleted funding source. As the Fund decreases. SB38 would issue counties an impossible choice by pitting a wide array of successful programs against treatment mandated felony programs fighting for resources from the same shrinking funding source. Let's be clear.

The Second Chance Fund is nearly entirely funded by Prop. 47 savings. With the passage of Prop 36, Prop 47 savings will be substantially decreased and the funds will be depleted. The Fund supports a wide array of programs and services throughout the state, including diversion programs and education centered programs.

Allowing treatment mandated felony programs to raid the Fund unfairly jeopardizes the existing programs. California has some of the best public safety programs in the country. It is imperative that the state continues to prioritize protecting the funding sources that allow these programs to be successful.

We are concerned that this Bill is entirely focused on pulling from an existing at risk funding source rather than creating new funding sources to implement Prop 36 programs.

The intended purpose for the Second Chance Fund is not to Fund the courts, but rather court alternatives at a time when the programs funded by Prop 47 savings need to be protected and preserved. SB38 does the opposite. For these reasons, we oppose and respectfully urge your no vote. Thank you. Thank you very much. Hi, Good morning.

Good morning Members of the Committee. Good morning Members of the Committee. My name is Gray Gardner. I'm the California State Director for the Drug Policy Alliance. DPA works across the United States and abroad to enact health centered policies to drugs. We support the shared goal here of increasing access to substance use disorder treatment.

But we respectfully oppose this Bill because it would dilute the funds available to cities and counties for substance use disorder treatment and other health centered services. Reportedly, there are at least 5,000 people who have been charged with the new felony simple possession charge, HSC11395. That's since Prop 36 went into effect.

And there are very few of those people who have been connected with treatment. And part of the problem with that is that part of the problem leading to that is the fact that there aren't enough trained evaluators in the state to actually assess the individuals for the appropriate to determine the appropriate clinical need for those individuals.

There just aren't enough evaluators who are trained to use the diagnostic tools and clinical guidelines that are recognized by leading experts in the country. In this case the American Society of Addiction Medicine.

There are nowhere close to sufficient capacity in most parts of the state to meet the demand for treatment for those who are found to qualify and for those who are looking for treatment voluntarily coming from the community.

This Bill would open up funds that are used to expand access to behavioral health treatment and diversion programs and shift more of those funds into expanding, expanding courts. Second Chance grants provide a way for cities and counties to build capacity for behavioral health treatment. The funds available for communities to do this are already scarce, but it's shrinking.

And that's in part because Prop 36 will reduce the savings that Fund this program. And there's a significant risk that federal funds will be decreased as well. So expanding courts is costly. It's costly because it requires funding more judges, more lawyers, more facilities for courtrooms, a lot more staff who are not clinical behavioral health professionals.

And that's not what was envisioned by this body in 2015 when it created the Second Chance Grants. And it's not what was envisioned, I think, by, I submit to you, by the majority of voters when they voted to increase treatment, to provide mass treatment.

So we respectfully urge you to oppose this Bill which would, as indicated, shift money from community based programs that are supporting being utilized by cities and counties all over the state to create innovative programs to expand access to treatment.

And it would shift that into the courts, which are going to need an immense amount of money to really Fund collaborative courts significantly. Thank you. I ask you to oppose this Bill. Thank you.

Once again, before we go to any other witnesses in opposition, the author has agreed to an amendment to strike the language in Section 6046, subsection C to reinstate the 50% pass through to CVS. So we'll take any other witnesses in opposition to SB38.

Natasha Minskir, Smart Justice California opposed Aubrey.

Rodriguez with ACLU California action in opposition.

Melanie Kim, San Francisco Public Defender's Office in opposition on behalf of Initiate Justice Action in opposition. We'll take a look at the amendment though.

Good morning Mr. Chair Members. Usha Mechler on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association in support. Excuse me for speaking out of turn. Thank you.

There any other witnesses in opposition to SB38, please come forward. The microphone. Okay. Thank you all for your testimony. We'll bring back the Committee for any questions or comments.

Yes, Senator Sierra to thank you very. Much and thank you for your Bill. I know we are trying to incorporate this part of the Prop 36, which is the mandatory treatment, the CBO treatment, optional treatments for people. I haven't heard the best reviews from people that were actually accessing those treatments.

And it's apparent that we need funding for different parts of these systems, but we also need a review process to ensure that the money that we are spending on the existing programs are actually having the effect that we want it to have and that people are accessing it and being successful in that acquisition.

I have spoken to some people that go through some of our CBO systems and their reviews are not good at all and they're not effective. There is one young man that I do know that has been time and time again gone through a CBO type program and he was 39 and he's dead now.

We need more accountability for where that part of the money is spent. I'm glad that this amendment does restore some of that CBO funding.

But in the future, I'm going to really want to see if the CBO programs, all of them, are as effective or which ones are effective so we can ensure that we're focusing on those and the ones that aren't, that we're spending money or we're focusing on other areas where we can Fund more and get more out of it.

The biggest goal is to get people off drugs, whether they're going to sign up for something or not. I think this Bill kind of moves in that direction and it also moves in the direction of what the public has seen as a giant failure.

And that's our ability to treat people who are winding up on the streets with drug abuse. So I'm going to be supporting your Bill when it does come up and I appreciate it.

Thank you, Senator Cerrot. Thank you, Senator Sierrato. Thank you, Senator Umber, for your continued focus on helping move the ball and implementing Prop 36, particularly to expand treatment in California. There are a variety of different treatment approaches and this ensures that this is one option, that we can use critical funding to expand access to treatment in California.

I do agree that community based programs are a preferred approach, but we know that those are significantly lacking in California.

And that's why I appreciate you agreeing to the amendment to ensure that a portion of the money from this Fund continues to go directly to CBOs to run, to continue to run those existing programs and to augment those services.

But I think one thing is very clear, that we are woefully inadequate in terms of providing treatment, drug, substance abuse, substance use, disorder treatment in California. And I appreciate you bringing this Bill forward and I'll turn over to you to close.

Well, thank you very much and thank you, Ms. Sanchez, for your support. Let me just address the opposition for a second. We agree. We agree that we do not have adequate resources in California to deal with this public safety issue.

And perhaps the best thing we can do in terms of long term public safety is address substance abuse disorder. As you know, there's a strong correlation between crime, for example, and substance abuse disorder, number one.

Number two is that this is a relatively small amount of money and taking it from one pot and putting in another pot is not the preferred solution. But the voters have spoken. The voters have spoken very clearly that they do want additional drug treatment.

The point about community based organizations, some are excellent, some are not as good as you note, Mr. Chair, that this amendment provides for continuing funding to at least a portion of community based organizations, or at least a portion of the pot to community based organizations.

I authored a Bill last year which signed into law that actually does establish a baseline because one of the variables in California is the bench officer who administers, for example, whether it's the drug court or any other collaborative court and requires a certain baseline.

It didn't have anything to do with Proposition well, it wasn't correlated Proposition 36 in terms of drug treatment, but it does establish a baseline. So I recognize the concern about taking money from one pot and putting in another pot. And I actually have a $250 million budget request to adequately Fund Prop 36.

And I'm looking forward to those that are concerned about moving it from one pot to another supporting that, that budget request. And with that, I urge an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator. So we're entertaining a motion when we establish a quorum, and I am recommending an aye vote as amended. So we'll proceed now to file item 2, SB 448. Thank you to our witnesses. Crimes Trespassing.

And I want to take this opportunity to thank Senator Umberg as well for working with myself and the Committee to make, I think, some important amendments to ensure that this provides a much more flexible process for property owners to remove squatters, people that are trespassing illegally, onto private property, but also ensures that existing tenants are not negatively impacted.

If, you know, a property owner is using this process to illegally remove an existing tenant from their property. So I'll turn it over to Senator Umberg to present on the Bill.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And also Ms. Jordan. Once again, we accept the Committee's amendments and we appreciate the help in improving the Bill. I'm pleased to present SB448, which deals with what are commonly known as squatters.

Let me make sure that we differentiate between those who illegally enter a property and remain there as a squatter, for lack of a better term, and those who are, for example, tenants who were lawfully in possession initially but overstayed their rent or whatever it may be, the traditional method for removing both those is the eviction process.

What this does is this, only for those who are squatters, only for those who are trespassers, actually provides a bit of an expedited process so that that property can go back on the market so those who lawfully can occupy the property do so. With me to testify is Ms.

Christy Krista Golbrinson testifying on behalf of Cal RHA and Jennifer Svec on behalf of the Realtors. You're up.

Great. And you have two minutes to address the Committee. Thank you.

Thank you, Honorable Chair, Vice Chair and Members of the Senate Public Safety Committee. My name is Krista Goal Branson and I am testifying on behalf of the California Rental Housing Association, the sponsors of this Bill. We represent 15,000 small to medium rental housing providers with over 733,000 units of housing.

As a 35 year resident of Oakland, Executive Director of the Berkeley Property Owners Association, and along with my wife and owner of one rental housing unit, I am concerned about the growing issue of illegal trespassing and squatting in California.

States like New York, Pennsylvania and Georgia have already passed new laws addressing illegal trespassing, recognizing the severity of the issue. Over the last month, we have met with those in opposition and are happy to take Committee amendments today.

Right now, reclaiming private property has turned civil courts into shelters and case managers for illegal trespassers, while rightful renters and owners are stuck in limbo. This Bill puts the courts back where they belong, pursuing justice, not managing those who happen to exploit a vacant property. It's not just the property owners who suffer. Whole neighborhoods suffer.

Criminal activity often spikes, property and community values drop and neighbors live in fear of retaliation by the trespasser. Supporting this Bill helps to protect the fabric of our neighborhoods and says to the community that we care about their safety.

This Bill also protects lawful renters by clearly defining who qualifies as a legal occupant, reducing wrongful evictions and preserving tenant protections for those who are truly in a landlord tenant relationship. This is not an eviction Bill. It's a trespasser and squatting removal Bill.

And so we urge your aye vote today because it is a balanced, common sense solution to a growing problem that protects both the housing providers and lawful renters. Thank you for your time.

Thank you very much.

Good morning. Bernie Jimenez Krieger. On behalf of the California Association of Realtors. Across California, our Members, many of whom are small housing providers or manage properties for small investors, are seeking an alarming increase in unlawful occupancy. These are not landlord tenant disputes.

We're talking about people breaking into homes, occupying them without permission, and then exploiting the delays in our legal system to remain there for weeks or even months. For small scale property owners, the impacts are quite devastating. Many of them rely on rental income to cover their own mortgages or their living expenses.

When a squatter takes over a home, it is not just a financial hit. It creates a real safety concern for the owner, the neighbors and the surrounding community. Unfortunately, the legal process currently to remove squatters is often slow, confusing and quite ineffective. Law enforcement is left with limited tools and property owners are stuck in limbo.

SB448 seeks to change that. It defines a squatter as someone who unlawfully enters and occupies a residential property. And it creates a clear, lawful process for removal, one that allows law enforcement to act swiftly when appropriate.

It also ensures that bona fide tenants are protected and includes penalties for those who attempt to game the system with false claims or documentation. Law enforcement supports this Bill because it gives them the clarity they need to intervene. And small housing providers support it because it offers a fair, efficient remedy for unlawful occupation. Occupation.

This isn't about punishing vulnerable renters. Again, this is not an eviction Bill. This is about stopping criminal trespass and restoring safety and stability to our communities. SB448 strikes the right balance between protecting property rights, maintaining due process and promoting community safety. For these reasons, we respectfully urge your aye vote.

Thank you very much. Thank you to our principal witnesses in support. We'll take any of the witnesses in support of SB448. Please approach the microphone. State your name, affiliation and position for the record.

Good morning Chair and Members Kate Bell on behalf of Cal RHA and the Apartment Association of LA and strong support.

Thank you. Good morning Chairmember Skyler Wanaka with the. California Business Properties Association and strong support. Thank you Mr.

Chair. Members Pat Moran with Aaron Reed and Associates representing the Southern California Rental Housing Association in support.

Thank you you Good morning Mr. Chair. Members Committee Ron Kingston representing Apartment Association. Orange County and the East Bay Rental Housing Association. We urge support thank you. Thank you. Good morning. Jack Schwarz, I'm here with the on. Behalf of the California Rental Housing Association. Which is the sponsor of the Bill. And urge your strong support. Thank you.

Thank you sir.

Good morning. Dylan Wisofski with the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department in Support as well as 38 I apologize, I missed that one too before. Thank you.

Good morning. Kendale Jacquere on behalf of San Luis Rey Indian Water Authority and the Rincon Band of Luceno Indians in strong support. Thank you.

Good morning Chairmen Usha Mutchler on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association in support. Thank you.

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

Good morning. Mark Smith. On behalf of the Berkeley Property Owners. Association, the NORCAL Rental Property Association, the North Valley Property Owners Association, the Santa Barbara Rental Property Association, and the Small Property Owners of San Francisco Institute, all in support. Thank you. Thank you.

Good morning, everybody. Thank you for this opportunity. My name is Kimry Kotchik, and my partner Lando, and I run Squatters Squad, and we deal every single day with the victims of. So I am in support strongly of this Bill. So thank you very much for this opportunity. Thank you.

Are there any other witnesses in support of SB448? Okay. If not, we'll take two lead witnesses in opposition, and you'll have two minutes to address the Committee and then after which we'll take me to as well in opposition.

Chair Members. My name is Aubrey Rodriguez and I'm a legislative advocate with ACLU California Action. I want to thank the author for striking C2 and lowering C1 down to a wobbler. We really appreciate those amendments.

However, I do want to focus on how ACLU we believe and we want to underscore that trespassing laws overwhelmingly target people who are unhoused. This is because many cities are passing new ordinances in the wake of the Grants Pass Supreme Court decision that prohibits sleeping anywhere in public.

The issue of addressing people experiencing houselessness is crucial to a healthy society that must be prioritized by this Legislature. This proposal does not address the root cause of houselessness and fails to offer any real solutions such as permanent affordable housing and services.

We understand that, again, you're not further criminalizing by dropping C2 and lowering C1 down to a wobbler. But we again want to emphasize this issue of houselessness and that public health challenges associated with houselessness should be addressed through sanitation services and not criminalization.

People who are displaced from their housing deserve dignified, caring and voluntary services and housing that meet their human needs, not further displacement or criminalization that makes their lives harder and more dangerous. And providing housing solutions. California and our local jurisdiction should focus on housing first principles that are supported by decades of empirical research.

We encourage this Legislature to focus on these solutions to our houselessness crisis rather than taking an approach that seeks to incarcerate people experiencing hardship. Houselessness is a humanitarian crisis, and together the escalation of prohibitions on existing in public and private spaces leads to a dragnet of criminalization against people who are unhoused.

This is unbearably cruel attempts to disappear them and makes our houselessness crisis worse. And again, we really appreciate the amendment, Senator, and we look forward to reviewing them once they're in print. Thank you.

Thank you very much. There any other principal witnesses in opposition to SB448? Take one more.

Good morning, Margo George. On behalf of the California Public Defenders Association, I want to thank the Committee staff and the author and his sponsors for the amendments seem to address most of our concerns. So I just need to review it further, but anticipate we will probably be withdrawing our opposition. So thank you very much.

Thank you. Okay, we'll take any other witnesses in opposition as Senate Bill 448, you can please approach the microphone to state your name, affiliation and position for the record.

Melanie Kim, San Francisco Public Defender's Office in respectful opposition and on behalf of Western center on Law and Poverty in respectful opposition.

Thank You Are there any other witnesses in opposition? SB 448. Okay. That completes testimony. And if there's a question, we'll direct it to the appropriate witness. We'll bring it back to the Committee for discussion.

Once again, just want to reiterate the amendments that the Committee has worked with the author to make, which the Authors accepted under 6015, subsection A1, it is requiring that the property owner needs to file a notarized request pursuant to subdivision o of Section 602. These are what are called 602 letters.

I want to thank the California Rental Housing Association for that suggestion. And those $602 really are only filed in the case where the property is vacant. So really distinguishing between vacant properties and properties which are current tenant occupied.

Also having more information about the information that needs to be provided to establish that the property is vacant and that the person is unlawfully occupying the property. Because the Bill does say that local law enforcement needs to verify, but there was a need for more information about what information would be necessary to verify.

And then as well as noted, striking the section C2 and changing the language in C1. And I think these amendments are reasonable and help accomplish the goals of the Bill, which are respectfully to ensure that people who are unlawfully occupying a property that there's an expedited process to remove them.

And I'm, I share the opposition's concerns about the broader housing affordability crisis in California and rising homelessness. But just because somebody's unhoused doesn't mean they have a right to illegally occupy somebody's property.

And I think these amendments balance the goals of the Bill with ensuring that people that have a lawful right to possession or cases where there's a dispute of a tenancy, that those people are not harmed as well. So I thank the author for working with us to address this, and I will be recommending the Bill.

Senator Sierra, to.

Thank you for the Bill. This is a common sense Bill that helps alleviate a growing problem. I watched it play out real time on my block. And what really happens is the person that does the squatting, it does nothing to help them resolve the issues that have created their homelessness.

And then it sets back the process of trying to get a home back on the market so that somebody else can move in a family or whatever. And it does this in such a way that the longer it takes to get this person out, the more damage is done, a lot of times to the home.

And so it increases the costs thereby. And then, you know, just an escalating problem. So I think your Bill strikes a balance between getting them out quickly, not increasing their incarceration rates or anything that people are concerned with and rightfully so when it comes to homelessness.

But you know, also, you know, it gives that person opportunity as they're getting evicted. They do. The law enforcement does give them resource information to help them if they want that help. But right now this is getting really bad.

As soon as a house becomes vacant, if there's not a 24 hour guard standing in front of the house, next thing you know, somebody breaks in and is in the house. And that process can't punish the landowner or the property owner.

And so therefore we'll be supporting your Bill when we get enough people here to make a vote happen. So thank you. Thank you. Senator Umberg, you may close.

Well, thank you, Mr. Chair and Senator Sierto, for giving my close. I urge and I vote. Thank you very much. And at the appropriate time, we can establish a quorum and our sergeants are working on that. We'll entertain a motion and the chair is recommending an aye as amended.

I think those are all of your bills this Senator Umbert, thank you very much. Okay. We'll now move to file and enforce Senate Bill 227 by Senator Dr. Weber Pearson. I see Senator Dr. Weber Pearson here. So we'll proceed now to that bill. Good morning and Senator, Dr. Weber Pierson, you may now present on the Bill.

Thank you. Good morning. Chair and Member of the Committee. Today I'm here to present Senate Bill 277, a Bill that is critical to the protection of the Fourth Amendment rights of all Californians and will help regulate consent searches conducted by law enforcement officers in California by ensuring that searches are voluntarily informed and clearly documented.

Consent searches are searches conducted by law enforcement based solely on the individual's consent without any other legal justification. This practice exposes people to the discretion and potential bias of officers, which is concerning as it undermines both constitutional rights and public trust in law enforcement. The Fourth Amendment of the U.S.

constitution protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, meaning that law enforcement typically needs either a warrant, statutory authority or or probable cause to conduct a search. However, when an officer asks for consent, it bypasses these requirements.

Research and testimonies referenced in the RIPA report suggest that consent may not always be given voluntarily as there is a power imbalance between the officer and the individual being stopped. Nearly 99% of Californians agree to searches, but those who do not consent are often subject to longer stops.

The 2025 report examined data provided by law enforcement agencies for close to 5 million stops from 2023. According to the data, over 75,000 Californians were subject to consent only searches, with black and Latinos being disproportionately affected. Now, black Californians represent about 6.5% of the California population.

However, black individuals had the highest search rate of 20.7%, 2.4 times higher than white individuals at 8.8%. But interestingly enough, their discovery rate, meaning that something was actually found, was 9.2 percentage points lower than white individuals during consent only searches. In fact, when you look at all consent only searches, only 38.5% of individuals had any reportable action taken.

But the ones who didn't have any reportable action taken, the highest were black individuals. Currently, there is no uniform standard for consent searches in state law. SB 277 establishes this baseline, ensuring that local jurisdictions can choose to go forward if they with to strengthen their policies even more.

The Supreme Court has ruled that consent searches must be voluntary, but in practice many individuals feel that pressure to comply with police requests even if they have the right to refuse. Studies also show that vulnerable populations, including our very young and our communities of color, are particularly susceptible to feeling coerced in consent searches.

Additionally, which is very important to me, Coercive police encounters harm public health. Studies show that aggressive policing tactics like stop and frisk are linked to negative health outcomes in impacted communities and greater transparency and policing can reduce these health disparities.

The RIPA report also highlights the severe psychological and physical health impacts on coercive policing practices, particularly in marginalized communities.

These individuals experience higher levels of stress, anxiety, post traumatic stress, and this can lead and does lead to long term health issues such as hypertension, cardiovascular disease, chronic stress and in my area, this is one of the reasons why we see an increased risk of maternal rate, morbidity and mortality along black women.

SB 277 will ensure these searches are properly documented, helping to prevent coercion, reinforce their voluntary nature and provide a safeguard for both the public and law enforcement. By ensuring that consent searches are documented and conducted transparently and equitably.

SB 277 will help reduce these psychological and other health risks by improving the well beings of all Californians, especially our vulnerable communities. This bill truly strikes a balance between public safety and individual freedoms. We recognize the importance of effective policing while also ensuring the individual's rights are not violated.

SB 277 was crafted through numerous conversations with law enforcement, civil rights organization and community advocates. We understand that flexibility is necessary, and we have worked to ensure that departments can implement reasonable methods for documentation to fit their needs. We will continue to have those conversations with stakeholders as the bill progresses. This bill is not just about ensuring transparency.

It's about removing personal bias and creating a culture of fairness in law enforcement that benefits everyone. By supporting this Bill, we take a meaningful step towards safer communities, better police community relations, and stronger commitment to upholding constitutional rights. Let's ensure that law enforcement operates with honor, transparency and respect for every Californian.

Here to testify is Andrea Guerrero, Executive Director of Alliance San Diego and co chair of the RIPA board, and Ted Womack, a San Diego community Member who has been subject to consent searches multiple times. Thank you.

Before we take your testimony, we do have a quorum. Let the Committee assistant please call the roll.

Here. Seyarto. Here. Seyarto. Here. Caballero Gonzalez. Perez. Here. Perez. Here. Wiener.

Okay, quorum is established. We'll take up consent later. So we'll now proceed to witness testimony on SB 277. Thank you for joining us today. And you may begin. You have two minutes.

Here. Wiener. Here

Good morning, Chair and Members of the Committee. As someone who has served several terms on the RIPA board since 2016, I'm here to share the imperative of passing SB 277, a Bill to establish a common sense standard where none exists to limit consent based searches by law enforcement and protect the dignity of all Californians.

As the Senator has shared, consent based searches are discretionary. There is currently no statewide standard. The problem here is that there are no limits when an officer can ask for consent. And in that discretion, bias blooms. Every year, over 500 law enforcement agencies in California report their stop data.

The RIPA Board reviews it and makes recommendations to the Legislature. And what that data tells us is that over 75,000 Californians are subject to consent only searches and that these searches are the least effective way to discover evidence of a crime. Nevertheless, consent based searches are used at high rates across the state.

For example, about half of all searches by the Daily City Police Department in San Mateo county, the Madera PD in Madera County, the West Covina PD in Los Angeles County, the Montclair PD in San Bernardino county and the Sheriff's Department in Orange County are based solely on consent and the officer discretion to ask for it.

As the Senator mentioned, the RIPA data also shows us that 2/3 of Californians and 3/4 of people under 24 years old are subject to consent search. Who are subject to consent searches are perceived to be black or Latino.

These are alarming figures and a clear example of bias in policing, which has led the RIPA board to recommend that the Legislature limit consent searches, which you have a chance to do today by introducing a standard used for decades by the California Highway Patrol, the state's largest law enforcement agency.

CHP only allows officers to ask for consent if they are investigating a crime and have reasonable suspicion that someone has evidence of it. Only then can they ask for consent to search. This limitation has brought CHP consent based searches close to zero and allowed the agency to focus its limited resources on more effective policing techniques.

We could do the same across the state by codifying that standard in SB277. And I will say that what that would do is that would turn the 75,000 consent only searches in the state into dozens only dozens of consent only searches that would be based on the investigative scenario in the Bill.

Because of that, we thank you for your consideration and we urge your support.

Thank you very much. Hi, good morning.

Good morning, chair and Committee Members. My name is Ted Womack. I'm from San Diego, California, born and raised. And I was subject to consent search stops several dozens of times. And it unfortunately led to one very traumatic experience for me that shaped my outlook about how law enforcement choose to deal with me.

When I was 19 years old, I was pulled over as I was leaving my house. A cop saw me, made a U turn and pulled me over. As I was being pulled over, two more units quickly became behind me. So at this point, I have three cops for myself.

The first cop came and asked for my license and asked for my registration. I handed it to him. And as that was going on, a second officer came to my passenger window and asked if I had any drugs, asked if I had any paraphernalia or anything like that in the car, and my answer was no.

After that, he said, okay, well, we can have a sergeant or a K9 come out. And I said, well, why would we need to do that if it's just me by myself? I said, no, I don't have anything in the car for you to search.

And they said, well, if you don't have anything wrong, if you're not doing anything wrong, what is wrong with us searching you in your car? I said, well, I just let you know I don't have any paraphernalia, I don't have any drugs or anything, so why would you need to search if you asked me?

And I said no. And this banter goes back and forth at least two or three times. And after about five minutes I'm like, you know what, Forget it. Like, I obviously don't have a choice here. I let them search my car. So once they pull it out, there's four units for myself.

Now, I asked the third officer, what is the purpose of all this happening? You know, they asked me if I had anything in my car. I let them know that I didn't. But all this is still going on and I just don't understand. And he's like, well, why not? What else do you have to do?

We don't have anything else to do. And I just didn't get that.

It made me feel like I was literally being targeted and bullied because why would four police car units need to stop me by myself and force me to allow them to search my vehicle even after me telling them that I don't have anything for them to search?

And this is how I'm learning about how law enforcement is going to interact with me for the rest of my life. I'm 19, I just graduated, I'm at junior college, I'm a new driver. On the.

So this is the perception that I'm getting and this is one scenario, but this is something that was happening to me multiple times a week to the point where I was scared to leave my house because I knew I was going to get pulled over and accosted just because some police officers may have felt like doing that.

So as a new driver, my fear isn't breaking down or getting into a car accident or anything like that. As a new driver, my fear was being pulled over by police officers because I knew that they were going to use whatever were in their power to create a situation that of an investigation and have me search.

And if I said no, it would go on way longer than it was supposed to. Thank you. Thank you for being here today.

Thank you for your testimony. Okay, we'll now take any other witnesses in support of SB 277. If you can please sign up to the microphone and state your name, affiliation, position for the record.

Liz Bloom Gutierrez on behalf of Initiate Justice in support.

Margo George on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association and the Felony Murder Elimination Project. In support.

Natasha Minsk expressing support for Smart Justice California, the California Coalition for Women Prisoners, Initiate Justice Silicon Valley Debug, and the Pacific Juvenile Defender Center.

Good morning. Clint Carney with the San Diego Immigrant Rights Consortium and strong support.

Brian Molina with California Calls and strong support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Chair Arreguin and Members of the Committee. Sydney Fong on behalf of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders for Civic Empowerment and strong support.

Good morning. Henok Tashome Gitana, survivor of Torture International in strong support.

Good morning, Patricia Mondragon with Alliance San Diego in strong support of SB 277. Thank you.

Good morning. Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Jesse Schmitty here on behalf of Communities for New California Action. Congregations organized for prophetic engagement and inner city struggle. In strong support of SB 277. Thank you.

Good morning. Vivek Overemazimder with PANA Partnership for the Advancement of New Americans. And strong support.

Good morning. Erin Sumonograssi here representing OC action in the San Diego Black Workers center in strong support.

Good morning. Ian Cervelo from the Asian Pacific American. Labor alliance in strong support of SB 277.

Good morning. Emily Harris on behalf of Felony Murder Elimination Project in support.

Melanie Kim, San Francisco Public Defender's Office in strong support. And on behalf of Initiate Justice Action in strong support.

Good morning again. Greg Gardner, on behalf of Drug Policy alliance in support.

Good morning. Flower Alvarez Lopez representing Universidad Po Fular in the San Diego North County LGBT Resource. Fenner registering strong support.

Aubrey Rodriguez with ACLU California Action here with a tweener. Supportive femina, but we really appreciate the author's leadership on this issue. Thank you.

Good morning. Marshall Lawler, I'm a re-entry attorney and strong support.

Are there any other witnesses in support of SB 277? Okay, we'll now take any principal witnesses in opposition. Will take two principal witnesses for two minutes.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members.

Corey Sauzillo, on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association, respectfully in opposition to SB 277, a robust body of case law at both the state and federal levels has not only confirmed the lawful use of consent searches, but also set guidelines as to how those searches may occur and the standards by which consent is sought and obtained.

Furthermore, the use of consent searches is an important tool in proactive policing, and the limiting of such will negatively impact public safety. Illegal firearms and other contraband that would otherwise go undiscovered are routinely found during consent searches. Given the rise in violent crime recent. Excuse me, restricting tools proven to get guns off the streets is untimely.

We shouldn't unduly restrict a beneficial law enforcement tool that helps uncover illegal activity, but also provides a person with the method to demonstrate they are not violating the law. The bottom line is that unless other conditions exist, a person generally free to withhold or withdraw consent to a search.

We have concerns about the RIPA data that are used to at Least partially justify the need for this Bill and the RIPA process as it is. But in terms of this bill on consent searches, we think this goes too far in attempting to address a perceived problem and it will make our communities less safe.

I've also been asked to express the opposition of the California Police Chiefs Association, given the committees are meeting at the same time. So for those reasons, we are opposed to the Bill and ask for your no vote. Thank you.

Thank you. The chair had to step away for a moment, so I'll continue running the meeting. Do we have any. Anybody else here in opposition that would like to speak? If you could please come up to the mic right at the railing and state your name, organization and position.

Lieutenant Julio De Leon, representing the Riverside Sheriff's Office. May I have a few minutes? Since we only had one opposition witness.

Apologies, but I would like to keep it procedurally just because we gave that same amount of time to everybody else that's spoke in support.

Okay, we're in opposition.

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

Thank you. We will now go ahead and thank you for the presentations and turn it over to the Members if anybody has any questions about the bill. Comments?

Yes, Senator Gonzalez, I just want to say thank you to the author for bringing the bill and thank you for sharing your story because. Because I know it's always difficult to do that in these times and would be glad to move the bill when appropriate.

Okay, Singh, as there are currently no other Members here and we do have a motion, and the motion is to. Oh, also apologies.

Senator Weber Pearson, would you like to close? Thank you. Want to thank the Committee for hearing this Bill and all of your assistance with the Bill. Really want to thank those who came and spoke. Thank you so much for giving. Giving your public testimony. Unfortunately, your story is not unique.

That is the story of many black and brown and other minority groups here in California. I also just want to highlight the fact that this particular policy is something that's already being used as what's highlighted. So we're not creating something new. The CHP limits discretion to consent.

Our consent based on the purpose is only criminal investigation, which is what this bill mirrors. And as stated, you know, as a result, the percentage of searches are close to zero with the California Highway Patrol compared to a much higher rate in other law enforcement agencies.

And, you know, I remember there was a Bill that was similar to this that came to the Assembly a couple of years ago, and when it was being presented on the floor, someone stood up and noted the fact that when Jeffrey Dahmer, we all know who he was, was young, he was pulled over by a police officer for drunk driving or being under the influence.

And if he was not allowed to do consent searches, then he may not have been able to search his car at that time, even though the officer smelled something. And I stood up and spoke, and I usually don't speak on the floor unless I absolutely need to.

Because the interesting thing is that Jeffrey Dahmer was pulled over in 1978 thinking that he was under the influence. The officer smelled something and chose not to search his car. Had he searched his car, he would have seen the body parts of his first victim that he was trying to dispose. But he looked at him.

He saw this young white male and decided not to use his ability to search his car. That is the problem with our consent searches today. There is discretion, and discretion leads to bias, and bias leads to the unequal interpretation and implementation of law.

And what that leads to, to my opposition, is unsafe communities, distrust in the people who are supposed to protect all Californians. We have the data. We have the stories. This is a practice that must be stopped now. And with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote on SB 277. Thank you.

Thank you so much, Senator Dr. Weber Pearson. I strongly recommend this Bill today. I would be honored to be considered as a co author at the appropriate time.

This is actually something we did in the City of Berkeley when I was mayor to address bias and to ensure justice and fairness in our policing system in the City of Berkeley. I strongly support this Bill. And is there a motion on SB 277? Move by Gonzalez. Okay, if we can please call the roll.

SB 277, Weber Pearson, motion is due passed to Appropriations. Aye. Aye. Seyarto. Caballero. Gonzalez. Gonzalez. aye. Perez. Perez. aye. Wiener.

Okay, we'll keep that Bill on call. Thank you very much. Let's briefly take consent. Consent consists of one Item. File item 12. SB431. My Bill, Office of Inspector General, Record Protection. Is there a motion to approve the consent calendar moved by Gonzalez? Yes, to approve the consent calendar.

Hataguin? Aye. Howequin. Aye. Seyarto. Caballero. Gonzalez. Gonzalez, Aye. Perez. Aye. Perez. Aye. Wiener.

We'll keep that Bill on call. Thank you. So we'll now proceed and we'll come back to the other bills when we get more Members. So we'll now proceed to file item five, Senate Bill 286 by Senator Jones. Good morning, Senator Jones. Just want to clarify for the record I misspoke. Consent is filed in two Senate Bill 831.

I'm just looking at the piece of paper here. 830, that's even more incorrect. So just to clarify, consent is Senate Bill 830, and that motion is on call and we'll take more votes when more Members come. So we'll now proceed to the Bill presentation and Senate Bill 286. And Senator Jones, you may present.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. It's an honor to be in the Public Safety Committee once again this year. I first want to thank Committee staff for their hard work on this Bill and acknowledge that I will be accepting the proposed Committee amendments that we've worked on.

Mary Bella's law will bring equity and justice to victims throughout our state and close a loophole in California's elderly parole program that allows serial rapists and sex offenders to walk free decades before serving their full sentences simply because they turned 50 years old.

In 2020, a last minute budget Bill quietly expanded elderly parole without a single policy or fiscal hearing at all. That year, the budget Bill lowered the elderly parole age from 60 to 50, making violent and repeat sex offenders eligible for early release after serving just 20 years.

No matter how long their original sentence was set for, survivors and their families should never have to live in fear that their attacker could walk free long before serving their full sentence. Nor should they be forced to relive their trauma by repeatedly fighting to keep their perpetrators behind bars.

This Bill is about honoring the promises made to victims when their attackers were sentenced. Our Bill is named after Mary Johnson, who is here with me to testify today, and Bella Clark, two survivors whose lives were upended when their attackers became eligible for elderly parole.

It's stories like theirs that we would like to avoid as we right a wrong in passing SB286. Mr. Chair, Members with me this morning to testify. First will be Mary Johnson to tell her story and followed by San Diego District Attorney Summer Stephan. If I can turn it to Mary, please. Yes, thank you very much. Good morning.

Good morning.

Yes, thank you very much.

Good morning. I am Mary of Mary Bella's Law. By now you've heard my story. My uncle raped four women before raping and committing heinous acts on me as a foster child for nearly a year. Yet I do not stand here today asking for empathy or compassion. Emotions are fleeting.

Emotions will get lost with the next story or in the next Bill. Instead, I stand here with one question. When did our perpetrators become the victims? When did ensuring our perpetrators serve out Their sentences that they so rightfully earned become the wrong thing to do.

Sentences that were given by judges and juries and upheld by appellate courts after knowing the egregious things that they did to our minds and our bodies. I stand here today a therapist, a healer, still trying to teach my nervous system the difference between a man attacking my body and a man called my husband in conflict with me.

When did holding the person responsible for that damage become wrong? When did we stop wanting to think about the most basic statistic related to recidivism? The average victim does not disclose until the age of 52.

This means that these perps who are released under the elderly parole law will never face their victim, which means that the statistic will always be incorrect. When did we stop thinking as a marginalized person? With all the odds stacked against me, I understand how we the people need to be protected.

But when did I stop being a part of the we and we the people? Finally, while we can all agree that we cannot litigate to the worst of them, I ask when did men who rape and molest women, children and babies stop being the worst of them? With that, I ask that you please say yes to SB286.

Thank you.

Thank you so very much for being here today. Madam DA.

Good morning, Chair and Members. I'm Summer Stephan, San Diego's County's elected District Attorney, but also spent a career pioneering a sex crimes division and looking in the eyes of victims and children and the devastation that sex crimes cause for a lifetime. When the law changed in 21 with AB3234, it left an indelible impact.

We didn't know how high that impact is until the cases began coming before parole boards. Recently, I had a call with a rape victim whose boyfriend was also executed. And the terror in her voice reliving the crime that happened to her 20 years ago.

And it's something that I can't describe, but the fact that this rapist was able to come up for parole after a jury trial, after the courage to come forward and testify and the jury convicted him, the appeals were all in the favor of the people and that all of a sudden the law changed and at 50 years old, he was eligible for parole and having to make that call.

Just picture the number of crime victims who, in a crime that is mostly underreported, who come forward and go through all of this. And I didn't know how to explain it to her. I explained that our Constitution in California enshrined Victims rights in 28d section, but we don't talk about that very often.

For many years now, we've only talked about the rights of the accused. But there is nowhere that I saw that an accused rapist had the right to be paroled at 50 years old. There is no documented evidence that anyone becomes elderly at 50 years old. This law never made sense. It doesn't make sense.

And the injustice that is caused is able to be reversed starting today. And I seek your aye vote on SB286.

Thank you very much. Okay. I know we have a number of people here to speak in support of SB286, and we thank you for joining us this this morning. We're going to just take your name, your affiliation, if you wish to. To share it or the city you're from and your position on the Bill.

And so people can please line up to the microphone to express your support for the Bill. We'd appreciate it and thank you for joining us.

Yes, Good morning. Maureen Byrne from the District Attorney's office in Ventura representing the California District Attorneys Association. In support.

Good morning. My name is Seek Smith. I'm the founder of mom and dad army, and I am in full support of SB286. Good morning. I'm Courtney with Mom army and Natomas. And I am in full support of this Bill.

Good morning. My name is Justice Smith. I'm Mary's daughter and I'm in full. Support of this Bill.

Good morning. My name is Sabrina Williams. I represent Mom Army, Sacramento county and Placer County. I'm also a survivor and I'm in full support.

Good morning. My name is Joanna Call. I'm a survivor and I'm in full support of this Bill.

My name is Catalina. I'm Mary's sister and I'm in full support of SB286.

Good morning. My name is Margarita Cooper. I am Mary's best friend and I am in full support.

Hello. My name is Sabrina Wise. I am Bella's mother. I am full support of this Bill.

Good morning. My name's Colleen Stan. The media calls me the girl in the box, and I'm in full support of this Bill. Thank you.

My name is Clara Ellicott Stansberry. I am Bella's sister and I am in full support of SB286.

Hello. My name is Taj Johnson. I'm Mary's husband and I'm in full support of this Bill.

Hi, I'm Bella Clark. I am Bella of Mary Bella's Law.

And I am in full support part of this Bill.

I'm Constance Clark. I'm Bella's aunt, and I support this Bill. I am Jay Nichols. I am Bella's uncle. I am in full support of this Bill.

Florentina DiGiannaro, with Mom Army center in Yuba county, in full support of this Bill.

Hello. My name is Jonathan Drabke, and I'm a survivor, and I'm in full support of this Bill.

I am Violet Coslin, and I am with Jonathan Drabke, and I support this Bill. Melinda Wazak, here to support a victim. And in full support of this Bill. Thank you. God bless you. Judy Velasquez, voice of Jane Doe, pastor of many other Jane does, and I'm in full support of this Bill. God bless.

Good morning. My name is Reverend Jose Velazquez. I am the pastor of Mosaic Church in Temecula, and I'm here to support. Mary, one of our one of our. Parishioners, and we support this Bill.

My name is Margarita Velazquez, and I love Mary so much and I support.

My name is Rena Tomasic and I'm with Jane Doe's Voice and I'm fully supporting SB 286.

My name is Tammy McCamish. I'm with Mary and I'm in full support of this bill.

My name is Alexa Hansen. I'm from Sacramento. I am a violent crime victim advocate and I am in full support of this bill.

Good morning. My name is Bernadette Miller. I'm a survivor and I'm in support of this bill.

My name is Sean and I'm supporting my wife and I'm in full support of this bill.

My name is Rachel Benavidez. I'm from BumbleBear Coffee and I am in full support of 286.

My name is Leah Rothman. I'm from Oakland, California. I'm here to stand with Mary, Bella, all the other survivors in support of this bill.

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

Hi, I'm Elaina Bentley. I represent the Riverside County District Attorney's Office and all the victims of violent crime. We are in full support of this bill.

Hi, I'm the aunt of Michelle Benavidez, a victim, and I'm here with Victim Advocate Angels. I am in full support of this bill.

Thank you. Thank you all for being here. Are there any other witnesses in support of SB 286? If you could please approach the microphone. Okay, so we'll now take witness testimony in opposition. We'll take two principal witnesses in opposition to SB 286. If you could sit in those two seats right there, we'd appreciate it.

And you'll have two minutes each to address the committee on the bill. Thank you.

Thank you to the committee for allowing me to speak. My name is Gary Harrell and I am a former lifer here and opposed to SB 286 by Senator Jones. Although I was eligible for parole in 1984, I wasn't released until 40 years later after many parole hearings. As you can see, it's not easy to be granted parole.

By the time I was granted, I had spent the last two decades of my prison time turning my life around and trying to understand what led me to make the choices I did, including the horrible decision to participate in a murder.

I went to rehabilitative programs and was supported by other lifers who sat with me in self help groups. Together we addressed our past traumas, took responsibility for our actions and discussed how we could become constructive members of society. After decades of bettering ourselves, we passed on our hard earned lessons to the younger men in the prison.

As we grew older, we reflected on our past mistakes and we changed our ways. We saw each other becoming grandfathers. We lost our family members to old age. Many of my friends grew sick and some of my friends died in prison before they could come home. We all slowed down.

Today I am grateful to be home with my family. I work a day job in the morning and work on my art in the afternoon. I also run my own nonprofit that gives homeless people in Sacramento food and hygiene.

I have taken so much from others and now it's time to give back and do my part to make the world a better place. I hope you can see that the people who will be impacted by this bill are people like me who have changed and want to give back. I urge you to vote no on SB286.

Thank you, sir. Hi, good morning.

Good morning. Before I begin my formal remarks, I'll just point out that we we just learned when we walked in this room that there had been amendments to the bill apparently to remove murder as one of the exclusionary factors, which is significant, but we still have some concerns.

But Mr. Harrell, you just heard from, was convicted of murder as he indicated, he was not convicted of a sex offense, which apparently is still covered by the bill. So good morning, Chair and Members of the Committee. I'm Keith Wattley. I'm the founding Executive Director of UnCommon Law.

We are a nonprofit organization that provides trauma-informed counseling and legal representation and policy advocacy for people serving life sentences. I'm strongly urging your no vote on SB 286. Early would be if someone were released while they're still dangerous. This is not about early release. Elderly parole is not. That's never been the standard of any parole hearing in California.

The overwhelming majority of people considered for elderly parole are actually not granted parole. In fact, only about 10% are granted when they first become eligible. This bill would have us spend millions of dollars to incarcerate people decades after any violence risk has subsided. We can't afford to take such a misguided approach.

Mr. Harrell was considered for parole about 20 times before he was finally released. And by that time he qualified for youth parole and elderly parole and had the parole board psychologist find that he presents a low risk. And you add to that he had reached the age of 65 before he finally was granted parole.

45 years into a seven to life sentence. Excuse me. So we have in California, in 2014, the state acknowledged that older people have generally aged out of violent crime and therefore present a much lower risk.

The state convinced the federal court to endorse its elderly parole program and the legislature expanded it in 2020 with zero increase in recidivism. The recidivism rate for people released from elderly parole is 2.2%. 2.2%. And when you focus on violent re-offense, it's 2/10 of 1% is the recidivism rate.

In other words, the process works in terms of protecting public safety. We think that this bill would be-- it'd be irresponsible. It'd be a waste of resources to keep incarcerated people decades beyond the point at which they're any risk. And so we urge a no vote on this bill. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Okay, we'll take any other witnesses in opposition to Senate Bill 286. If you could please approach the microphone and state your name, affiliation and position for the record.

Natasha Minskir, Smart Justice California. Appreciate the amendments. We remain opposed.

Margo George. I am also a survivor and I'm here today on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association, and we oppose this bill. Thank you.

Ignacio Hernandez on behalf of the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, in opposition, we will review the amendments.

Mark Judkins from Los Angeles and I oppose this bill and encourage you to do the same.

My name is Carrie Posey of Rio Linda and I oppose this bill.

Roger Hunnicutt, businessman from Modesto. I strongly oppose this bill, taking decision power from the parole board.

Aubrey Rodriguez with ACLU California Action in strong opposition.

Richard Chu from American Canyon California. I oppose this bill.

Good morning. Emily Harris, on behalf of Sister Warriors and Felony Murder Elimination Project, in opposition. And I'm also a survivor.

Hello. Liz Bloom Gutierrez. I'm also a survivor and I'm speaking in opposition on behalf of La Defensa and Initiate Justice.

Good morning. Tana Opliger with Californians United for Responsible Budget. I'm also a survivor of sexual violence. And with great respect to the survivors in this room, I oppose this bill.

Sue Kim, on behalf of UnCommon Law. And I'm also a survivor of violent crime and sexual violence. In respectful opposition to SB 286.

Marshal Lawler. I'm a reentry attorney and I'm opposed to this bill.

Melanie Kim, San Francisco Public Defender's Office, in opposition. And on behalf of Initiate Justice Action, in opposition.

Flower Alvarez Lopez with Universidad Popular in San Diego, I'm also a survivor and in strong opposition of this Bill.

Hello. Aldasia Green from the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, in respectful opposition to this bill.

Good morning. My name is Eric Kay. I'm with Life Support Alliance, Alliance with Constitutional Sex Offense Laws, and the Anti Recidivism Coalition. We are in opposition to this Bill. Thank you.

Hi, good morning. My name is Erin Gray, Sacramento, and I oppose this bill.

Carlos Hernandez with MILPA Collective respectfully in opposition of the Bill.

Michelle with Initiate Justice in opposition.

Lee with Initiate Justice, in opposition.

Adam Kane with Initiate Justice, in opposition.

David Herron, resident of El Dorado County, I respectfully encourage you to oppose this bill.

Dave Howard, San Francisco, opposition to this bill.

Gema Quetzal, on behalf of Friends Committee on Legislation, oppose the bill.

Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in opposition to SB 286? Okay. Thank you for your testimony. If there's a question specifically for any witness, we'll direct that question to that witness.

But the Committee will now deliberate on the bill. And want to just reiterate the amendment that the Committee proposed the Senator had accepted, which is under Section 3055, subsection H.

The section says that this section does not apply if the person was convicted of the following striking H1 murder, whereas all the other serious felonies would be subject to this Bill. So we'll open up for questions or discussion from the Committee. Who would like to start. Senator Perez.

First of all, I want to thank the author for accepting the amendments and I think making this very focused on, you know, I think the population of folks that you're trying to support with this piece of legislation and want to take a moment just to acknowledge Mary for being here today and for sharing your story.

And it's so incredible to see so many of your family members and your loved ones here. I'm a survivor myself, and it's incredible just to hear the number of people that spoke here today, both in support, in opposition, that are also survivors.

I mean, I think it highlights the amount of violence against women that so many of us experience. And, you know, just want to let you know it's so powerful to have you here, you know, sharing your story. And I know just how hard it is.

And, you know, I recognize you were part of a press conference earlier today and just want to recognize that and your efforts.

I also wanted to ask just a couple of questions that I might have for I don't know if it's the Chair or the author, but just in terms of what the bill would be doing so I make sure that I'm clear. So this would move the elderly parole program hearing.

So right now the consideration would be when they're. When someone's 50 years of age. So it would move it back to being 60 years of age.

So it doesn't mean that the person won't be paroled, but it does mean that the board won't be required to take certain factors into account and may affect the timing of their first parole hearing date. Is that correct?

Yes. What it does is, this bill would, those specific crimes that are delineated in the language would be removed from the elderly parole program. Those incarcerated perpetrators, whatever you want to, would have other parole programs that are available to them, just not the elderly parole program.

And could you share just the difference between, the big highlights, but the difference between the elderly parole program and the regular parole program?

Well, the DA might be able to speak better to that, but there's several parole programs that incarcerated people have access to. We're just taking this one off the program. I don't know if the.

Could you share? If you could press the mic right in front of you.

This only affects the Bill AB 3234 that lowered the parole from 60 to 50 years old. It doesn't go back and address the parole, the elder parole that was over 60 years old.

So it only addresses the new amendments that were made in 2021 to 50 years old. It also doesn't change the minimum eligibility.

So if somebody had, you know, a conviction and let's say they had a 20 year to life and the 20 years was up, no matter what age they were, they would still get their parole hearing. So it doesn't affect the minimum and it doesn't affect the youthful offender parole eligibility at 26.

But that one excludes the category that we're trying to exclude here. So this law just created a parody that was not good in that the very young would be if it's a sexual offense, they'd be excluded, but if they're 50, they would be allowed to have parole.

Thank you. That's helpful. Just wanted clarity around that and I will be supporting your Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other questions or comments from, Senator Seyarto?

Thank you. So just for clarity, all this does is fix what was a gut and amend trailer, budget trailer Bill that lowered the threshold for elderly parole from 50 or from 60 to 50 years of age. Okay.

One of the things to take note is when it's a budget trailer Bill, that's policy and that's one of the things that some of us have concerns about. And then the Bill also reduced the minimum amount of time required to be served in order to be considered from for elderly parole from 25 to 20.

Does this Bill touch that at all or is it still going to be 20 now?

No, it takes that out, too.

It takes that out too. So it goes back to 25. All right. So, you know, my comments on this Bill are that somewhere our victims are being left out in the cold.

I've had to deal with this with friends of our family. They have a 4-year-old who was strangled. The perpetrator was just charged with murder, although there was evidence that he was trying to sexually assault her and that's probably why he strangled her.

Every couple of years now, they have to go back because the perpetrator hasn't got the right counseling to tell them how to answer the questions right. To allow him to get out on parole. I don't know when 50 years old became elderly. 50 years old was elderly.

When you, back in the 1700s in the Stone Age, got to 37, you started having to think about where you're going to get buried. I'm 65 and I am not old, okay? You may think I'm old, but I am not. I am perfectly capable of doing any of these heinous things if that's what my mindset was.

There's a point at which somebody does things that's so heinous that the incarceration isn't just about making sure they're not dangerous to the public anymore. They already were. And they got to pay for that. Because if they don't, victims wind up paying for it instead. They get victimized all the time until this person does get paroled.

And I'm not saying that everybody that does. This gentleman seems like a nice gentleman now, but there are some people, especially when it comes to sexually violent acts. I'm sorry, but having to look over your shoulder because in this other case, they're deathly afraid because their testimony is what put them in jail.

They're deathly afraid that this guy's going to get out and then he's going to do something to them. And that's not fair. That's not justice. And at some point we have to be a little more common sense about what we're doing. And this Bill helps do that.

And so I'll be supporting your Bill and I'll move the Bill when it's appropriate. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other Senators? Senator Gonzales.

Thank you. And I too want to align my comments with Senator Perez, I want to thank you for coming here, both yourself and Bella and the team of moms and friends that you have here, which is, I think, really bold of you to be here and share your story along with your husband who's next to you.

And I just want to thank you both for being here, as well as the opposition who is here and told his story as well. I think it's really important to hear both sides of this really, you know, nuanced sort of law that we have in place.

But I just want to make sure your stories are not dismissed and that we hear, you know, from, from each of you. I just want to clarify and I think author for bringing this forward.

But I do know, I just want to clarify because I don't want this to be or the victim's experiences to be sensationalized in a way that dismisses their experience, but also gets to the heart of what you're trying to get at, too. But I just want to confirm eligibility for this program does not guarantee release, correct?

That's correct.

Okay. And it allows a hearing still to determine safe release on parole supervision, then reviewed by the board's legal team and then the Governor's office, correct?

That's all accurate.

Okay. So there's still a process. And then overall elderly program as it exists, you know, the opposition will say it, it poses no public safety issue. I believe they're referring to about only 16.6% of elderly Parole hearings, excuse me, resulted in a parole grant.

That sounds reasonable. I don't know that number for sure.

I just want to get the facts out there so we know what we're working with. But of course, one time is too much, too many times.

I will be supporting the Bill today, but I just want to make sure that we're very clear as we move forward as to what the parole program actually does and what process is actually out there so folks in the public understand that there's still a process during this, if this Bill were to move forward.

And with that, I just want to say thank you again and we'll vet.

Thank you.

Thank you. Any other Senators who wish to ask any questions or comments on the Bill? Okay. Okay. Moved by Seyarto, as amended. And turn it back over to Senator Jones to close.

Thank you, Chairman. And I do want to recognize the witnesses, obviously in support, but the gentleman that spoke in opposition as well. Thank you for your story and thank you for taking advantages of the resources that were, allowed you to be paroled and join society. I appreciate that.

I also appreciate the witnesses in opposition recognizing that murder has been taken out as one of the crimes and we're focused mostly on violent sexual crimes in the Bill as it is now. SB 286 is a bipartisan, common sense measure to bring parity across California's age based parole programs.

Mary Bella's law will protect victims' right to closure in some of the most brutal sex offense cases our criminal justice system encounters and end the practice of dragging victims and families through the parole hearing process simply because their offender had a 50th birthday.

I want to thank my witnesses here today for sharing their experiences and thank you to the Committee for all of your thoughtful input. Thank you for the staff for working on the amendments and helping us get to a point where I think there's some greater agreement on this issue and ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Senator. And thank you once again to all the witnesses and your courage to be here today and to tell your story. Not just you, but all the victims who are here today. It makes a huge impact. And so I really want to thank you.

And thank you sir, for being here today and telling your story as well. So the motion by Seyarto is, where does this go next? Okay, is do you pass as amended to Senate Appropriations for Senate Bill 286. If you can please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay, that motion carries. 6:0. That bill is out. Thank you. So since all of the members are here, if we can go back to. Well, almost here. I just want to just open the roll on a few things. So SB 38 by Umberg, the second chance program, just colleagues who weren't here.

The senators agreed to an amendment to the bill to reinstate the 50% pass through to CBOs. I'm recommending an I. So I'll obtain a motion on SB 38. Umberg. Okay, moved by Wiener. If we can please call the roll.

SB 38 motion is due pass as amended to appropriations.

[roll call]

Okay, that passes. 6 to 0. That bill is out. We'll move now to file it into SB 448. Umberg. The author, also did request an amendment or did agree to an amendment to change the process for removing squatters. The amendments remove police immunity and removes the felony for an unauthorized person and makes the other felony a wobbler.

And this is to ensure that the focus is specifically on the expedited process to remove trespassers, but not to create incentives for people that have a rightful, a lawful right to possession of property to be removed. So I'm recommending an I. And onto the motion. SB 448, moved by Senator Caballero. If we can please call the roll.

SB 448 do pass, as amended to Judiciary Committee.

[roll call]

Okay, can we lift the call on the consent calendar? I think not everyone has voted on that right, which consists once again of one bill, SB 830. If you can please call the roll and consent.

Currently the vote is three to zero.

[roll call]

Can we lift the call on the filing on SB 277?

Current vote is 3 to 0.

[roll call]

Okay, what's the vote?

It's currently 4 to 1.

4 to 1. That bill is out. Thank you. Okay, so our next file Item was file item six, SB 356. But I know that Senator Jones had to step out. He'll be back. I see Senator Wahab here, so we'll go out of order to file item nine, SB 701. And good morning, Senator Dr. Wahab.

And you may present your bill, senator.

Thank you. Chair and committee members. Before I begin, I want to thank the committee staff for their help with this bill. I respectfully accept all the amendments and I really appreciate the work there. I want to note that this bill is important.

We do have a witness, however, I believe that they are testifying in the assembly right now. But okay, great. We have so we have one witness that's testifying in the assembly, another witness that is with us here. So I just wanted to be very clear about that.

SB 701 fills a void in state law to allow state and local law enforcement to take action against signal jammers. Signal jammers block a wide variety of critical communications, including WiFi, radio, bluetooth and more. They've been used in burglaries and car thefts across the country.

They're also high risk for terrorist threats, which is especially relevant with our major international sporting events coming to California in the next year. While they are already illegal under federal law and Federal Communications Commission FCC rules, this bill would allow local law enforcement to get involved, reducing our reliance on federal authorities.

With me again is Maureen Byrne, Deputy DA at the Ventura County District Attorney's Office.

Thank you. Good morning everyone. Maureen Byrne, Ventura County District Attorney on behalf of the California District Attorney Association this we are in support of this bill which adds a new misdemeanor and it also adds a felony. And what it does is helps law enforcement and also the emergency response, fire and ambulance and 911 operators.

What it does add is the use of a signal jammer in conjunction with committing a crime. And this example would be we have some examples from Orange County that we have first degree residential burglary that come outside the home and are seen on surveillance with actual jammers in their hand.

That would make it a crime to use that in conjunction with trying to enter that home or the commission of any crime. It also would make a crime of willfully or maliciously using a signal jammer to block public safety communications.

And this would be preventing someone who is calling the fire department, who is calling the police for help or ambulance and possibly with the 911 calls. So we are in support of this. I think it's a California does have something that's not here.

We would ask that it be passed so that we can prosecute and file cases against people who use this to in commission of crimes.

Thank you very much. Are there any other witnesses in support of SB 701? Please come forward. State your name and affiliation.

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

Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in support? Okay. We'll now take any principal witnesses in opposition to SB 701, and you'll have two minutes to address the committee. Good morning.

All right, chair and members, my name is Aubrey Rodriguez, and I am a legislative advocate at ACLU California Action. I want to start by thanking the author and the committee for working hard to address some of our concerns and for accepting those amendments. However, the ACLU still remains in respectful opposition to Senate Bill 701.

While we appreciate the author accepting those amendments to lessen the most severe offense down to a wobbler of up to three years, and we also understand the author's intent in wanting to prevent bad actors from committing crime more easily committing crimes across the state, we just want to implore this committee to understand that federal and state law already cover the underlying offenses this bill attempts to further criminalize.

It is well documented that California's penal code has been criticized for its complexity and its unnecessary duplication of existing crimes. Over the last several decades, California's criminal code has grown to more than 5,000 separate provisions covering almost every conceivable form of human misbehavior.

Now is not the time for California to be creating new crimes, particularly when doing so will not have any greater impact on public safety. For these reasons, we respectfully urge your no vote on SB 701. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in opposition to SB 701?

Margo George, on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association, we want to thank the authority and the committee for the amendments. Once we review them, we anticipate we'll probably withdraw our opposition.

We are still concerned and hope that we can have some wordsmithing regarding the commission of a crime because the way it's currently worded in print, it could be anything from jaywalking to robbery. So thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Melanie Kim, San Francisco Public Defender's Office in opposition. We'll take a look at the amendments.

Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in opposition to Senate Bill 701? If you can please come forward. Okay. I don't see any additional witnesses, so I'll bring it back to the committee for any questions or comments. Once again, thank you to Senator Wahab for accepting the amendments.

And just to clarify, the amendments would generally reduce the penalties for the crimes created by the bill as follows. The crime of manufacturing, importing, marketing, purchasing or selling signal jammers. Currently, the infraction was an infraction with a $5,000 penalty.

This would change as punishable as an infraction with a fine not to exceed $500 as a misdemeanor with a fine not to exceed $500, plus the forfeiture of the device for the crime of possessing operating a signal jammer in conjunction with the commission of a crime, which is currently a wobbler.

It changes that to be punishable as a misdemeanor or a fine not to exceed $1,000, or both, for the crime of willfully or maliciously using a signal jammer to block public safety communications. The bill previously made it a state prison felony.

It changes to punishable as a jail felony, six months, two years or three years in county jail or a misdemeanor, which could be up to one year in county jail. So those are the amendments. Unless there are any other questions or comments, I'll turn it back. Turn it back over to Senator Wahab to close.

I want to be very clear. I understand the concerns with the new technologies and some of the concerns raised by the opposition. My office is more than happy to continue conversations as always on this.

We are not trying to be punitive in any manner, but with the availability of advanced technology, we are just also very concerned about how it's being utilized.

In my district, it can be utilized by a teacher just, you know, trying to stop people from texting while during a test, as well as something even more malicious as robberies and even harsher crimes. So with that, I respectfully ask for an I vote.

I appreciate, again, the committee and their hard work on making this bill, you know, threading the needle a little bit. So thank you.

Thank you, Senator. Okay. There's a motion by Senator Perez with the bills amended. If we could please call the roll.

SB 701 motion is do pass as amended to appropriations.

[roll call]

Okay, we'll put that bill on call. Thank you. We'll go back to file item 6, SB 356, also by Senator Jones. Good morning. And, Senator, you may now present the bill.

Great. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you members, and again, thank you for your vote on the last bill. Really appreciate it. The advocates are outside having a moment, so appreciate it. I'm going to present SB 356, now dealing with Board of Parole Hearing photos.

I am here today and I want to thank the committee staff for their work on the bill. And we'll be accepting the committee's amendments. I think just narrowed down some of the admissible photos a little bit. Historically, the Board of Parole Hearings has accepted crime scene and autopsy photographs as part of the hearing record.

These materials helped commissioners better understand the facts of the case and impact on the victims and their families. However, In January of 2024, the board adopted a policy change that excludes certain photographs from being considered if they are deemed graphic.

While this change may have been well intended, it has raised concerns about the exclusion of important context during parole hearings. SB 356 would restore the board's prior practice and ensure consistency moving forward. Specifically, the bill would require the board to accept and consider these photographs and include them in the hearing record as they previously have been.

This bill does not direct commissioners on how to weigh these materials. It simply ensures the materials are available to support a more complete and informed review. With that, I'd like to welcome John Cross from the San Diego District Attorney's Office to provide further comments on the bill.

Thank you. Good morning Chair and other members. A picture is worth a thousand words. Crime victims and their families do not choose to be involved in the criminal justice system. They are mercilessly pulled into it. Crime scene, autopsy and other graphic photos are the unfortunate, lasting memory that many victims and their families are left with.

They're victimized by the crime and the victimized again when the Board of Parole refuses to consider those at the parole hearing. As the Senator said prior to January 2024, the board routinely accepted these photographs and used them to help make decisions. They enacted this policy in January 2024.

Victims and their families joined prosecutors to speak out against this at a Board of Parole Executive Board hearing. The victims and their families were offended that the board would not consider these photos and the legacy of their lasting loved ones. They gave powerful statements. There's legal authority that the crime is considered at the parole hearing.

Shiputas 2, which came out after Lawrence, which was cited in some of the opposition letters, says that insight is a major factor in deciding suitability for parole. In Ray Bush is another case that says implausible denial crime is enough to deny parole. It shows a lack of credibility, a lack of insight and a lack of remorse.

The California Code of Regulations requires the panel to look at the crime at the parole hearing and the structured decision making format, which all commissioners use at the hearing also requires commissioners look at the crime. A picture is worth a thousand words.

I can describe something and everybody in this room is going to picture it differently in their head. If I say the room is filled with blood. Everybody's going to picture that differently. If I try to describe to you what a 357 magnum gunshot looks like, everybody's going to picture that differently.

If I show you the photo, you know exactly what I'm talking about. We are not attempting to re litigate the crime at the parole hearing, there are three things the boards want to see to grant parole.

The inmate admits what they did, the inmate understands why they did it, and the inmates constructs a plan to make sure it doesn't happen again. Without these pictures, the board doesn't have the full picture. The inmate can minimize, revise. There's no checks, there's no balances.

When the photos are given and the photos are looked at, we know exactly what the crime was. We know exactly what the inmate's admitting to. Again, we're not relitigating the crime. Making sure the board has what it needs to assure the inmate is telling the truth, is rehabilitated and ready for grant parole.

A picture is worth a thousand words. We ask for your I vote on this bill. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Are there any other witnesses in support of SB 356? If you can please approach the microphone. State your name, affiliation and position for the record. Any other witnesses in support. Okay, we'll now take two principal witnesses in opposition, SB 356, and each witness will have two minutes.

Good morning, chair and members of the committee. My name is Lupe Angulo and I'm a survivor of violent crime and a Victim Offender dialogue facilitator at Mend Collaborative. I speak today in opposition to SB 356 by Senator Jones. From both personal and professional experience and a deep understanding of what true healing for survivors looks like.

Over a decade ago, I witnessed the brutal murder of my partner and held him until he bled to death. During the murder trial, I was never asked what I needed. Instead, I was pushed to testify and graphic images of the crime were shown without my consent. Those images were extremely re traumatizing.

For survivors like me who are working through PTSD, being confronted with images of our most painful moments can derail years of progress. Although no survivor should have their trauma used in hearings without their permission, this will definitely be an outcome of SB 356.

Recently, I participated in a victim offender dialogue with the person who took my late fiance's life. I didn't have to forgive him, and it didn't erase the pain, but it brought me clarity, closure and peace. It changed my life.

I plan to attend his upcoming parole hearing and if I am forced to relive images of the crime there. It will only cause me further harm.

Not only that, I do not wish for anyone to view these horrible images of my loved one's death, especially now that he is no longer here to have a say in this process. SB 356, while claiming to support victims and survivors, only exploits our pain for political gain.

True healing comes from long term mental health support, trauma informed care, and opportunities for restorative justice. These approaches support healing for survivors while also supporting accountability and rehabilitation for those who have caused harm. Recognizing that our healing processes are deeply interconnected to truly support survivors, I urge you to vote no on SB 356. Thank you.

Good morning again. Keith Wattley from UnCommon Law. Parole hearings are often occurring decades after a crime occurs. The people who are present in a hearing include the parole commissioners, the parole candidate, a representative from the District Attorney's office is there, and about 10% of cases a survivor is present in the hearing.

But their presence cuts in half a person's chances of being granted parole. Their statements typically focus on the impact of the crime and the feelings, the emotions sometimes seem almost as raw at the time of the hearing as they were when the crime occurred.

By the time of the hearing, everyone in the hearing knows what the details of the crime were. It's been the central focus of most of the person's period of incarceration. But the law requires that parole grants normally happen in these hearings.

And the only exception is if the person is currently dangerous, presently dangerous, 10 years, 20 years, 30 years after the crime. So these present indicators, including insight or remorse, we can debate about whether they're really predictive of future behavior.

But the fact is those are what the parole board are looking at, and those are not about the crime itself at the time. It's not about what happened. It's not about the details of it. It's about who the person is today.

And having been present in hearings when photographs are displayed, I've observed that the use of these photographs improperly places the focus of the board's review solely on the gravity of the crime. Those photographs say nothing about who the person is today. And therefore, under the governing law, they're not even relevant to whether the person's currently dangerous.

And that's a controversial thing to say, but that's the law. And I think the people who want to introduce more of these photographs aren't really interested in the law. They just wanted to generate emotional reaction. Because I've seen it, I've seen it happen. That's what happens, as we would predict.

And the stories of survivors, they affect all of us in a hearing. I remember one hearing some time ago when I made a comment that I could see and sense the anger on behalf of the survivors. And I think I referred to it as, apparently they have hatred.

And one of the survivors pulled me to the side and said, what you're hearing is not hatred. It is how we show our love for the one that we lost.

So I understand the importance of this, but the law requires that the focus be on whether the person's currently dangerous, not that we give in to the emotional responses that this law intends to evoke. So I urge you, no vote.

Thank you very much. Are there any other witnesses in opposition to Senate Bill 356? Please state your name, affiliation and position for the record.

Natasha Minsker, Smart Justice California. We appreciate the amendments and remain opposed.

Margo George on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association. In opposition. Thank you.

Aubrey Rodriguez with ACLU California Action and strong opposition.

Liz Bloom Gutierrez on behalf of Law Defense and Initiate Justice in opposition.

Emily Harris on behalf of Felony Murder Elimination Project and Sister Warriors Freedom Coalition. In opposition.

Flower Alvarez-Lopez with Universidad Popular in strong opposition.

Tannah Oppliger with Californians United for Responsible Budget and Friends Committee on Legislation in opposition.

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

Barbara Chavez on behalf of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in strong opposition.

Su Kim on behalf of Uncommon Law, Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice, California Coalition for Women Prisoners and Survived and Punished, in opposition.

Melanie Kim, San Francisco Public Defender's Office in opposition and on behalf of Initiate Justice Action in opposition.

I'm Gary Harrell and I'm in opposition of what's transpiring at this time.

Gema Quetzal with UnCommon Law in strong opposition.

Marshal Lawler, I'm a re entry attorney. In strong opposition.

Okay, thank you very much. So bring it back to the committee for questions and comments. In SB 356, Senator Seyarto.

Okay. All right, I'll be supporting your bill today. My experience is that the photographs that are shown, all they do is capture what happened at the scene so that people can see what occurred. But a lot of times the photographs that you see don't do justice to what the crime scene actually look like.

I've seen both, and usually the one that you see in person is a whole lot worse to not be able to allow people to see that during the consideration of whether a person is eligible for parole. The other thing that that does is allows them to look at it themselves and see what their reaction to it is.

Is there a non reaction? Is there a remorse? Is there? So this bill makes sense. It used to be part of the process, and it was just taken out arbitrarily by the parole board.

Again, I had alluded to a case I know of earlier, and this is the exact same thing that they're doing now because there was too strong of a reaction before. And so the parole board did deny parole initially.

So for people that are trying to make the case that, you know, their trauma is not over and therefore the person that put that trauma on them should continue to pay the price, this doesn't. I mean, this, you know, this is part of that process, and they feel like they're not getting.

There's less and less of a process that favors the victims. And so that's where I draw the line now. And I'll be supporting your bill.

Okay, thank you. Any other questions or comments, Senator Gonzalez?

Yep. I want to say thank you to the committee staff and the chair, as well as the author for accepting the amendments. I know the original bill included media articles, online petitions, and business records. So this is going to be narrowed to just the crime scene photos, autopsy, and photos of weapons.

But I will not support the bill today because I do align myself with the opposition's comments.

I also think that from what I understand, too, if the hearing panel determines that photographs or other documents are necessary for them to reach a decision on the incarcerated person's parole suitability, they can postpone or continue the hearing so additional information can be gathered.

So I think there is also an additional process for more information if need be. But I just want to thank the opposition for being here and stating so clearly what the issues are with the bill currently.

Thank you. Yeah. And just to summarize, the amendments are under Section 3046, subsection D, which specifically describes the type of photographs and information that could be considered by, that could be presented to the Board of Parole Hearings. Striking the word on line 27, the words written statements and photographs.

So it's saying that the submitted statements of recommendations shall be considered in a parole hearing, shall include, but are not limited to crime scene photographs, autopsy photographs, and photographs of reference used in the crime. So it's those three things that could be allowed to be submitted during a parole hearing.

The other previous language around media articles, social media postings, online petitions, that's been stricken as part of the amendment. Any other questions or comments, Senator Caballero?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I was trying to understand what the amendments do. And let me just say that. I don't know if I've said it in this committee before, but I used to do lifer hearings, and I did them as part of my community service.

It's hard to find people that want to do them, and they were having a hard time. You can't do a hearing without having attorneys for them. And so I'm particularly sensitive both to the victims because it's rare for victims to show up. It's hard to do, and they've got to travel most.

Mostly now you can do it through video, and so that's good. But here's my point. I'm. I, like my good friend from Long Beach, have some issues. I have some issues that have been raised by the opposition that I think are valid in terms of focusing on the deportment of the individual while they've been incarcerated.

But I also am sensitive to the fact that there are times when a picture does give. Tell you important information. But I also think that. So this is where I'm coming from in terms of where the bill is. I'm going to support it today.

But I think one of the issues that has been raised that here by one of the witnesses is the consent of the surviving witnesses that may show up. I would find it terribly disturbing as an attorney in a hearing, having them see those pictures.

And so I just think that we might look at a way to make it possible so that those pictures can be available to the parole panel, but not. Not made them available or used as part of the testimony during the hearing. And we can talk about how to have that happen.

But I really do want to honor victims that show up years later and that have to relive the trauma all over again. So. And I know you do, too, because I've heard you when we've done the interviews for the Ebola prison term individual.

So I just want to put that out there as a thought, and I'm willing to work with you on it if you.

Sure. Yes. Thank you. May I ask Mr. Cross to kind of address that a little bit on the process, how those, how those photos are handled currently?

Yes, I would appreciate that because frankly, when I did the hearings was a million years ago, and none of that information was. Was made available during the hearings.

Okay. And I'll let Mr. Cross speak to that and then if we still have concerns. Absolutely. You have my commitment to continue to work on it.

Thank you.

Thank you, Senator.

I appreciate that. So I do parole hearings. That's what I've been doing in office for the last six and a half years. I've done hundreds of them. When pictures are submitted, they're submitted directly to the board. A copy of that is also given to the inmates attorney. The pictures are not displayed in the hearing.

The board has them. The commissioners in the hearing have them. They can look at them, they can refer to them. The attorneys have them. I've never seen a commissioner or an attorney display a photo in a hearing. I have seen victims at times or their family members display photos at hearings.

But these photos that we're talking about are submitted just for the boards, the board to examine and to look at prior to the hearing.

And if I could ask you, is that in regulation or is that in. Yeah. Yeah, practice.

I don't know if there's a regulation on point with that. In the past there had been no regulations or policies on submitting photos and we'd routinely, routinely done that. But in practice, I've never seen the commissioners raise up a graphic photo that we've submitted in a hearing. Personally, I've never done that.

The only pictures I've seen displayed, like I said, were from victims or their families who display photos.

Thank you. I appreciate that. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

And if I could go a step further on that, this bill also doesn't require the commissioners to. If an individual commissioner doesn't want to review the photos, that person doesn't have to. The bill just requires that they be made available.

Okay, thank you. Any other questions or comments? Okay, if not, I'll turn it back over to Senator Jones to close.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you members for the thoughtful discussion. I appreciate it. SB 356 is an important issue that simply brings the legislature back into the process after a significant policy change that was made by the board administratively.

By preserving access to relevant materials, this will support commissioners in making well informed decisions and help ensure that all materials are being considered. Thank you for the amendments. I actually agree that the amendments make the bill better and narrow it down to exactly what we want to have considered.

So thank you for that and I ask for your I vote.

Thank you. I'm going to take a motion moved by Senator Seyarto as amended. The assistant can please call the room.

SB 356 Jones. Motion is due. Pass as amended to appropriations.

[roll call]

Okay, we'll Keep that Bill on call. Thank you very much.

I see Senator Stern here, so go to the next item in our file. File item seven, SB 396. And I just want to announce, as Senator Stern is approaching, we're going to have to recess at 11:50 and then reconvene at 11 at 1:30. So if we don't get to your bill, we'll be back at 1:30.

I know many of us have other committee meetings. We'll do our best to get through the file. Okay.

Okay. Senator Stern, you may present your Bill.

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

Members, SB 396 is really about what happens to people after they've paid their debts to society and how to make sure that, upon reentry, we stop separating families, especially when these are relationships that we know are foundational to folks' ability to adapt and get back into society.

We're finding some quirks in how our laws are being administered, such that families are being separated unnecessarily, even when there is zero public safety risk. In California, parole officer, parole board judge, or other authority can decide to restrict interactions with any person or group.

But, as I mentioned, there doesn't need to be a connection to the case that individual is on supervision for, and there doesn't necessarily need to be a public safety nexus. These restrictions mean that individuals can't communicate, work, or live with family members.

And if found to have violated this rule, they could be sent back to jail, or even in prison. I understand that no-contact conditions are set in good faith, but research shows that family support positively impacts reentry outcomes and helps to reduce recidivism, especially those who are lower income or have lower education statuses.

But really, everyone needs family. The goal of this Bill is to limit that—the use of those no contact conditions, unless it's absolutely necessary for public safety. And so, we really want to do make clear that that's—that's that public safety proviso is at the core of the Bill.

We know there are circumstances where, you know, you could say it's a family relationship, but if you're involved in a, you know, broader racketeering or, you know, some other, some other crime that actually involves members of your family, or if there are other risks to public safety, or risk to victims that we're going to address—we've addressed those issues, and we think the further, you know—we know the Committee didn't ask for amendments, but I think we are planning to follow some of the suggestions.

If you look at the bottom of Page 5, we think there's some good ideas there for further cleanup, around probation and mandatory supervision, as the Bill moves forward.

So, we appreciate the Committee's work on that, and plan to take them with—plan to sort of take them up on that nudge and get that done, should the Bill move forward before appropriation. So, with that, respectfully ask for an "Aye" vote and return to my witnesses.

Thank you. You'll each have two minutes to address the Committee on the Bill.

Can you hear me? Good morning, Chair Arreguin, Committee Members, Staff. My name is Claudia Jasmin Gonzalez. I am the Senior Program Associate at Vera. Vera is a nationally recognized organization, focused on criminal justice and immigration reform and pushing to create safe and thriving communities.

I sit here before you, not only as a Policy Advocate for Central Valley communities, but also as a formerly incarcerated woman, who spent many years on parole and who was impacted by some of the conditions in SB 396.

I was released from prison when I was 19 years old, and under the assumption that I would be reuniting with my family after many years of separation, but I wasn't. I showed up to the Parole Office and my Parole Officer informed me that I could not go home.

I could not live with my family, even though they were not involved in the crime and even though I had communicated with them throughout my incarceration. Instead, as a young girl, I was forced to parole to a different county, hundreds of miles away, six hours away, and forced to live in a community that was not mine.

Stanford Research shows that the first 72 hours after release are critical. We know that if people do not receive the support they require, they can end up homeless or back in prison. I spent my first three days out of prison, under stress, uncertain about my future.

I could not comprehend why I was still being punished, even though I had served my time, paid my debt to society, and most importantly, I had taken accountability. To make matters worse, I became another example of California's grim history of failing to protect Native and Latina young women, like me.

I spent a year and a half in a community that was not mine, where I cannot practice my indigenous beliefs. Any place that left me vulnerable, where I endured some of the hardest—most difficult hardships in my life, including becoming a victim of sexual assault.

Even though I was out of prison, I was not home, and I was not free. I needed my mom. I needed support from my family. I needed my native community. But that was all taken from me. Separating people from their families after they serve time, especially vulnerable folks, is harmful. You have the power to correct this wrong.