Assembly Standing Committee on Public Safety

Good morning, everybody. If that didn't wake you up, I don't know what will. My name is Nick Schultz and I'll be your chair today. Welcome to the Assembly Standing Committee on Public Safety. Thank you all so much for being here and I do apologize for the late start.

I will note that while we don't yet have a quorum, we have. Thank you. More than enough to proceed with the Subcommitee this morning. I would like to begin with a couple housekeeping items and reminders. There are some General rules of conduct before we start our hearing today.

Please note that in order to facilitate the goal of conducting a legislative hearing and as we proceed with witness and public comment throughout the hearings today, I want to ensure that everyone understands that the Assembly has rules to ensure that we maintain order and run a fair and efficient hearing.

As such, we will not permit conduct that disrupts, disturbs or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of today's legislative proceedings. Please be aware that any violations of our rules may subject you to removal or other enforcement actions. Next we have our off calendar items. The following items will not be heard today.

We have item number four, Assembly Bill 284 by our Vice Chair Alanis, pulled by the Author. Item number 5, Assembly Bill 324 by Assemblymember Sanchez, pulled by the authority. Item number 7, Assembly Bill 366 by Assemblymember Petrie Norris, pulled by Committee. Item number 9, AB 847 by Assemblymember Sharp Collins, pulled by Committee.

Item number 13, AB 946 by Assemblymember Bryan, pulled by Committee. Item 15, Assembly Bill 983 by Assemblymember Macedo, pulled by the author. Item number 23, Assembly Bill 1376 by Assembly Number Bonta, pulled by the Author. Item number 25, Assembly Bill 1437 by Assemblymember Macedo, pulled by the author.

Item number 27, Assembly Bill 1488 by Assemblymember Flora, pulled by the author. And lastly, item number 28, Assembly Bill 1489 by Assemblymember Bryan, pulled by the author. But don't worry, we still have plenty more work to do today. All right.

With that, we're going to hear today's measures in sign in order with standing Committee Members presenting their builds towards the end of the hearing. We appreciate everyone's patient. We also have limited testing testimony today. So for each side you will. For each side there will be two witnesses.

Two minutes per side will be allowed today given the high volume of matters before the Committee. First up we have Assembly Member Ward presenting item number three. This is Assembly Bill 82 and Assemblymember, you can begin whenever you're ready.

Chair and Members, I'm here to present AB82 which would protect the privacy of individuals health data and protect the public safety and well being of patients, their families and health professionals accessing and providing legal health services In California, there's been a growing national attack on individuals rights, including the right for people to access legal health services such as reproductive and gender affirming health care.

Thank you Mr.

Reports not only highlight hostile entities use utilizing our data systems to target those who are accessing the these legal health services, but also illuminate a rise in harassment and violence directed toward those who work in healthcare settings.

Instances of harassment and violence include, but are not limited to assault, doxing and bomb threats impacting physical and psychological safety of patients, their loved ones, health professionals requiring security measures and exacerbating overall access issues and workload of the legal health services systems.

Further concerns have risen about health data privacy and the Controlled Substance Utilization and Evaluation System or cures, which is California California's Prescription Drug Monitoring Program, or pdmp. For instance, organizations with a history of hostility towards the LGBTQ community are advocating for use of the PDMP to identify transgender patients with information then shared across state lines.

Further, there is a national effort to place mifepristone on the controlled substances list for the purposes of tracking. For example, Los Angeles is using their PDMP data to track mifepristone prescriptions as the state has passed a law to reclassify misopristol and mifestone as controlled substances, similarly allowing the tracking and sharing of individuals health data across state lines.

So AB82 would provide five key following protections. One, it prohibits the reporting of testosterone and mifepristone to cures. Second, it expands the state's existing Safe at Home program to include health professionals who provide gender affirming care.

Second, third, it expands existing protections to mitigate the criminalization of families who are simply ensuring that their loved ones access the utmost necessary health care. Fourth, it expands the FACE act existing protections against the doxing of health care professionals and patients to include those who provide access for gender affirming care services.

And fifth, AB82 will expand existing confidentiality protections for the exchange of health information to include gender affirming health care.

It is imperative that we support the privacy and safety of patients and their families whose basic obligation is to ensure the utmost health for themselves and their loved ones, as well as the safety of our health professionals whose basic obligation is to provide necessary care for their patients as they were trained to do so with me to speak in support of AB82 on behalf of our co sponsors are Renee Bayardo, a parent and board Member of alliance for Trans Youth Rights, and Craig Pulsifer, the Legislative Director for Equality California.

Good morning, Mr. Chair Members. My name is Renee Bayardo and I'm privileged to serve as a board member of The Alliance for Trans Youth Rights. We are proud co sponsor of AB82, which would help protect privacy of California families like my own. As a.

As a parent of a transgender teenager, I'm very concerned about the growing national hostility towards LGBTQ people, particularly transgender youth. After the last election, my son and I were nervous about what it would mean for him and Trans youth like him. It turns out that our initial fears back in November were founded.

In fact, I'm concerned every day about my child's safety despite this difficult time. I'm so thankful that my family lives in a state like California that strives to protect our children.

My son will be entering college this fall, and when we were going on the college tours and assessing his options, he was clear to me that he wasn't comfortable leaving California out of safety concerns. And we are very happy that he'll be attending school in the San Diego area next year.

This Bill will help protect families like mine by making sure information about personal health care is protected, which is a concept I think can resonate across the political spectrum. This Bill also ensures health care professionals can put people, their healthcare needs and their privacy first without fear of punishment.

Medical decisions like the ones contemplated in this Bill are private matters that should be kept in confidence between children, parents, and their physician. Please help keep this state safe for one of our most vulnerable populations. This is needed now more than ever. Thank you.

Good morning, chair and Members. Craig Pulsmer, on behalf of Equality California, proud to co-sponsor this bill along with Planned Parenthood, affiliates of California, and Alliance for Trans Youth Rights.

As many of you know, we're currently witnessing a nationwide coordinated attack on the safety and dignity of transgender people, including their right to obtain life saving, medically necessary health care. Across the country, 26 states have passed laws banning some form of care for transgender youth.

And now, under the Trump Administration, we've seen these attacks escalate even further, with Executive orders attempting to strip federal funding from hospitals and clinics that provide this care, and potentially even criminalizing health care providers simply for doing their jobs.

These policies are already having a chilling effect in California, with harassment of doctors and threats against clinics on the rise, and many providers understandably worried about Growing legal threats.

Just last week, the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law released new data showing that 1 in 4 gender affirming care providers have been personally threatened online and nearly one in three report that their workplace has received threats.

Many are now taking steps to protect themselves and their families, removing personal information from the Internet, limiting their visibility, and even considering whether to continue providing this care.

Patients and their families are also terrified not only about potentially losing access to health care, but also worried that their private medical information could be shared with hostile out of state actors and somehow used against them.

AB82 is an important step forward to build on existing protections for reproductive health care and protect transgender patients, their families and those who care for them.

The Bill expands existing protections against doxing to include both patients and providers of gender affirming care and expands California's Safe at Home program so that gender affirming care providers can protect themselves from harassment and intimidation.

It also takes important precautions to protect sensitive prescription data for both abortion and gender affirming care from being hostile from being accessed by hostile actors out of state. AB82 sends a clear message that California will do everything it can to safeguard access to essential health care and respectfully urge your aye vote.

Great. Thank you very much for the presentation, Assembly Member, and both of you for your testimony. Next we'll hear from Members of the public.

Danica Rodon on behalf of Los Angeles Defense in support.

Jonathan Clay on behalf of The Alliance for Trans Youth Rights and Trans Family Support Services. In support.

Good morning. Symphony Barbee on behalf of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, co-sponsors. And we also have Lisa Matsubara for technical questions.

Good morning. Amelia Rogers on behalf of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in strong support.

Nicole Wortelman on behalf of the Children's Partnership in support.

Good morning. Tyra Rindy on behalf of the California Psychological Association in support. Thank you.

Marshall Lawler, I'm a reentry attorney. Strong support.

Brandon Green, the Western Center on Law And Poverty in support.

Good morning. Tracy Krusenberg with Oakland Privacy in support.

All right, anyone else seeing? No one else. We're going to take a brief programming break. Everyone. I see that we now have enough Members to establish a quorum. Madam Secretary, please conduct the roll.

[Roll call]

Okay, with the quorum present, we will proceed. Now we'll hear from those testifying in opposition to AB82. Do we have anyone here?

Quorum.

Yes.

Okay, so once you get seated, ma'am Your time won't begin until then. And then you will have two minutes to present to the Committee.

Can I please ask my. My co-person who's going to read with me is stuck in traffic. Can I do both of ours? We're in the if we're within time protocol. If we're in total time, chair will permit it.

So four minutes total time.

Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Meg Madden Rader. I represent Cause Californians United for Sex Based Evidence in policy and law. AB 82 is. Creates a constitutional crisis and puts into place dangerous mechanisms for child exploitation.

It authorizes the Secretary of State to provide a government sanctioned fake address to anyone claiming to work at or use facilities performing gender identity interventions who allege they feel threatened. No real proof is needed.

Any adult associated with a gender clinic at all could convince a vulnerable child to leave their family and by claiming fear of harassment, obtain from the state a fake address, effectively concealing himself and the child from parents and authorities. This blueprint for abuse is written directly into the Bill.

A calling card to pedophiles who will realize they can access children and avoid scrutiny. With the help of the State of California in a custody dispute, AB82 will implicate the state in parent alienation. When one parent obtains a fake address and conceals a child from the other. AB82 is an assault on freedom of speech and press.

One person claiming to feel threatened, whether a provider of harmful gender interventions, a patient or a volunteer, can censor all press and public for four years or more, forbidding publication of their name, photo, a description, an employment history, et cetera. This censorship also applies to social media, including blogs, podcasts, instant messages, et cetera.

Even private communication between citizens could be civilly prosecuted. This isn't about protecting legitimate caregivers. It's about creating a protected class immune from scrutiny and legal consequences for their harmful actions, including to their own patients. Please. And then I'm going to do my friend. Okay.

Assembly Bill 82 represents an unprecedented assault on medical transparency, patient safety and basic constitutional principles. This Bill creates a dangerous shadow system where medical. This is important. Where medical providers can dispense the powerful Schedule 3 Drug Testosterone with virtually no oversight.

The cures monitoring system designed specifically to prevent controlled substance abuse would be rendered useless for an entire category of prescription. This means vulnerable females will be prescribed testosterone with no accountability. No tracking, no oversight. Testosterone has long term harmful effects on female bodies.

Deadly liver cancer, increased heart disease and attacks high blood pressure, hostility, worsening mental health and vaginal atrophy to Name a few. It gets worse. The Bill creates an extraordinary get out of jail free card for people who carve up children and vulnerable adults in violation of their home state's laws.

These same providers receive unprecedented shields from public records requests and malpractice claims. The Bill deliberately creates barriers to legal recourse for patients who experience harm, making it nearly impossible to hold anyone accountable. AB82 isn't about safety. It's about creating a protected class of abusive providers immune from the standards that govern every other medical practice.

It shields them from liability, scrutiny and accountability while patients bear the risk and their families. The Bill is dangerous and unconstitutional. I urge you to vote no on AB82. Thank you for the extra time.

All right.

Thank you for your testimony. Next we'll hear from anyone else in the public who'd like to be heard in opposition. Do we have anybody? Okay, I see no affirmative response. We'll turn it back to the Committee. At this point, are there any questions or comments from Members of the Committee? Okay, we have a motion.

Is there a second? And a second. Any other discussion? All right. Mr. Ward, would you like to close?

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and to the staff for your very thorough analysis and appreciate the consideration of the Bill here today.

I think you can appreciate that there is a growing interest by some individuals in the country that have a increased interest in anti antagonizing the LGBTQ community and their rights and their want to be able to use our public records to systematically target and harass parents who simply support their kids and their healthcare professionals.

I hope we would all agree that no one's private health data should be tracked and shared for others to target them, their family or their healthcare providers.

That parents and families should not be criminalized for ensuring that their loved ones receive proper health care and that no one should be threatened with violence and assault for providing legal health care to that they were trained to provide.

This Bill is born out of a need to protect the privacy of individuals health data and extend public safety protections to patients, their loved ones and health providers due to this hate filled targeting. I respectfully ask for your aye vote on AB82.

Thank you very much, Assemblymember Ward. I do appreciate everyone who came down to testify today. Chair is strongly recommending and I, I applaud Mr.

Ward and the sponsors for coming forward with this essential piece of legislation at a time when our Federal Government is very much trying to target individuals in our community for being exactly who they are. Mr. Ward, if you would have me, I would be honored to jump on as A co author with that.

Colleagues, the recommendation is an eye.

Let's conduct the roll on AB82 by Senate Member Ward. The motion is do pass to the Judiciary Committee. Schultz. Schultz. Aye. Alanis. Mark. Gonzalez. Haney. Harbedian. Lackey. Win. Win. I. Ramos. Ramos. Aye. Sharp. Collins. Sharp. Collins. Aye.

Okay, that measure will remain on call and we'll let you know the outcome, Mr. Ward. Thank you, everybody. Folks, I need to step out for just a quick moment because we do not have our Vice Chair. We're going to proceed with the next item. This will be item number six. Assemblymember Pellerin, Assembly Bill 331.

And it's with great honor that I ask the ranking Member of the Committee, Mr. Ramos, if he'd be willing to chair for a short period of time.

Thank you. Whenever you're ready.

Thank you. Hopefully my witness is here somewhere. Okay, thank you. Chair and Members. Through its ongoing elections work and through case studies, arising other states. The California Department of Justice has identified three ways to strengthen, and clarify our elections code, which together constitute this Bill.

Historically, the statutory process of certification has been an uncontroversial post election formality. However, since November 2020, counties in eight different states have delayed certification of their elections results. With tight certification deadlines at the local, state and federal levels.

Delays at the local level could cause a state to miss federal deadlines, which disrupts an orderly election and could open states up to protracted litigation.

While none of California's county elections officials have been derelict in their duty and failed to certify, AB 331 proactively clarifies that the duty to certify elections results is a ministerial and non-discretionary duty of an elections official. The second part of this Bill addresses misleading ballot return envelopes.

In our past election, a voter in Los Angeles received a ballot sized envelope that they could have reasonably confused with an official ballot return envelope. As you likely already know, displaying fraudulent ballot collection boxes is a crime. AB 331 adds distributing fraudulent ballot return envelopes to this crime.

Finally, the Attorney General has received reports that registered voters in county jails are not receiving their voter information guides. This is generally happening because these voter information guides tend to be held together with staples which are not accepted by most jails.

AB 331 requires that both state and county voter information guides be delivered to jails in a format that is acceptable. And we took amendments yesterday to resolve the Secretary of State's concerns about this Bill. And with me today to testify is Deputy Attorney General Tiffany Brokaw.

Good morning. Tiffany Brokaw, Deputy Attorney General here on behalf of Attorney General Rob Bonta, who's a proud sponsor of AB 331 and thanks the author, Assembly member Gail Pellerin, for her leadership on this important issue. So AB 331 clarifies and strengthens California's election laws in three ways.

The first is to ensure that the law is very clear that a county's duty to certify the vote. The election result is ministerial and non-discretionary. There have been trends at the national level of counties delaying certification and we just want to make sure that that doesn't happen here in California.

Clarity in the laws proposed in this Bill would be beneficial to ensure that officials are aware of their non-discretionary duty to certify and to ensure that these results are certified on time.

The second way that AB 331 clarifies and strengthens our election laws. Is to ensure that registered voters are getting the voter information guides in a format that they can accept, which is without staples.

So we kept it flexible in the language to make sure that there is an ability for the Secretary of State's, office or county elections officials to determine what that format would be.

And then the third way that this Bill will strengthen California's election laws is to ensure that ballot return envelopes aren't used to mislead voters. When they are unofficial because we have received a report of a potentially misleading envelope being used to potentially deter a vote from happening.

And so we just want to make sure that there are consequences for this type of conduct. Our election laws are foundational to a free and fair election. And AB 331 would clarify and strengthen these these laws. And for these reasons, Attorney General Bonta requests an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony. Others in support.

Danica Rodarmel on behalf of law defense, and support.

Samelia Rogers. On behalf of the Ella Baker Center For Human Rights. In support.

Savannah Jorgensen, on behalf of The League of Women Voters of California. In support.

Adrianna Griffith, with initiate justice and support.

Robbie Avalon, with California Common Cause. In support.

Any others in support? Do we have testimony on opposition? Any in opposition?

I'm not supporting or opposing. But I'm, Adam Lynn, from the Secretary of State's Office, and with the amendments. We have, no further concerns and we have no, position on the Bill. Good luck.

Moving back to the dais, any questions from the dais? Questions, Comments. Mary? No. Would you like to close? Hold on, hold on. Some of the Members, Sharp-Collins.

Hi. How are you? Good. Good. Excuse me. Good morning. Push a button. It's on. it is? Yeah, it's on. I don't know. There we go. I missed lots of noise. Let me lean in, I guess. Okay.

No, I wanted to say thank you so much for speaking with SOS and obviously taking some of the amendments to be able to move forward. We know that there are still some concerns that are there regarding the Bill. But as - as you continue to move.

I am hopeful that you will continue on having that dialogue with SOS in regards to some of these overall changes. I think one of the concerns was the inconsistency in regards to some of the things that were in the Bill. So I just want to make sure that we.

Make sure that we find some type of continuity, as we continue to move forward. But overall, just, thank you for taking the amendments. And because you took the amendments, I'm able to move forward to support the Bill today. Wonderful. And so I just wanted to publicly state that for you. Thank you for taking that. And I can move forward with that today.

So thank you so much for doing that. And with that, I'm able to support.

Thank you. We've had ongoing conversations with the Secretary of State. We want to make sure this Bill works for them as well as the elections officials. So thank you.

Thank you. Any other comments, from the dais. Hearing, None. Would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. This does enjoy an "aye" recommendation from the chair.

Is there a motion and we establish a quorum.

So was there a motion? And a second. Thank you.

On AB 331 by Assemblymember Pellerin. The motion is do pass to the Appropriations Committee. Schultz. Alanis. Gonzalez. Haney. Harabedian. Lackey. Nguyen, aye. Nguyen, aye. Ramos. Aye. Ramos. Aye. Ramos, aye. Sharp-Collins, aye. Sharp-Collins, aye. That measures on call. Thank you.

Call the roll.

Thank you. I do see some of the. Member Pacheco next. What item is that? 10. All right. Thank you. We see Assemblymember Pacheco here. Item 21, AB 1178. Whenever you're ready, Ms. Pacheco.

Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. I want to start by thanking the committee staff for their hard work on this bill. I will be accepting the committee amendments.

AB 1178 simply closes an unintended loophole by ensuring that undercover peace officers receive appropriate consideration for the redaction of their name, image and likeness from public records requests when an undercover officer's identity is exposed.

That exposure not only compromises ongoing investigation, but also puts the officer at personal risk, potentially endangering their life and the safety of their family. This bill maintains full disclosure of all records related to sustained misconduct while protecting the safety of officers working in sensitive undercover operations that are vital to community security and public safety.

With me today in support are Matt Siverling on behalf of ALADS and Sergeant Bernie Ojeda with the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department. I also have with me Richard Pippin with Association of Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs, who is here to answer any technical questions. I want to hand it over to my witness.

Thank you, ma'am. Matt Siverling, on behalf of the Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs, without being too repetitive, just wanted to thank the staff for the thoughtful conversation we had about this bill and what we were trying to achieve with it. And just to be crystal clear, we are.

We have no intent on touching any part of the process for releasing. Releasing personnel records related to sustained misconduct for any and all officers.

Those bills are enshrined in our law, and we wanted to work around them to make sure that undercover officers are not needlessly named or shown in public records, putting them and their families in danger. We request an I vote. Thank you.

Bernie Ojeda, Los Angeles County Sheriff. The officers we mean to protect, I don't think it's wrong to believe that they would thank you for hearing this bill today, and so do I. So at the very least, I would like us to understand that these officers, they represent the best of us. They are selfless and dedicated.

Aside from our fallen, who, of course, have made the ultimate sacrifice, undercover officers have lost the most because of what they do, the tactics they employ to bring down the most soulless of criminal. They can never return to a public life as an officer.

Their promotion opportunities are limited, and if their efforts are successful, they will likely be the target of a lifetime of threats made by cowards who have been shown that they cannot count on operating in our country unchecked. These officers are often overlooked when release of information, release of information is contested in court. They're just overlooked sometimes.

And we have to remember that these officers exist, remember what they do, how important they are, and do what we can to protect them in return. I think this bill will help do that. And so, again, thank you for hearing it.

I'm Richard Pippin. I'm the President for the Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs, the Rank and File Deputies Union. Happy to answer any questions.

All right, thank you for coming in. Anyone else in support, please come up. Your name? Group association.

Alana Mathews, on behalf of CDAA in support.

Thank you. Anyone else in support? There we go.

Clifton Wilson, on behalf of the Public Risk Innovation Solutions and Management PRISM, in support. Thank you.

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

All right, anyone else in support? Please step up to the mic. I know there's a line out there, but last call. All right, anyone in opposition, please come up to the table.

Okay. You both have two minutes apiece. You may start whenever you're ready.

Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee, I'm David Snyder. I'm the Executive Director of the First Amendment Coalition, and I'm an attorney who has represented journalists and others in Public Records Act litigation, including SB 1421 case cases. I wanted to thank Committee staff for their work on AB 1178. But even with the proposed amendments, we remain opposed.

I'd like to make three brief points. One, proponents misstate the law. It already protects undercover officers, provides significant protection for them. To this Amendment, Penal Code 832.7 is unnecessary and will confuse the courts. And three, it very likely will lead to broad categorical withholding of information based on that confusion.

As to the first point, the author's statement says that the law, quote, requires specific threats against the officer to justify a redaction. This is incorrect. The law does not require specific threats to the officer.

Rather, it says the agency shall withhold information where there is a specific, articulable and particularized reason to believe that disclosure of the record would pose a significant danger to the physical safety of the peace officer. This allows withholding in circumstances broader than, but potentially including undercover status and broader than, but including specific threats to an officer.

In other words, the law already protects undercover officers. Second point. Because this is unnecessary, the new language in the Bill will confuse courts. Since the law already protects undercover officers, courts will understand the new language to do something different. In all likelihood, they will interpret it to require more withholding than is required under the law.

And that leads to 0.3 which is that the law will likely lead to categorical withholding of undercover officer information where there's no proper basis for doing so. Courts and agencies will incorrectly withhold the names of officers who simply happen to have an undercover assignment, regardless of any actual risk.

One example, an officer involved in a shooting and therefore whose identity should be disclosed would be withheld without proper basis.

Thank you, ma'am.

Good morning, Chair and Members. My name is Tiffany Bailey. I am a Senior Staff Attorney and the Deputy Director of Police Practices and Criminal justice at the ACLU of Southern California. I appreciate the Committee's hard work in analyzing this bill and for proposing amendments. However, we remain in opposition. Put simply, not all undercover assignments are created equal.

There are many undercover assignments where there's no risk to an officer's safety. If they're agreed, misconduct or use of force records are released to the public. Take the example used in the Committee's analysis where officers go undercover at restaurants to determine if a bar is selling alcohol to underage drinkers.

It would be incredulous to suggest that such an undercover assignment is tied to any actual risk of endangering the officer. The reality is that SB 1421's careful balancing test is working as intended.

What is happening and perhaps part of the motivation for the proposed of amendments this section is that courts or holding agencies to the standards set forth in the law. Take my litigation against the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department and Johnson, for example.

There, LESD sought to implement an unlawful blanket redaction policy and refused to make the laws required particularized showing for the roughly 500 deputies that it was seeking to redact names of on safety grounds. Mind you, this includes deputies that identified themselves as LESD deputies on social media or were included in news articles as such.

Eventually, after the court ordered Lesd to follow the law, that initial claim for 500 deputies was whittled down to just a single deputy for just a single record. And ACLU did not challenge their redactions for this single deputy because it was actually based on their particular showing of risk.

The reality is the proposed legislation is unnecessary information endange information endangering undercover officers is simply not being released. We respectfully urge the Committee to vote no and not implement a superfluous amendment that will surely confuse the courts and undermine our transparency laws in the process. Thank you.

All right, thank you both very much for your testimony and as a programming note, thank you to Mr. Ramos for chairing why I had to step out. And thank you to our Vice Chair. With that, we'll hear from others in opposition to the Bill. Please come forward and state your name, organization and position. Please.

Yes, thank you. Tracy Krusenberg with Oakland Privacy. We are in opposition to dispel

Keon Bliss with the Anti-Police Terror Project in strong opposition.

Good morning. Annalisa Samora on behalf of Sister Warriors Freedom Coalition in strong opposition.

Jenny Laro with the First Amendment Coalition and Reading by Proxy. Opposition on behalf of Freedom of the Press Foundation, the Orange County Press Club, the Society of Professional Journalists of Northern California, the National Press Photographers Association, the Radio Television Digital News Association, the Industrial Workers of the World Freelance Journalists Union and American Community Media, formerly known as Ethnic Media Services.

Hello.

Thank you. Good morning. Brittany Barsay on behalf of the California News Publishers Association in opposition.

With Silicon Valley debug in strong opposition.

Melissa with Silicon Valley debug in opposition.

Leslie Caldwell, Houston for the California Public Defenders Association. We're happy to review the amendments, but at this point we remain opposed.

Raymond Gones, on behalf of Silicon Valley Debug in strong opposition.

Savannah Jorgensen with the League of Women Voters of California. In opposition.

Adriana Griffith with Initiate Justice in opposition.

Danica Rodarmel on behalf of La Defensa and opposition.

Xavier Espanyo, Silicon Valley Debug in opposition.

Arnold Morales in behalf of Debugging, Fixing San Mateo County and Re Evolution in strong opposition.

Braden Nervin on behalf of Freedom for Youth in opposition.

Marshall Lawler, reentry attorney in opposition.

Daphne Ghazani, on behalf of the California Alliance of Youth and Community Justice. Strong opposition.

Raj Jaidev, on behalf of Silicon Valley Debug in strong opposition.

Lourdes Best with Silicon Valley Debug in opposition.

Nora Melendez, Silicon Valley Debug, strong opposition.

Alicia Chavez with Silicon Valley Debug. In opposition.

Jamila Rosales Webb, Silicon Valley Debug in strong opposition.

Cynthia Dalcourt, Silicon Valley Debug. I strongly oppose. Thank you.

Nedric Miller, all of us are non Sacramento. Strongly opposed.

Good morning. Kelly Walters, Staff Attorney with Legal Services for Prisoners with Children. In strong opposition.

Maria Goins, representing Silicon Valley Debug in strong opposition.

Right. Thank you everyone for taking the time to have your voice heard today in our state capitol. I don't see anyone else hoping to speak with that. We'll turn it back to the DEUS. Does anyone have a question or a comment to get us started? Dr. Sharp-Collins, is that you reaching for the mic? Yes. All right.

Good morning. How are you doing? Good, good, good. Thank you so much for presenting AB 1178. And so my, my questions, it's just hard for me to hear my own self. So thank you. So my actual question, part of it was being addressed by the opposition.

So thank you so much for even bringing up some of some of the key points. So I'm going to ask it just for a little bit more clarification. So as written, it is my understanding that this Bill would apply to undercover officers regardless of what they do undercover. Yes.

No, that's just part one. I just want to point out and it accurately states so in the analysis and I'll go ahead and read part of it, what it states says that AB 1178 maintains judicial discretion over when an undercover officer's identity demands redaction.

This is important since not all undercover officers working conditions where disclosure of their identity would threaten their physical safety. So in other words, if they're undercover and their safety isn't threatened, then there is no need to redact their information. So this would only apply to when their safety would be threatened.

And I'll, I'll let my witnesses further explain that as well. Thank you.

Thank you. Assemblymember. We acknowledge, you know, as the sponsors of the Bill, that there are shades of gray when it comes to the definition of undercover.

You know, you have your, to the point made by the opposition, your officers that work outside liquor stores, if they look young enough to trigger the sale of alcohol to minors, officers that are operating within high schools and other places that clearly don't necessitate redaction from public records due to their physical safety. That's not the intent here.

What we do intend to do with the Bill is make it clear because we believe the law has been in place for several years now.

The unintended consequence of officers who are not the target of SB 1421 release records, you know, they're not the officer that committed the misconduct, they're not the officer that the request is even pertaining to, but they are, they're included in it based on being adjacent to an issue.

We have other officers that are being released through a General, full, full rosters of departments that are being requested through Public Records Act. We're trying to redact undercover officers from those types of releases as well. So it's important to distinguish that any of the issues related to sustained misconduct are insulated from this Bill.

What we're trying to protect is, in our opinion, the needless uncovering or naming or demonstrating or showing of undercover officers their face, their name, their badge number, whatever else. Again, if they did not commit misconduct, if they're embedded during an investigation and, you know, would suffer some sort of consequence if their identity was released.

The other issue we have been struggling with with this Bill and with this issue, it's a chicken and egg argument. I mean, if an officer is good at their job, if they're undercover, they're embedded somewhere, oftentimes there can't be a threat that can be demonstrated because no one knows they're a police officer.

So what we're trying to do is just make sure there's extra care, extra weight given to the fact that they are undercover.

And I think as the Bill moves along, presumably out of this Committee or hopefully out of this Committee, we can dial in working with the opposition, sort of where that bar is to set for the, for the type of undercover officer that we're talk, we're talking about here.

Thank you. Did you, did you want to respond? Yes. A couple of things in response, excuse me, to what the proponent has provided. First, this idea that as the proponents mentioned, there's shades of gray here. That's precisely what the issue is.

If we were to make amendments here, those shades of gray will only serve as confusion to the courts. And quite frankly, the amendments are unnecessary. Courts are going to interpret, if this amendment is passed, that the legislation is saying something, that they're attempting to withhold more records. They're not going to think it's just superfluous.

So that's 1.0. The second is the point that sustained misconduct is not. It's not going to be insulated, that this is not going to affect it. It absolutely is. These amendments are to the section in the code relating to sustained misconduct. Egregious things like sexually assaulting, civil or serious uses of force.

And then the other point that I just wanted to raise is this idea that they use an example. There might be undercover officers where there's no threat. Well, if there's no threat, if there's no risk, then there's no issue with these records being released.

There will be no danger to the physical safety of the officer or another person if they are released. And just to sum it all up, the law is working as intended. I think my litigation in Johnson reflects the dangers.

If we are to open it up and introduce more confusion and more gray area for there to be overbroad redactions. As I mentioned, Lesd initially claimed 500 deputies should be on their safety list. When we actually applied the law, that was only one deputy.

If we open it up, I think there is going to be more gray air, more confusion, and necessarily there will be less records that are disclosed that should rightfully be disclosed.

Thank you. And I'll just add, my office has always been committed to working with the opposition. So if there's any amendments that can be proposed to even make this Bill even better, we're always open to those conversations. So I just wanted to also add that.

Thank you. Because I was just going to ask that based on your witness already kind of committing to that. So thank you so much for doing that. So then, with that being said, I look forward to us, you know, identifying some type of ways to help figure out the gray line, the grayness that is there moving forward.

So trying, trying to get some type of the specification in regards to how this is going to work for the different officers. So as it pertains to move forward. So I'm looking forward to seeing that whenever it comes back to the floor and so forth. But thank you for agreeing to work with you guys.

I look forward to seeing what you guys come up with and Specifying how we're going to fix this gray area. With that. I'm. I'm okay. Thank you so much, Chair.

Thank you, Assembly Member. Assembly Member Harbidian, I believe you're next. I'll move the Bill.

Thank you.

Do we have a second? All right, motion by Harabiden, second by Wynn. Bringing it back to the dais. Any other questions or comments from Committee Members? Okay, Vice Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the opposition. You brought up the case, actually, you brought it up twice that there was only one deputy that was actually revealed in that one case where they whittled it down. Are there any other cases that you can cite?

Any other cases to cite for what Proposition? Because I can say there's no cases that reflect that undercover status cannot be considered. I will say there's actually Supreme Court precedent that says you should. You can consider undercover status for this balancing test. But just to clarify, do you mean cases where.

Yeah, just to clarify, what do you mean by which cases?

The case that you. You chose to bring up was the one that you talked about where there was multiple possible undercovers, but it will go down to just one. I'm wondering if there's any other cases you can.

You could bring up no other cases reflecting where there was a whole bunch of other ones and whittled down to one. I will say in my litigation practice, oftentimes these types of things are redacted and we don't challenge them. So there's no cases here, or at least there's no other cases I can cite, though.

I can cite cases. Or I will say there's a dearth of cases saying the opposite or reflecting the fact that courts can't consider undercover status. And in fact, if a court ever did say you cannot consider undercover status under the statute, they would be readily and handily overruled by the court of appeal.

Considering that fact that the statute currently allows you to consider undercover status. And in fact, Supreme Court case says that you can as well.

Okay. And I also think that you guys are undermining or not thinking that the judges can think things out for themselves, saying that they'd be confused that they couldn't figure it out, saying that there's no threat. As brought up earlier, when they are in deep cover, there is no threat.

They're in operation sometimes a couple years, and there's no threat because nobody knows who they are is brought up already. I think by doing this Bill, it's helping protect those. It's hard to go into an assignment where you're Undercover, you take time away from your family.

You're no longer involved with the community that you used to be part of. And it's a big risk to you and your family. And I think by this Bill being brought to us today helps them further know that their family will be protected, that they'll be protected, the integrity of the case. I think something also came up.

If undercover officers are also investigators. Well, that is exactly what they're doing. They're investigating the whole time they are there. They're going to be making reports. So if there's any questions about that, that is what they are doing. That is part of their job. I thank you, author, for bringing this up, and I'll be supporting this.

All right, thank you, Vice Chair. Anyone else? Okay. Assemblymember, would you like to close?

Thank you. Thank you all for the conversations. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

All right. Thank you very much, Assemblymember and everyone for your testimony today. Very brief explanation. Chair is recommending an aye as amended.

While this is not directly from the language which you can find on page three with the addition of subsection D2, I will just read the summary, which I think encapsulates the balancing that we're trying to strive for here.

The Bill would require a court to consider whether a particular peace officer is currently operating undercover and that their duties demand anonymity when determining if an agency that employs such officers should redact the disclosable personnel record under the cpra.

And there needs to be a finding that there is a specific, articulable and particularized reason to believe that disclosure would pose a significant danger to their physical safety, an ergo that outweighs the immense public interest in disclosing this information.

I think that with these amendments, and I thank the Assemblymember for accepting them, I think it strikes that right balance. The public has a right to know in most instances what's happening.

But in those rare circumstances where officer safety or the integrity of the investigation itself could be compromised, I trust judicial discretion to review all of the intended facts and make the right call. Hope that you'll continue to work with the opposition as you navigate other committees through both houses.

[Roll call]

Okay, that measure passes. Congratulations. Keep up the good work. Colleagues, before we go to our next bill, I'd like to consider adoption of the proposed consent calendar. Let me... Thank you very much. And for the record, we're going to read the consent calendar. All right. Thank you, everyone. We have four items on consent today.

Item 8, AB 653 by Assembly Member Lackey, entitled Child Abuse Mandated Reporters, Talent Agents, Managers, and Coaches. Item 11, AB 879 by Assembly Member Patterson, entitled Firearms Unsafe Handguns. Item 16, this is AB 992 by Assembly Member Irwin, entitled Peace Officers. And we have item number 19, AB 1087 by Assembly Member Patterson, entitled Crimes Vehicular Manslaughter While Intoxicated.

We do have a motion. Okay. And we also have Assembly Bill 994 by Assembly Member Hadwick, entitled County Jails. Mr. Harabedian, that's your intent in making the motion? Great. And we have a second from Assembly Member Nguyen. Let's conduct the roll.

On the consent calendar. [Roll Call] The consent calendar is adopted.

All right, thank you, colleagues. Next up in sign in order, I do not see Mr. Kalra here, so we'll go to the next in line. We have Mr. Gipson. Mr. Gipson will be presenting on item number 14. This is Assembly Bill 981.

I want to say good morning, Mr. Chairman and members. Thank you for allowing me to present Assembly Bill 981. I would like to begin by accepting the committee's amendments and would like to thank the chair as well as the committee staff for working with my office on these amendments. So we will be accepting them today.

AB 981 will establish a five county pilot program that requires an individual convicted of specified reckless driving and speed offense to install an active intelligence speeding assistance device called the ISA device on their vehicle. Additionally, the bill would require California Transportation Agency to submit a report to the legislature analyzing the effectiveness of this pilot program.

I am committed to ensuring that our streets are safe for everyone. Street safety is a critical issue in California with reckless driving and excessive speeds contribute to countless accidents, injuries, and fatalities. Existing law mandates the installation of the ignite, of the ignition interlock device, the IID for individuals convicted of a DUI offense.

AB 981 builds upon the concept by requiring the installation of intelligence speed assistance, ISA, technology for those convicted of reckless driving. This bill helps prevent further dangers, incidences and save lives.

The ISA technology actively monitors vehicle speeds and warns or limits acceleration to promote compliance with speed laws and limits creating a safer roads in the State of California, Assembly Bill 981 integrates innovation technology into law enforcement and public safety strategies and hold reckless drivers accountable. This is a common sense bill that prevents repeat offenders, save lives, and protect communities.

Streets For All is a sponsor of this particular bill and I think that this committee know my own story, my own narrative, my own journey with the loss of my son who was killed at three years old by hit and run motorists who the lady is still at large. And so I've been a strong proponent when it comes down to making our streets safer, making sure that people slow down, and make sure they reduce speeds. And if we can provide some technology that's up to date that would make sure that individuals who have been convicted drive on these streets safe, it's certainly the right way to go.

So with me who will self introduce are individuals from Street Safe for All.

Good morning, my name is Kirsten Bladh, and I'm the Associate Director of State Policy for Streets For All and we're an organization dedicated to ending traffic violence in California. As CalMatters reported earlier this week, the DMV routinely allows drivers with horrifying histories of dangerous driving to continue to operate on our roadways.

Too often they go on to kill. Many keep driving even after they kill, and some go on to kill again. Court records and driving histories reveal states so concerned with people having access to motor vehicles for work and life that it allows deadly drivers to share our roads.

Officials may call driving a privilege, but they treat it as a right, often failing to take drivers licenses even after they kill someone. So decades of short sighted policy decisions that have made much of our state so car dependent that judges act like having to ride the bus for six months is a cruel and unusual punishment.

Which means that right now the only tool that the courts and DMV have to stop a dangerous driver from speeding is one that they are extremely reluctant to use and thus rarely do. And in the rare instance that a driver's license is suspended, the driver is very unlikely to actually stop driving.

In fact, 70% of people with a suspended license continue to drive. Which means that these dangerous, deadly drivers are sharing the road with you and with your children and loved ones, whether legally licensed or not. But AB 981 will fix that. By allowing for the installation of a speed limiter instead of a license suspension, AB 981 gives the courts an additional tool that allows people to maintain access to their vehicle for work and life. Which means that the courts are more likely to use it and the drivers are more likely to comply.

Speeding is the number one contributing factor for traffic deaths in California, so there is no question that AB 981 will have an impact on making the state's roads safer. If you reduce speeding, you will reduce deaths and you will save lives. Thank you.

Good morning. Thank you for this opportunity. My name is Carmen Gonzalez, and I'm speaking in strong support of AB 981. I live in Hacienda Heights, and I am also a member of Streets For All and Families for Safe Streets organization, fighting to eliminate severe and fatal crashes as the one that has changed my life.

My partner, Richard Boerger, was the love of my life. We were like two kids that had fallen in love for the first time. He checked in with me every day. He cooked lunch for me. He would cook meals when my dad was ill. He was my extraordinary man, my rock.

Richard had just retired last year in March after a long and successful career as a CFO. He was going to be a grandfather for expecting two new grandbabies. He wanted to travel. He loved to cycle. He was going to help me launch my private practice on Valentine's Day, more than eight weeks ago now.

We were taking our usual walk in his Covina neighborhood. I had forgotten my gloves, and he gave me one of his. So we were each wearing one glove, and he was holding my hand, saying, he's keeping me warm. And we were just enjoying Valentine's evening. And then his voice just stopped. The driver hit us both.

I was knocked unconscious. And when I opened my eyes, I saw Richard against the curb, badly injured. We had been holding hands and we were preparing to go back to have our dessert. But that time never came. By the time he was taken to the hospital, Richard was gone.

I used to be a crisis worker with the police, so I'm hypervigilant. I'm always very aware of my surroundings. And I didn't see a driver. I didn't see or hear anything.

I don't know where he came out of, but he must have been flying down the street where the speed limit is no more than 25 miles per hour. As we mentioned here, excessive speed is the leading cause of fatal crashes in California. Nearly 3,000 people are killed every year.

And now my beloved Richard is one of those statistics. I am supporting AB 981 because this epidemic is preventable. And that's the tragedy of it all, IS technology has been used for over 30 years. Bills like this one has now passed and are also being advanced in other states.

Richard and I had met after each of us had experienced our own personal struggles and tragedies. He had lost his wife and daughter. And I had also lost my daughter at age 21, ironically, to another crash.

Being a religious woman, I believe that my purpose now is to fight for changes so other people don't have to go through this heartache. So please, for Richard and other thousands of Californians, I urge you to pass AB 981. Thank you so much.

Thank you very much, assembly member, for bringing the bill forward. Thank you for your testimony. And ma'am, thank you for your testimony. I'm so sorry to hear about what happened to you. And there's, I wish there was more that I could say.

But what I can tell you is I, too, as a person of faith, have no doubt that he's right here with us today, and Richard's very proud of you, advocating for making California a safer place. So thank you for being here, ma'am.

All right, next we'll hear from others of the public who'd like to speak in support of the bill. Please come forward at this time. Name, organization and position please. Okay, I don't see any response. So now we'll hear from the, oh, I'm sorry. Do we have, do we have folks hoping to speak in support of the bill? Okay, come on forward. Name, organization, and position, please.

Hi, Aly Geller from Families for Safe Streets, national organization in strong support. Thank you.

Okay, final call. Anyone else hoping to speak in support?

Any more support? Support. 981? Nope, nope, nope.

Okay. All right. Thank you all very much. Next we're going to hear from anyone hoping to testify in opposition. Do we have some folks? We do. All right. We may need to do a little shuffling of chairs there. Gentlemen, once you both start speaking, your time will begin. And then after, you will hear from anyone else hoping to speak in opposition.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, members, Ignacio Hernandez, on behalf of the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, statewide association of criminal offense lawyers, and we are unfortunately opposed to the bill. Do appreciate the amendments that are being accepted today.

First of all, I have worked with the assembly member, and so as always, you know, a lot of respect and obviously on a personal, no, no words can address the tragedy that you and your family have suffered. And also to the witnesses. So I just want to say that.

And anyone who knows me knows things that I've been through in my life, they'll, they'll know that those words are very sincere. For the moment I want to talk about the bill and focus on the policy. It's always tricky when we are either increasing IIDs or new devices. And I think even our letter suggested a pilot.

However, we think this pilot too broad and here's why. These devices have been tried out in other instances, but those were pre installed devices. Those were not cost on the individual. Those were not as a result of punishment from the court. And so we think that this pilot goes too far.

We think it needs to be much more narrow, much smaller. We have too many counties and it's too large. There's going to be a cost to individuals to try to install these. To our knowledge, and if I'm wrong in this, my apologies, I don't believe that there is a state entity that has the protocols and procedures in place to certify these installers. And we have run into that problem with IIDs installers that they're not following the law. So we need that.

I don't believe this bill is assigned to the Business Professions Committee, so I think it underscores the concern that we don't have enough oversight. And when you're going to do a pilot project this broadly, LA County, I think Sacramento, a number of other counties, I think we just go a little too fast. I apologize, I didn't intend to say that. I think we just need to roll that back.

If you look at what happened in New York, it was pre installed in that pilot only for the fleet of city government so that they can see what the impact was.

And I think something like that needs to be done before we use it as punishment because we've already seen the disproportionate impact on certain communities, on installations, and violations that occur for failure to install and failure to calibrate. So we just want to go take maybe more interim step going forward. Happy to work with the author on the Bill on a more narrow pilot going forward.

Good morning Mr. Chair, members of the committee, John Moffatt, on behalf of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, we're the trade association for all the major automakers. I just want to start off by saying we don't have an issue with the policy.

We don't have, you know, we absolutely agree with the intent of the bill, which is to crack down on speed and increase the safety of our roads. Our issue with the bill in its current form, and we've communicated this to the author's office and had good conversations with them about it, is liability protection.

This is an aftermarket part that's put onto the car, it gets into the inner workings of the computer of the vehicle to slow the vehicle down. And so we just would like to see three things addressed. Number one, no liability for the automaker when these devices are installed on the vehicle.

Number two, that the bill doesn't require us to make any changes to the vehicle to accommodate the technology. And then the last is that a lessor, someone who is leasing a vehicle.

There's nothing that prohibits the financing entity from asking whether one of these devices has been installed on the vehicle, because obviously a lease when it comes back, that's got to be removed from the vehicle at some point so that vehicle can be sold again.

Again, in other states where similar measures have passed, we've been able to get these protections in the law and have had good conversations with the author's office. Once again, no issues with the policy, no issues with the intent, just some protections, because this is a part that's really digging into the vehicle and slowing it down.

All right, thank you both very much for your testimony. If you would like, please feel free to remain seated. There may or may not be questions from the other members of the committee. At this point. Is there anyone else who would like to be heard in opposition to the bill? If so, please approach the microphone.

Name, organization, and position, please. Oh, sorry. You can stand the microphone right there by Mr. Weber, who's friendly and smiling and welcoming everybody to the microphone today.

Morning, Chair Schultz and members of the committee. My name is Nedric Miller. I'm from LSPC, All of Us or None - Sacramento, and I'm here on behalf of Debt Free Justice California. And we're here to oppose AB 981 based on the fact that the installation of ISA devices create financial disparity.

All right, sir, I have to stop you there just because it's, this is just a "Me Too", but you oppose,

So, yeah. So I was registered to testify. They came up, I put in.

Oh.

So I will oppose, though.

Thank you. Sorry for the miscommunication there, but we have you on record opposing and for the reasons. Thank you, sir. Next up.

Good morning, Adrianna Griffith with Initiate Justice in opposition. Thank you.

Good morning, Kellie Walters, Staff Attorney with Legal Services for Prisoners with Children. In opposition. Thanks.

Okay, anyone else want to be heard in opposition? Okay. Seeing no other affirmative response, let's bring it back to the dais. Any questions or comments from members of the committee? Assembly Member Nguyen.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to thank the assembly member for bringing this bill forward and making our streets safer for Californians and to the person who gave the testimony.

I'm truly sorry for your loss, and I agree with the chair that I think your husband and your daughter are here standing right next to you, proud of you for what you're doing today. Thank you for your testimony.

Thank you, assembly member. Anyone else with a question or comment? Or a motion? Okay, we have a motion by Nguyen and a second by Alanis and a third by Sharp-Collins. A fourth. I don't know. Okay. All right. Any other discussion from the dais? Seeing none. Mr. Gipson, would you like to close?

Yes, very briefly. First of all, let me say thank you very much for giving me this opportunity to present this bill. And to the opposition, we certainly have jotted notes down as relates to trying to strengthen and find the middle ground. And we hope that we'll be able to do just that.

Want to call to this committee's attention that Washington passed the same legislation. Virginia and also Georgia passed the same legislation. It was also mentioned about the cost to the individual. But what about, remember that this device is only given to those who've been convicted of a DUI, right?

And nine times out of ten as a result of the conviction, someone has been injured or fatally killed and taken away. And so what price do we want to place on a life if we can save other additional lives? It has been reported that even those individuals who have been convicted of DUI have been repeat offenders.

Repeat offenders. So what can we put on a car that will one, trigger them to slow down, and also to making sure that they don't take someone else's life? And so I think the cost is minimum to saving a life. We heard from Carmen talk about from her heart about Richard being lost.

She was a victim, and Richard suffered and lost his life due to the injuries. And her daughter. And I for one, sit here as someone who's also lost his son at 3 years old by hit and run motorist. What price do we put on other people's lives?

We want to make sure just in Los Angeles County alone, almost every month there's someone dying by hit and run motorists. And we have an obligation, a moral obligation to hit something, whether even a dog, you stay there.

Even if it's a person, you stay there, render aid, call 911 so that hopes that aid will come and that person can live. We have a responsibility, and we believe this bill is a step in the right direction. And I respectfully, wholeheartedly ask this body to vote aye in this Bill. So thank you very much.

Thank you very much, Mr. Gipson. Appreciate your continued advocacy on this important issue. Colleagues, chair is recommending an aye, as amended. I'll just note and echo what Mr. Gipson said.

There are still some unanswered questions that I believe will be tackled as the bill hopefully navigates appropriations, business and professions, either on this house or in the next house. I have full confidence in the author to continue those conversations and find common ground. So with that, we have an aye. We have a motion. Let's conduct the roll.

Thank you.

[ROLL CALL] That measure passes.

All right. That measure passes. Thank you both. Thank you all very much. Colleagues, a quick programming note. Assembly Bill 1097 by Avila Farias has been pulled by the author so that item will also not be heard today. So if you're hoping to be heard on that item, well, we won't be hearing it today. Other programming note.

I only see Mr. DeMaio here, so we're going to take both of his bills. Up next. If Mr. Kalra is watching, he's encouraged to come down and do order. If any other authors have bills before the committee today, now would be a great time to come down and check in.

Assembly Member DeMaio, would you like to take up AB 22 or AB 897 first?

Either or.

Okay. If it's all right with you, why don't we start, colleagues, with item number one? This is Assembly Bill 22 by Assembly Member DeMaio. Assembly Member, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Committee. I'm here today to present Assembly Bill 22, End the Reckless Release of Criminals Act. We are seeing a sea change in California as it relates to public safety. It's in reaction to some pretty bad policies that we experimented with, that some experimented with that have led to very negative consequences and that led to a bona fide crime wave in our state. We have seen crime decrease nationally in most states. In some states, it has merely plateaued. But here in California, crime has gone up.

We are bucking the trend. Why? Number one, we've disparaged our police officers, leading to an unprecedented shortage in our departments. Staffing shortages have to be addressed. Second, with Proposition 47, we took away the ability of police officers and prosecutors to arrest and prosecute criminals.

Voters thankfully corrected that mistake in this last election by overwhelmingly passing Proposition 36, which repealed Proposition 47 and restored the ability for police and prosecutors to arrest and punish criminals. Assembly Bill 22 deals with the third driver of our crime wave, and that is the reckless release of criminals from our prisons. Our bill does three things.

First, it repeals Proposition 57, which is an initiative that allowed for the early release of criminals from state prison. Prop 57 was deceptively titled. Voters were grossly misled with an initiative title that claimed it would improve public safety while doing the exact opposite. Implementing Proposition 57 has resulted in disastrous consequences. It has created crime victims.

It is time that we admit the mistake with Prop 57 and usher in its repeal. Second, Assembly Bill 22 focuses on the reckless release of a specific type of criminal, sexually violent predators, SVPs. Sexually violent predators are not just your ordinary sex offender. They are diagnosed by experts to have a high likelihood of reoffending. SVPs are deranged.

It's not a question of if they will try to harm someone sexually but when. Unfortunately, existing law allows for the release of SVPs into residential communities. San Diego County has had 90% of SVPs released in the State of California into our county. My district has had all but three SVPs released in the last eight years in my district.

Many of the judges consider rural areas to be, well, no one's around, so they're the best place to dump SVP's. But in rural areas, we have schools, we have families, we have residential communities, we have individuals that go out to engage in recreation, and we don't have very good cell service because one of the elements that is claimed for the release of an SVP is that they will have an ankle monitoring bracelet.

In some of these areas, we don't have cell service to actually assure the monitoring of these individuals. AB 22 would end the release of SVPs in residential communities within a certain distance of tribal governments, as well as would prohibit the transitory release of SVPs.

Shockingly, two months ago, a San Diego Superior Court judge got so frustrated with a lack of a permanent address for an SVP that the judge decided to simply release a sexually violent predator as a hobo with no residential address associated with the individual.

And Assembly Member, not to interrupt you, you have about 30 seconds remaining.

The final element of Assembly Bill 22 relates, again, to the release of sex offenders. In 2020, the Legislature passed SB 145, which would allow an individual who molests someone as young as 14 to avoid mandatory sex offender registry. Assembly Bill 22 would ensure that upon the release of this individual that they would be required to register as a sex offender, would repeal SB 145. I ask this Committee to consider the negative consequences of these policies and to put public safety, not politics, first. And I urge an aye vote on AB 22 for that purpose.

Thank you very much, Assembly Member. Just doing a call. Are there any witnesses hoping to testify in support? Okay. Is there anyone else from the public who'd like to be heard in support of the bill? Okay. We'll next go to those hoping to testify in opposition. Looks like we do have a couple folks coming forward. So your time will begin once you start speaking. And then after we hear from our witnesses testifying, then we'll hear from other members of the public.

Good morning Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Daniel Mendoza. I'm here today in strong opposition to AB 22 which will expose our young people to the harmful adult system and take away their ability to access developmentally appropriate services, treatment and programming. A little bit about myself.

I have dedicated my life to supporting justice involved youth by mentoring and offering writing workshops for young people who are incarcerated. I've also been engaging community organizing efforts to increase civic engagement in my community. I am grateful to be able to take on and fulfill other identities.

I am a son, I am a brother, I am an uncle, and I'm a grandson. There's no greater gift than to be of service to the people I love in the communities I am a part of.

However, my upbringing and where I grew up would not have signaled to you that I would be a leader in my community or that I would be speaking with you all today. At the age of 14 years old, I was arrested, tried as an adult and was facing a 35 years to life sentence.

I was charged with a very serious crime that involved someone losing their life. I can't undo my mistake and I wish things would have played out differently.

But with my second chance, I have tried to live my life in a way that honors my involvement in the taking of his life through service and giving back to the very community that I had a part in harmony.

This opportunity was only possible because the court recognized that having me in adult court was cruel and would not have served the public or myself and they decided to send my case back to juvenile court. It was there that I accessed important treatment and programming.

I was able to graduate high school, I was able to take college courses and most importantly, I was able to stay connected to my family and community, all which were instrumental in helping me grow and change for the better. That would not have happened if I had stayed in the adult system.

California has come a long way in youth justice reforms and today embraces an evidence based understanding of adolescents development and recognizes young people's significant capacity for growth and change. California has enacted policies that prioritize rehabilitation and community reintegration rather than allowing early mistakes to define a person's future.

If AB 22 passes, it will take us back in the wrong direction. Young people are redeemable and deserving of opportunities that show that they can change but need access to services and support systems that are critical to foster their development and growth. I'm not an exception.

The reason I'm able to be here where I am today is because I was able to stay in a system that held me accountable, but also recognize that kids are kids while wrapping us up with services and support. We believe in accountability, but accountability does not mean a locked door with no access to services or support.

I strongly urge this committee to vote no on AB 22. Thank you.

Good morning. Lesli Caldwell-Houston volunteer with the California Public Defenders Association in opposition to to AB 22. I cannot begin to cover all the representations by the author today. I will confine my testimony to one piece of the bill.

Preventing the release of individuals who have completed their treatment program and been found by a court to no longer be dangerous under supervision in the community would make the program unconstitutional.

The cumulative effects of the amendments proposed by AB 22 would bar individuals, as I said, who've been found by the court to no longer be dangerous from being released. Released at all. They could not be released in urban areas. They could not be released in rural areas.

They could not be released to suburbia, and they could not be released as transients, not hobos. Let me repeat, this would render the Sexually Violent Predator Act unconstitutional and endanger our community safety. There are already significant problems establishing housing and community placements for individuals committed pursuant to SBPA that are suitable to conrap.

These problems are actually departures from evidence based practice guidelines and cause the inefficient use of state resources, undue relays and overall inaccessibility of sbp. Con. Rep. We have sent you a letter describing the myriad problems with this bill beyond what I've discussed.

And you have a detailed analysis from this committee's excellent staff that describes the illegality and unconstitutionality of this bill. We request your no vote.

All right. Thank you, sir, for the presentation. Thank you both for your testimony. Don't go anywhere. We'll next hear from other members of the public. Name, organization and position, please.

Natasha Minsker, Smart Justice California. Strongly opposed.

Simelia Rogers, Ella Baker Center for Human Rights. Strongly opposed.

Melanie Kim, San Francisco Public Defender's Office. Opposed.

Adrianna Griffith with Initiate Justice and representing Initiate Justice Action in strong opposition. Thank you.

Colin Ford with Fresh Lifelines for Youth. In opposition. Also on behalf of the Private Defender Program in San Mateo County. In opposition.

Giovanni Olivo, Santa Barbara County Freedom for Youth Advocacy lead program. Strongly opposed.

Sarait Escorza with Silicon Valley Debug in strong opposition.

Morgan Zamora, Ella Baker Center for Human Rights. Strongly opposed.

Darya Larizadeh, National Center for Youth Law. Strongly opposed.

Ashley Chambers, Ella Baker Center for Human Rights. Strongly oppose.

Good morning. Marisa Harris from the Center for Juvenile Law and Policy at Loyola Law School. Strongly opposed.

Brooke Harris with the California Youth Defender Center. Strongly opposed.

Raj Jayadev, Silicon Valley Debug. Emphatically opposed.

Raymond Goins, Silicon Valley debug. Strongly opposed.

Tina Curiel, Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice. Strongly opposed.

Israel Villa, with the California Alliance for Youth and Community Justice in strong opposition.

Good morning. Dominique Nong, on behalf of the Vera Institute in La Defensa and strong opposition.

Good morning. Annalisa Zamora, on behalf of Sister Warriors Freedom Coalition in strong opposition.

Good morning, everyone. George Villa, with MILPA organization in strong opposition.

Matty Hyatt, California Civil Liberties Advocacy, currently opposed to the current version.

Dax Proctor, Californians United for Responsible Budget and on behalf of Universidad Popular, in opposition.

My name is Sherry. I'm a mother of a sexual abuse victim and I oppose this bill.

Su Kim, on behalf of Uncommon Law in strong opposition.

James Adric, oppose.

Melissa Valdez, with Silicon Valley debug. In opposition.

Stuart Howland, San Mateo County Participatory Defense, strong opposition.

Braden Irvin, student, Our Freedom for Youth Student Advocacy Team. Strong opposition.

Yarrow Neubert, California Public Defenders Association, in opposition.

Keon Bliss and strong opposition.

Xavier Espana Silicon Valley Debug, Strong opposition.

Kellie Walters, Staff Attorney with Legal Services for Prisoners with Children and strong opposition.

Nedric Miller, All Of Us Or None Sacramento, strongly opposed.

Jamilah Rosales Webb, San Mateo County Participatory Defense. Strongly opposed.

Cynthia Dalcourt, Silicon Valley Debug. Strongly opposed. Strongly opposed.

Israel Villa with the strong opposition from the alliance of Boys and Men of Color. Thank you.

Liz Gonzalez from San Jose with Debug and strong opposition.

Lourdes Best with San Mateo County Participatory Defense and strong opposition.

Naraly Campos with Silicon Valley Debug and strongly oppose.

Alicia Chavez with Silicon Valley debug in strong opposition.

Nora Melendez, Silicon Valley debug, strong opposition.

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

All right, final call. Anyone else hoping to be heard in opposition? All right, that completes public testimony on the matter. Thank you, everyone. We'll now turn it to the dais. Are there any questions or comments from committee members? Going once, Vice Chair. Yes, Mr. Ramos.

Question to the chair. And just some clarification. Top 36, move forward. Does that address any. Any of these issues here that were being discussed now?

No, it does not.

Okay. And so even other propositions that move forward, in order to change them, they would have to go back to a vote of the people.

That is correct. And my understanding of the author's intent is that should this go through, he's hoping to put it on the ballot in 2026. We cannot do undo a voter approved proposition from a prior year. Any other questions or comments, Assemblymember DeMaio I'll give you a chance to close if you'd like.

A sign of leadership is that when an idea that you thought would work ends up not working, you correct the mistake. For years this legislature has passed bad bills.

Whether it's SB 145 to to allow sex offenders who molest children as young as 14 to avoid registry or the ability for sexually violent predators to be released into a residential community or Proposition 57 and the deceptive title. All of these things have compounded have added up to create more crime victims.

I assume that those that oppose this bill are well intended. I believe they are. You're just wrong. Implementation of your ideas have caused a crime wave and have led to crime victims. It is time for us to reverse course. That's what AB 22 does. It is widely supported by California voters.

The the concepts in AB 22 enjoy 70 to 75% public approval. And Prop 36 just passed with 68% approval and carried every California county. This is something the voters want. It's important for us to provide them with the corrections for bad policy that they deserve. I ask for an I vote.

Thank you, Assemblymember. Colleagues, Chair is recommending a no. Reason for the no recommendation is threefold. While I agree with the Assembly Member that the SBP program is worthy of discussion and can be improved, I do not believe this to be the answer. Number two. If adopted, this measure would render several aspects of state law unconstitutional.

And most importantly, while I do believe and take the author to his word that his interest here is public safety, I believe that this bill, if approved, would actually compromise public safety for many of the reasons raised in the opposition testimony. Recommendation is a no. Is there a motion? Is there a second? Final call?

Is there a second? Then by operation of procedures, the bill dies. Sorry, bill disheld. Thank you. All right, Mr. DeMaio, you now also have up Assembly Bill 897. This is item number 12. Are you ready to go forward on that?

Yes.

All right. Your time won't begin until you start speaking, sir.

Okay, so Assembly Bill 897 is the bill to remove illegal squatters from the Private Property Act. Many of us have tuned in to the news to see absolute horror stories of random individuals breaking into properties and claiming those properties as their domicile, as their home. When the rightful owner discovers that their property has been stolen by a trespasser, they dial 911 as most people in America would do. A police officer or a sheriff's deputy shows up and says, sorry, we can't help you.

California is one of the only states where this nightmare is happening and it is playing out in every community across our state. We literally have seen situations where the police officer or the sheriff's deputy advises the rightful property owner that they may be arrested for trespassing on their own property and for demanding that someone be removed.

It is time for us to clarify in state law that squatters can be removed with due process. Assembly Bill 897 provides for due process for the removal of squatters. Currently, the process is a nightmare that drags on and on, clogging up our courts and costing rightful property owners untold bills for lawyers and in some cases, destruction of their property. Assembly Bill 897 recognizes that there are two constitutional rights that we are weighing here. First is due process for both parties. Second is the right of private property.

Assembly Bill 897 strikes the right balance by providing a 72-hour notice for an individual. If a sheriff's deputy or police officer shows up, they will ask the individual who's trespassing, the squatter, do you have any evidence of a lease or rental payments to the rightful property owner?

If the answer is no, that individual is given 72 hours to vacate or they will then be eligible for arrest. If the individual does have any evidence that they would like a court to weigh that would demonstrate that they have a claim of tenancy, even if it's in dispute with the rightful property owner, the courts would have seven business days to establish that fact.

This bill does not apply to individuals who have an ongoing dispute with a landlord. We will have an adjudication process. Sometimes those are lengthy and those can be nightmares. We do not deal with those issues where there is any gray area. This is about the open-shut case of an individual squatting illegally, trespassing illegally on a property and clarifying that law enforcement does indeed have the ability to remove the individual either with 72 hours notice or upon seven business days, giving a court an opportunity to review any evidence the person may have.

It's time for us to take these horror stories off the news and to give property owners back their right of private property. If we don't do this, California will continue to have a bad reputation for being toxic to property owners and we will only see more and more investors leave our state for fear that they too could become the Next victim of a squatter. I ask for an aye vote on Assembly Bill 897.

Thank you. And next to be heard in support of the bill.

Okay, so I'm Matty Hyatt from California Civil Liberties Advocacy. This is another bill that, when it came my radar, we tried to oppose it. We looked over it. Let me just say anecdotally from my own experience, while I was in law school, some buddies and I started a little paralegal firm, got LDA, legal document assistant licensure, and helped with unlawful detainers, the whole nine yards. And we used to help mostly underprivileged people and impoverished people.

And most of the time, they did not have an arguable defense. Most of the time, all they could do was stall to get more time to try to find somewhere else to go. And that's all we could help them with, was to just put up some kind of a defense. And whatever arguments they had, whatever legal arguments they had, you know, put that in there. It's up to them. You know, they're representing themselves. But most of the time, I didn't see a lot of argument. I didn't see how anything could help them.

So we were actually for the Tenant Protection Act, and we were for a lot of the changes that have been made over the years because we felt tenants didn't have enough rights. You know, people were struggling. Well, that's. I don't remember how 5, 6 years ago we did that.

So when this came across our radar, I'm already aware of some of the problems, unintended consequences we've had. And so the squatting is one of the issues where I've seen. I've had friends, other landlords who. They're not like professional landlords. You just had people staying with them. They're like, hey, can I get these people out?

Look at the law. I'm like, you know what? I think it might be harder than it used to be. I think you're going to have to get an attorney. And so his problem was squatters, too. There are people that just kind of moved in. He had an ex move out. And then some people moved in.

They just refused to leave. So when this came across, I remembered these kind of situations I've been hearing about and seeing myself. And I remember my own experience. And the problem is the California Constitution protects property as a fundamental liberty interest. So we have to balance, as Mr. DeMaio said, we have to balance these interests.

So squatters, the problem I see, don't have any legitimate property interests to start with, they don't have any substantive rights. They might have procedural due process rights, but that's what we're working on right now. And so I'll just kind of get into my little spiel here.

So, I mean, like I'm saying, California already recognizes that not all occupants are tenants. So why do we have to have the full unlawful detainer process? Maybe we could have an expedited process. My friends and I even talked about that years ago. We have small claims courts.

Why not have something like that for this sort of a situation? So lodgers can be removed with the assistance of law enforcement under civil code Section 1946.5. Squatters have more rights than lodgers. Squatters have no lease, no consent, no legitimate claim of possession. And if I remember right, the bill does have provisions for adverse possession.

And so if someone has a contract, if they have a lease, even an oral lease, that should still be an arguable defense if they have to go to unlawful detainer court. But if they don't have the documentation or they don't have any arguable claim, I actually think this is a pretty fair process because most misdemeanors get less process than this.

An officer can arrest someone on reasonable suspicion alone, but when it comes to someone trespassing, now we invoke the unlawful detainer rights, and then the police stay out of it. And they say, well, okay, landlord has to go to civil court. And now with the tenant protections that we have, which I still support, it's almost impossible to get these kind of people out because they just delay, deny, defend, the same way the insurance companies do. And so for that reason, I'm in support, and I'm willing to answer any questions if I can, to the best of my knowledge and ability.

All right, thank you very much.

I'd like to move the bill.

Okay, we have a motion. Is there a second? Okay, we have a motion. And second. We'll get back to that in just a moment. I did want to say one thing. Sorry, I know it's a little out of order. I think you misspoke. Officers can arrest for probable cause, not reasonable suspicion. Just in case people are watching, you have to have probable cause.

And I'm still fresh out of law school. I'm sorry.

Congratulations on graduation, by the way. All right, is there anyone else who'd like to be heard in support of the bill? If so, please come forward. State your name, organization, and position. Okay, how about witnesses in opposition? Do we have anyone here? We do. So once you start speaking, your time will begin.

Good morning. My name is Yarrow Neubert and I'm a volunteer for the California Public Defenders Association here in opposition to AB 897. AB 897 is a poorly constructed disaster ripe for abuse by the powerful at the expense of our poorest and most vulnerable citizens is also completely unnecessary.

As of today, there are over 30 ways to charge an individual with trespassing is either misdemeanors or felonies. A quick but not exhaustive review of the California penal code Section 602, as well as other California statutes that currently prohibit various acts of trespassing or unlawful presence, demonstrates at least 35 different ways to charge a crime of trespass or unlawful presence in our state.

By the author's own statement, this bill is intended to create a more timely and cost effective process to allow property owners to affect evictions of persons the property owner claims are squatters. Again, there are a myriad of ways to charge people with trespass or unlawful presence.

This bill would involve law enforcement and even more court proceedings, civil and criminal, as well as requiring the use of the courts in both civil and criminal jurisdictions. This bill is unnecessary and wasteful of our state's resources and we respectfully request a no vote.

Good morning. My name is Sujung Kim. I'm the Managing Attorney of the Research Unit at the San Francisco Public Defender's Office. I'm here to testify in opposition to AB 897, which would criminalize a wide range of informal housing arrangements that many Californians rely on to avoid falling into homelessness.

A significant portion of Californians experiencing housing instability live in non leaseholding arrangements with tenants and leaseholders, such as verbal agreements, license for limited use, or where a tenant is not on the lease but lives in the property.

According to the Benioff Homelessness and Housing Initiative Landmark 2023 study, 60% of people entering homelessness from non institutional settings were living in such informal arrangements immediately before becoming homeless. AB 897 accelerates pathways into homelessness. It threatens to saddle already vulnerable individuals with fines and criminal charges, further entangling them in the criminal legal system. AB 897 is also unnecessary.

California law already provides mechanisms for addressing illegal trespass. Landlords and tenants currently have access to the civil eviction process designed to address unauthorized occupancy. By circumventing these existing channels, AB 897 strips tenants and occupants of a critical time needed to secure alternative housing arrangements, time that is often the difference between housing stability and homelessness. I urge members to vote no on 897. Thank you.

Okay, thank you both for your testimony. Next we'll hear from anyone else from the public hoping to be heard on the matter.

Natasha Minsker, Smart Justice California, opposed.

Lesli Caldwell-Houston, California Public Defenders Association, opposed.

Adrianna Griffith, Initiate Justice and Initiate Justice Action, in opposition. Thank you.

Divya Shiv with Housing California, also speaking on behalf of the National Alliance to End Homelessness, opposed.

Danica Rodarmel on behalf of La Defensa in opposition.

Liz Gonzalez on behalf of Silicon Valley Debug, opposition.

[Unintelligible]

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

All right, thank you everybody for taking the time to have your voice heard in our State Capitol. Now we're going to turn it over to the deus. Are there any questions or comments? Yes, Assemblymember Gonzalez.

Nothing too crazy, but just out of curiosity, so I understand the conversations here, the mentions are about verbal agreements and we're sort of targeting the unhoused, etc. But let's take a little bit of step further. A very easy question. How far does this go?

Let's say if you get in a fight with a partner or a roommate, what does that situation create for them? Are they considered a squatter if they don't move out, or are you going to arrest them? Like, what's the premise of how this was even?

The beauty of this bill is that's not for a politician to decide. That's going to be for a court to decide if there is any. Well, we're politicians making this. No, no. But, but what we're doing is we're providing a process fair. We're clarifying for law enforcement that if they have no basis whatsoever for being there, they do not produce a text message.

They can't have a witness say that there was a verbal contract, there's no canceled checks, that they have to be out within 72 hours, that the law enforcement agency has the ability to arrest them if they don't leave within 72 hours. If they have any case whatsoever, if they have a cocktail napkin where they think that they have a right to be there, then a competent court gets to decide, gets to weigh that.

This is all about clarifying what is the due process for dealing with squatters. And I think, again, we're striking the right balance. This is not, though, a bill about unhoused. This is a bill about people who legitimately are squatting, abusing the system, preying on property owners, creating crime victims. We have to have some sort of system to adjudicate those issues. And I think again, this is a bill based upon what other states have done successfully.

There hasn't been mayhem in those other states when they've adopted these common sense processes. And so I would encourage the committee to let's pass the bill. Let's see what happens in the first two years. And if we have to make adjustments, we certainly can. But other states have found this to be quite effective.

Thank you. Assemblymember Gonzalez, anything else on your end? No. Any other questions or comments? Assemblymember Harabedian.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just quick questions. And I don't think anyone can deny that the unlawful detainer process can be improved. I think any judge that oversees unlawful detainer actions would agree with that. Both sides would agree with it. So I guess my question is if we're trying to solve the problem of process, why aren't you focused more on utilizing the existing mechanisms with trespass and unlawful detainer rather than creating the, the new illegal squatting process? That just creates, I think, more administration. I think it's more of a headache and I think it really does. It has other issues that the bill analysis addresses. But I'm just curious why we didn't go that path.

Because as you can see from the horror stories on TV up and down the State of California, those existing procedures have woefully been inadequate and they have failed. And again, this is based upon what other states have put into place. This has been very effective in other states to provide the timeline necessary. 72 hours.

If you have no case whatsoever, you gotta be out in 72 hours. And if they do have a case, it really does impose a deadline on the courts to review that matter. And again, if courts believe that they need more time, they certainly can afford that under this process that we put in place. But it is very clear no one can argue in the State of California that we don't have a squatters problem, which means California State law is inadequate, which is why this bill is absolutely needed.

Do you think under that scenario trespass would still apply? Right. So you could still utilize trespass to.

No, no. Take a look at what's going on across the state. If it did apply, if it were adequate, if state law gave us the tools that we needed, we wouldn't have the horror stories. Again, this is a 70% issue. When you talk to Democrat voters or Republican voters or anyone in between, they say, look, we want to make sure people have their rights to present their side of the story. But people who are preying on others, who are law abiding property owners, that should not be how our society works. That's not just, it's not fair.

And in California there is an appetite, there is a demand that we take action to clarify state law, even law enforcement would be aided here because you want to make sure that you provide law enforcement with guidance, clear guidance that they can use to ensure that both sides rights are protected. And that's what AB 897 is designed to do.

Yeah, I guess in my experience, trespass would apply. I understand you're arguing about the outcomes. I think the outcomes are as a result more of enforcement or lack of enforcement of existing laws that are on the books.

And I was, I was in criminal courts quite a bit where trespassers and folks who were housing insecure were coming through our courts quite often and then were put in jail. And our jails were effectively just used as holding tanks for our homeless communities. And I think fast forward to today.

I think the reason why there was a breakdown is because we don't have the back end support. We have nowhere to put folks who are looking for housing. And so I don't think that this bill solves the problem because I think trespassing and the unlawful detainer process would affect it.

And I just think it's actually finding these solutions on the back end which would then allow law enforcement to enforce the existing laws. So you know, for that reason I can't support this because I actually don't think it actually solves the problem. But appreciate your concern. I do think in many communities people are worried about this problem. I just don't think this is the way to solve it. So thank you.

All right, thank you. Are there other questions? Yes, Assemblymember Ramos.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. When we sat on the County Board of Supervisors, San Bernardino County, we implemented ordinances on those that were in certain areas through a county ordinance. That then gave the county sheriff's opportunity to move and vacate people and then move forward within the court system. So there is a local jurisdictional component to it. And I'm wondering if the local areas, the counties, different areas, have adopted ordinance that would start to move forward in this area.

Was the ordinance for public right away, public property, or is it for private property?

Private property. And so what happened was during that time the individual, the private owner would then sign a paper giving law enforcement the opportunity to go in and remove people from those areas. And that was something that was done at the county and then local cities followed through with ordinances, too. So I'm just throwing that out there as maybe there's a way at the local level to start to grapple with this issue.

We can certainly explore that. Thus far, we've not seen any local examples of being able to address the fundamental problem of these squatters. This is a statewide issue. People are seeing this on the news every single week. Property owners are experiencing these problems up and down the State of California.

So it's important for us to make this a statewide clarification so that you don't have, county by county, different standards. It needs to be clear for all involved on both sides of the dispute. I will say in closing to suggest that somehow a private property owner ought to lose their property rights because there may be a homeless person that's taken over their property and that government has failed to provide a shelter bed.

But, you know, hey, because we've not done our job, sorry, we're just not going to give you your constitutional right of private property. That's not the solution. And so I would again urge that we clarify for law enforcement, clarify for the courts the process to adjudicate these disputes. This will result in the constitutional rights of both sides being protected. And as I mentioned, other states have done this, this approach and have been very successful at it. I ask for an aye vote.

All right, really quickly, were there any other questions or comments from the committee? Okay. And Assemblymember DeMaio, I'll take that as your close. All right, colleagues, I am recommending a no, and I have a brief explanation. First of all, I do appreciate the Assembly member for bringing the bill forward.

And I think he hits on an important point, both he and his witness, in fact. We obviously have to balance the rights of everybody involved, both property owner and those who have procedural protections. I also agree with comments from Assemblymember Harabedian.

I think that in the future, Assemblymember DeMaio, I would encourage you to look closely at the unlawful detainer process. I think it definitely could be improved. Although beyond the subject matter of this committee, the reason I'm recommending a no is really twofold.

Just so that you have this in the back of your mind as you move forward with other bills. The first is that as proposed to be amended, Section 602.15, Subdivision A, Subsection 3, would create a mandatory arrest, not discretionary for law enforcement, but a mandatory arrest, which I do find problematic on public policy grounds.

I think the bigger concern, though, is that while I appreciate the author's intent to speed up the process, what the author is proposing is that in the instance where the person has been cited and there's a question of whether they have a right to lawfully be there, it is up to the magistrate to make a determination of whether the paperwork is sufficient and then additionally, and by extension, whether they're guilty of unlawfully squatting.

Magistrates lack the authority under California law to make determinations of guilt or innocence. They can review search warrants, they can make probable cause determination at preliminary hearings. This would empower magistrates in a way that I would argue is unprecedented across the nation.

So for those reasons, and with all due respect, I am recommending a no. We do have a motion and a second. Let's conduct the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay, that. That measure is on call, Mr. DeMaio. We'll let you know the outcome. Thank you. Thank you, everybody. Next I see we have Assemblymember Macedo here. She will be presenting on item number 24. This is Assembly Bill 1396. Assemblymember, are you ready to go? All right. Your time doesn't begin until you start talking.

Thank you, Chair Schultz, Vice Chair Alanis, and Members of the Committee. I want to start today by accepting the Committee's amendments. Today, I am presenting AB 1396, a measure to increase protections for dependent people. Dependent people include individuals with disabilities, persons with intellectual disabilities, seniors with diminished capacities, and those receiving inpatient care.

Dependent people are particularly susceptible to sexual assault and other heinous crimes. These individuals face significant barriers in reporting crimes, advocating for themselves, or escaping dangerous situations. AB 1396 will help further protect dependent persons by creating a crime enhancement for any caretaker or other adult who has custody of a dependent person and assaults them with intent of rape or sexual assault.

This measure will change the punishment from 2, 4, or 6 years to 5, 7, or 9 years in prison for committing these horrible acts on dependent people. By holding perpetrators more accountable, AB 1396 reinforces California's stance against the exploitation of its most vulnerable residents.

Here with me today to testify on this bill is Wendy Baker, a concerned parent from my district whose daughter is a victim of some of these heinous crimes. And Alana Mathews from CDAA is also here to testify on behalf of AB 1396. Wendy's daughter Kelsey is the one that inspired this bill, so I'm going to let Wendy take it away.

Thank you so much for listening. In 2021... Oh, I guess I'll start with I'm her mom. She's special needs. She's been since about a year and a half years old is when we started realizing things were wrong with her. She's intellectually, she's 10 years old. She is chronologically 28.

And so in 2021, she was sexually assaulted by my ex husband's brother. And so going through the court system they still want to like treat her as an adult. She can't sit on the stand. She can't. I mean she can only spell cat and dog. She can't. I don't know how to explain it. She's a kid.

But her whole life I've been fighting for her rights. I've had to stand up and like be her advocate. I've had to go to court to become her conservatorship. When I tried to get a restraining order, they tried not to give me one. They tried to say, oh, let's do a stay away order. It's fine. I had to hire a lawyer for $5,000 to get a whole extra two years so she could go to her father's house and still see him safely and the uncle wouldn't show up and hurt her. Since then they've all disowned me because I think I made it up.

But she had a two hour cart interview done by the child by the specialist at the police station and that is inadmissible in court. That's a whole nother ball game. But that is only intended for children under 12, not intellectually under 12. So it's just the courts just haven't recognized these individuals that they are children.

Like I wouldn't have conservatorship of her if she was able to make her own decisions. Like I have to pay her bills, I have to make all her sign all her paperwork. And as a mom, I mean I had this thing typed up. But I've been fighting for her whole life and I won't stop. I mean I have to advocate for her because if I don't or even advocate for everybody else, if I don't, there's a lot of people don't have that backbone to stand up.

And for these individuals, a lot of people feel like they're going to be judged or get a bunch of backlash or people are going to think they, I don't know, like think bad of them. But at the same time, if you've got the power of a voice, you got a power. So. And you guys have the power to make a decision to make it go even further than what I can do. And I'm just hoping that you guys hear me and hear others that are out there. I mean, my daughter, she has PTSD from this.

We tried to get her haircut a couple months after this whole incident happened, and I went to walk to the bathroom, and then she just completely melted down and started freaking out and was like, mom, don't leave me with this man. And I'm like, we've been going to the same hairdresser for six years.

Like, he wasn't going to do anything to her, but now she can't be left alone with men. And it's... Trust me, as a mom, sometimes I kind of need my alone time. So having to find someone I could trust now to even watch her so I can go to the bathroom or go shopping at a store.

My life is now. It revolves around her and her brother, which is 14. He's such a good kid. He volunteers and helps her and advocates for her. And he knows the whole story because he will not be raised to be a human being that will do things like that to people.

I will raise him to understand that there is right and there is wrong and that people like that need to be tried or prosecuted. And don't take no for an answer because one day somebody will hear you. And there is people out there with a heart. There is people that aren't just there to push paper.

You know, that you need to make a change. And if we don't, as people, have a voice, like I said, and a backbone, then what are we? Just sitting ducks? And we're, oh, this is what the law says. That's all we can do. That's not the way it should be. Like, you guys have the right. You guys have the power to make a change. I'm like, I don't know what else to say. I had a whole thing typed. Thank you.

Thank you very much. For our remaining witness, we have about a minute of time remaining, just so you can plan your remarks.

Thank you, Chair and Members, for the opportunity to provide comments. The California District Attorneys Associations offer comments in support of AB 1396. As you are aware, the current law already takes into consideration the increased egregiousness of crimes committed against minors, ensuring that sexual assaults against minors are met with stricter penalties.

However, the law does not similarly reflect the vulnerability of dependent adults who are often unable to fully protect themselves due to physical or mental limitations. Dependent adults, many of whom are elderly or living with disabilities, are just as vulnerable to exploitation, and their protection under the law should equally be prioritized.

By giving these penalties for sexual assaults against dependent adults as those for crimes committed against minors, this bill would ensure that individuals who commit such heinous acts against dependent adults face appropriate and significant consequences.

All right, thank you all for your testimony. Assembly Member Macedo, I apologize for mispronouncing your name earlier. That's a big thing for me. I can say Harabedian, but not Macedo, apparently. So sorry about that. And, ma'am, thank you very much for sharing your story. I can't imagine how challenging that must have been.

But I am sure that your daughter and your son will continue to draw strength from you, so thank you for being strong enough to be here today and to share that story. All right, next we're going to hear from others in support of the bill. Come forward. Name, organization, and position, please.

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

Dillon Lesovsky with the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department in support.

Frank Xu with Californians for Equal Rights Foundation, in support.

Marilyn Malloy, parent of a son with special needs, in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you all very much. Next, we'll hear from anyone testifying in opposition. Do we have any opposition witnesses? Okay, we do. So as they come forward, once they're seated and start speaking...Once you start speaking, your time will begin.

Good morning. Leslie Caldwell-Houston, volunteer for the California Public Defenders Association, with a membership of over 4,000 public defenders, private defense lawyers, and investigators in opposition to AB1396. I appreciate your testimony here today. I have a special needs niece who's been through horrible things herself.

However, respectfully, we oppose this Bill because it provides severely disproportionate penalty for the crime. Existing law already imposes significant sentences for the crimes of sexual assault, including sexual assault that occurs against dependent persons. There are already a wide range of additional charges and enhancements that can be applied to further increase a prison sentence.

Current law already recognizes the harm of sexual assault against dependent persons and treats it with the appropriate level of seriousness. Currently, for instance, a caretaker who commits lewd acts on a dependent person, faces up to 10 years in prison. That's penal code section 288, sub B, sub 2.

You've heard repeatedly and rightfully about the National Institute of Justice's extensive research on deterrence. They wrote a report entitled Five Things About Deterrence, wherein it found that increasing the severity of punishment does little to deter the crime.

After nearly 40 years of representing people myself, charged with crimes from driving on a suspended license to capital murder, I have seen clearly that the potential of a long sentence does not enter the mind of an individual contemplating committing a crime.

What the NIJ did find was that the higher certainty of being caught committing the crime was much more of a deterrence than longer sentences. For a very long time, you have sought to appropriately reform our system and stop mass incarceration. You looked for data studies and best practices. You have much of that information now.

You know making sentences longer and longer is a failed policy. And we are asking you to vote no on AB 1396 in order that the failed policy is not reinstated in any way.

Good morning, Members. My name is Jessica Arteaga. I am a public defender with Los Angeles County and a Member of local 148, which is the Public Defenders Union in Los Angeles County. We are here today to urge Members to oppose AB 1396, which would raise penalties for the crime of sexual assault against a dependent person.

Make no mistake, sexual assault is a very, very serious crime, and has affected the lives of many. Such that, current law already recognizes the harm of sexual assault against dependent persons and treats it with the appropriate level of seriousness. Currently, sexual assault is a felony punishable by 2,4, or 6 years in state prison.

Existing law also includes a wide range of additional charges and enhancements that can be applied to further increase punishment. For example, cases involving sexual assault, penal code 220, is almost always charged in conjunction with the underlying felony sex crime.

This means that there is already an increase in time and punishment. Such that, many defendants can face indeterminate life sentence and or mandatory consecutive sentences. Such like my esteemed colleague Leslie mentioned, 288 subsection B2. In addition, there's also elder abuse that's also charged in conjunction with the 220 charge.

There are also several forms of enhancements and allegations that would increase penalties in these instances. Such as great bodily injury allegations, firearm enhancements, other weapon enhancements, which could also oppose additional time. Also enhancements that involve multiple victims, which could potentially put a life sentence.

In addition, there are also court rules that allow courts to impose the maximum sentence. In cases that involve aggravating factors, which is, in this specific instance, dependent adults. As my esteemed colleague Leslie has shared, studies have shown that increasing the severity of punishment does little to deter crime.

Increased penalties here will not provide additional public safety for dependent persons. Thank you.

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

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

Melanie Kim, San Francisco Public Defender's office, in respectful opposition.

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

Kelly Walters, Staff Attorney with Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, in respectful opposition.

Yarrow Neubert, California Public Defenders Association, in opposition.

Adriana Griffith, on behalf of Initiate Justice and Initiate Justice Action in respectful opposition.

Danica Darma, on behalf of La Defensa in opposition.

All right, final call. Anyone else? Yes, we have-...

Good morning. My name is Katie Dixon. I'm with the California Coalition for Women Prisoners, and we strongly oppose this Bill. Thank you.

All right, final call. Anyone else hoping to be heard on the Bill? Okay, we'll turn it back to the DEUs. Are there any questions or? Yes, Assembly member Harabedian.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to the author for bringing the Bill. Thank you to the powerful testimony, ma'am. And I echo the chair's comments, and just want to say sorry for everything you've been through.

And from your testimony, I just want to be clear, is the father's brother.. Is he out of prison? Is he still incarcerated?

No, he's never even got the charge.

Interesting, okay.

They weren't able to charge him. Yeah.

-If I may...

Yes, please.