Senate Standing Committee on Public Safety

The State Senate Committee on Public Safety will now come to order. Good morning everyone. We do not have a quorum present. Thank you, Vice Chair Sierra to for being present. This is a busy day in the State Capitol where multiple Committee hearings are happening at the same time.

And just for the purposes of disclosure, I will have to step out at various times to present bills and vote in different committees, but we will make sure we have so many present to chair. So I do expect we will have a quorum very soon.

But we are beginning today's meeting this morning with a special order of business where we'll take up five bills related to the Senate Wildfire package. And so since this is a special order, business Members with bills that are on the regular file order, we we will get to your bills after we complete the special order of business.

So respectfully, if you can come back and join us when we complete the special order, we would greatly appreciate it. And with that, we can begin with our Bill presentations. We'll hold a vote on the consent calendar when we are able to establish a quorum.

So the first item in our special order of business calendar is file item one, Senate Bill 36 by Senator Umberg. Good morning. And I'll turn over to Senator Umberg to present on your Bill.

Well, thank you, Mr. Chair. I think you are going to earn your pay today. I'm pleased to present SB 36, which is jointly authored by Senator Smallwood-Cuevas. First, let me begin by thanking Mr. ... for your help in improving the Bill.

In the wake of the devastating firestorms that swept through Southern California just this past January, reports of price gouging, particularly in the rental housing market, quickly emerged as Angelenos scrambled to find alternative shelter. Opportunistic property owners took advantage of the crisis. At least some of them did, inflating rents and listing prices.

Many of these price gougers exploit a legal loophole by listing properties in neighboring counties like Orange County, my home county where no State of emergency was declared, making it difficult for local authorities to actually curb this abuse list allow property owners to circumvent price gouging laws while still targeting displaced residents.

The listing platforms, the platforms that list rental housing are uniquely positioned to detect and prevent such exploitation given their ability to track pricing patterns, flag suspicious increases, and enforce fair pricing policies. SB36 provides additional protections to consumers and comprehensively curbs rental price gouging during emergency by enhancing civil penalties and enforcement.

By requiring online housing listing platforms that alert local, regional or state law enforcement of price gouging occurring on their platforms and enforce user agreements requiring online housing platforms to create a mechanism for users to report violations.

And by extending price gouging protections to counties within a 50 mile radius of Los Angeles County, this Bill would provide consumers the ability to file actions against price gougers and authorize public prosecutors to obtain warrants for price gouging violations related to housing, lodging and rental violations. With me to testify Here today is Ms. Savina Tekar on behalf of California Consumer Attorneys Association or the Consumer Attorneys of California. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Good morning. Committee on the Bill.

Good morning, Mr. Chair. Members Saveena Takhar on behalf of the Consumer Attorneys of California and strong support. California communities are facing compounding disasters from wildfires to floods. And in the aftermath, we're seeing vulnerable residents exploited by extreme housing prices. Price gouging. Some families have been charged thousands above standard rent when they're already displaced in a crisis.

SB36 is a critical response. It strengthens civil penalties, empowers victims to take legal action, and brings online platforms into the fold with reporting requirements and coordination with law enforcement. It also wisely expands protections to surrounding counties where displacement often pushes people.

These are smart, targeted reforms that close dangerous loopholes and ensure Californians aren't victimized in moments of extreme need. We urge your aye vote on SB36. Thank you.

Thank you so very much. Are there any other principal witnesses in support of second Senate Bill 36? Are there any other Members of the public here who are in support of Senate Bill 36? Please state your name, affiliation and position for the record.

Christopher Sanchez, on behalf of the Consumer Federation of California, in support. Thank you.

Are there any other witnesses in support of SB36? Okay, thank you. Are there any principal witnesses in opposition to SB36? If so, you can please come forward. You'll have two minutes to address the Committee. Thank you. Good morning.

Margo George, on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association and the part of the Bill that we respectfully take up opposition to, is this extending or expanding the search warrant provision. One, it's the search warrant provision itself. Penal Code Section 1524 has expanded from being fairly succinct, I think, to almost 24 different provisions now.

And this is not needed if in fact a search warrant is required. In this misdemeanor offense. There is a subsection, subsection A, subsection 3, which is sort of a catch all. It covers all public offenses.

But looking at the examples that the Department of Justice gave in which they have already filed charges or the city attorney of Los Angeles has filed charges they seem to be primarily real estate transactions where people had either filled out an application and then went after the fire to get the housing and the price had increased by 3350%.

Something awful. Right. And then the their city attorney has filed civil and criminal charges against Blueground US, which owns and had available approximately 200 properties in Los Angeles and has their own website. And they had apparently raised the rates across the board 10 to 50%.

And housing prices in Los Angeles already were among the highest in the state, as high probably as San Francisco. So we don't feel that the search warrant provision is needed.

A number of our Members lost their homes in the fires a couple of months ago and have actually faced situations where they went to rent housing or acquire different housing and have been faced with the same problems. But we feel that it can be addressed with the rest of your Bill without extending the search warrant provision.

So we respectfully ask that it be amended or opposed unless it is amended. Thank you so much.

Thank you very much. Are there any other witnesses in opposition to SB36? Please come forward to the microphone if you wish to testify. Okay. Seeing no additional witnesses in opposition, we'll bring it back to the Committee for discussion. And are there any questions or comments from Committee Members? Yes.

Thank you very much. And I understand why we're trying to address some of the issues with the wildfires, but I have some really big concerns with this approach. Number one, the State of emergency.

What happens when the State of emergency is over with the landlords and the tenants that they're basically forced to have rent their properties less than what the market is? What happens if they try to address up to the market? Because we're talking about the market, a housing market.

In our housing market, when it's too expensive here, people move to Denver like my kids. And so Denver's prices are going up too, because it's a reaction to this in our housing crisis in California, basically our housing issues in California.

So I'm trying to get a grasp on, you know, when you declare a State of emergency, sometimes it's a three month State of emergency, but also there are state emergencies like we had with COVID that went for two years and you're freezing people's ability to manage their prices and their ability to afford their, the homes that they are offering for rent. And so I'm wondering how we're going to control that.

So it just to clarify, it doesn't freeze prices, it simply limits price increases to 10%, number one. And number two, once the State of emergency expires, then the law, the price gouging laws, just as the same with respect to pandemic, are no longer in force.

And then you can raise your rent the next year is whatever your local agencies say, whatever the market. The other issue I have is the broadness of this. When you're talking about 50 mile radius of the Los Angeles County border, you're talking about San Bernardino county all the way to Arizona, the Arizona border, that's where they go to.

You're talking about Kern, county, the vastness of Kern, county, those properties out there, Riverside County, my area, we're not seeing the effects of this. Our prices were already kind of high and they're above market.

So I think this is like way too broad in trying to capture what's happening specifically with those specific areas in La Altadena and Pacific Palisades. And I don't know that this disruption in the market is warranted for places that are in Blythe.

It's a long ways away and Blythe has its own issues with being able, with not affordability but supply essentially. That's, you know, where people would be able to move to. They don't have a lot of building out there and growth. So there's just, it's just a little broad for me.

And sometimes I feel like we overreact to things when we have an emergency and that overreaction sometimes does more harm than good. If we're going to only have a three month State of emergency, then not a whole lot's going to happen in that three months.

And at the end of the day, especially when it comes to housing, consumers make a decision whether they want to allow somebody to do that to them or not. And if an FM say I'm not going to do that like my kids did, well then they're off.

They go to where they want to do business and that person has to find somebody else and that will bring prices back down if enough of that happens. But in this case, there's a lot of people with a lot of money who are willing to pay $30,000 for rent instead of 15,000.

I don't even know why we're having a conversation about that because those people are up in the stratosphere somewhere as far as being able to afford housing. So anyway, I just, I think this might be one of those things that we're trying to do a little too much and it's going to cause more harm than good.

Okay, thank you. My recommendation is an aye. Senator Umberg, would you like to close.

Thank you. Just to respond to Senator Dallarto, your point is well taken. About the breadth of the Bill originally, as was originally drafted, and the district attorneys asked for 100 miles. We cut it down to 50 miles. In particular, at the request of the District Attorney in Orange County, because Orange County is being impacted by the fire.

As folks are looking for housing, they've come to Orange County. And sadly, some landlords in Orange County have jacked up the price and been opportunistic. So I take your point, and I'll continue to consider that as if the Bill should move forward. With that, I urge an aye vote.

Thank you very much. We have just established a quorum. Senator Caballero just joined us, so can the assistant please call the roll? Hold on. oh, we need four. Yeah. Okay.

Sorry, not quite yet.

So we will hold until we establish a quorum to make a motion. But thank you, Senator. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And we'll proceed now with. Just having my first cup of coffee here, so please bear with me. File item two, Senate Bill 571, by Senator Archuleta. And I believe I'm jointly presenting this with you, so I'll hand the gavel over to Vice Chair Seyarto go first.

All right. We have SB571. Is that correct? Okay. And this is joint authors? Yes. So, Mr. Chair, you may proceed with the presentation.

Thank you very much. Mr. Vice Chair. Members of the Committee for the Opportunity to jointly present Senate Bill 571. Senator Archuleta. Taking advantage of our communities when they are in disarray and are dealing with a natural disaster is unacceptable.

This Bill would increase criminal penalties for the crime of looting, burglary, aggravated arson, and fraudulently impersonating a first responder. Furthermore, this Bill removes judicial discretion to limit or reduce the looting sentencing in Los Angeles this year.

While Angelenos scrambled to find alternative shelter, there are reports of predatory behavior by individuals impersonating as first responders, firefighters and disaster relief workers, including FEMA workers, in order to scam victims. Strengthening penalties for these matters will ensure victims. Victims and affected communities are protected when they are most vulnerable. And I'll turn it over to Senator Archuleta.

Thank you, madam. Mr. Chair. If anyone knows the sacred feeling that we have for our firefighters, it is you, Mr. Chair. Because the firefighters in our State of California have become angels because of the fact that they've risked their lives.

These devastating fires that just took place, and I had the occasion to walk there in the Palisades. I was able to get to Altadena and meet with residents.

And I was there soon after the ashes were smoldering in Pasadena with the firefighters, Highway Patrol and National Guard and they were doing their job for God country in the State of California. So this Bill 571 addresses those who were taking advantage of people who lost home and in some cases even their relatives.

So I bid you good morning for the Committee and I thank you for allowing us to present 571. During the horrible January 25th fires in Southern California we saw reports of criminals attempting to take advantage of victims and that were displaced and some because of the evacuations.

And some of these individuals disguised themselves as firefighters, FEMA workers and even law enforcement to gain access to the fire damage areas. In one instance, impersonators were used decommissioned fire trucks fire trucks to pose as firefighters including wearing fire gear and even helmets.

CAL FIRE T shirts were worn and their equipment with helmets radios to gain access to the evacuation sites in the zones. These abusers engaged in looting and property theft going through the ashes and into the victims homes whatever was left of their personal belongings.

The severity of these crimes forced the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department to form the looter task suppression teams and increasing patrols to provide quicker response times diverting vital resources away from the efforts to support our recovering Los Angeles community. The firefighters and police officers.

Current penalties for these abuses are not proportional to the pain, the loss, the grievance to the victims. The damage caused by these impersonators and looters exceeds the monetary losses to the communities and victims and personal property. Communities can't trust directions of public safety officials if they aren't aware who they should trust.

Which uniform is real, who are the real angels as I called them so they normally have no way of knowing but it is all of us now that can do something about it.

These abusers and their actions undermine evacuation orders, local officials, authority and victims peace of mind ensuring the public can trust first responders and local public safety officials. It is crucial in keeping the community safe especially during State of emergency when victims are in disarray.

Senate Bill 571 is a is clear sign to California has zero tolerance for criminals who take advantage of wildfire and natural resource natural disaster victims. Strengthening penalties for looting and impersonation of these first responders there in the evacuation zones will ensure victims and affected communities are protected during the recovery and rebuilding process.

So with us today I have Tarma Tuek with the Los Angeles District Attorney's office and Jonathan Fieldman with the California Police Chiefs Association. See if they're here. So for their remarks and your questions.

Can I add one thing, Mr. Vice Chair? So Senator Valadares had a Bill that also addressed many of the similar issues. I think this is an example of bipartisan collaboration. We have worked together to the point where Senator Valladares has withdrawn her Bill from consideration, is now a joint author of this Bill.

Thank you. That's happened in my bills too, before. That's cool. Hey. So we have a witness in favor of the Bill. You are the primary. So you get your two minutes or four minutes if there's two of you. Is there only one of you?

Thank you. I believe there's one of me.

Then you get four minutes.

Good morning, Chair and Members. My name is Tamar Tokat. I'm a Deputy District Attorney with the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office, and we're pleased to Support Senate Bill 571. A few months ago, Los Angeles suffered the most devastating wildfires in its history.

Over 16,000 homes, businesses and other property were destroyed, and dozens of people lost their lives. I don't know a single person in Los Angeles who either wasn't personally impacted or doesn't know somebody who was badly impacted by these fires. The entire county was affected in some capacity.

Although these events provided the catalyst for most people in the community to come together and help their neighbors, some individuals, both from within and outside of the community, used this as an opportunity to take advantage of the loss and trauma suffered by the victims of these fires.

These bad actors descended upon evacuation zones to burglarize homes and businesses and steal from cars where people fleeing their homes had stored what little they could salvage. Some individuals pretended to be first responders, such as police and firefighters, so that they could loot more easily.

And yet, under existing law, impersonating a first responder is nothing more than a misdemeanor. Under existing law, committing a burglary or a grand theft during the State of emergency or in an evacuation zone, which is what looting is, carries the same penalty as if the crimes didn't happen during a State of emergency or in an evacuation zone.

Under existing law, for the most serious type of arson, which is aggravated arson, a loophole would allow an arsonist who causes massive amounts of damage that meets the monetary threshold for aggravated arson at the time the crime was committed to delay their open case and delay any appeal upon conviction in order to wait for the next inflation adjusted threshold to kick in so that they can avoid prosecution under the most serious charge.

This should not happen. Senate Bill 571 is a common sense, measured approach to ensuring that those who loot or impersonate first responders and those who commit aggravated arson are appropriately held accountable for their actions.

To that end and on behalf of the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office, we'd like to thank Senators Archuleta and Araguin for authoring this Bill. And we'd ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. And that was only two minutes, so that was really good. All right. Because I forgot to mention, if you don't want to take the whole four minutes, that's okay too. We're good with that.

So at this time we'll take anybody else who may be in favor of the Bill and would like to add a me too. And just come up, state your name, the organization you represent and your favorable opinion of the Bill. But not the opinion part.

Zach Cefalu with the League Of California Cities and support. Thank you.

Just like that.

Good morning. Jared Maas on behalf of the California Police Chiefs Association, in support.

Good morning. Rochelle Beardsley, CDAA in support.

Anyone else? It doesn't appear. Okay, so now we're going to go to opposition. Is there anybody who wishes to speak as the main opposition witness appears? We have a person approaching now, so come on up. We have two, so you know what that means. Each of you get two minutes. Whoever would like to go first, go ahead.

Thank you, sir. Chair Members, my name is Aubrey Rodriguez and I am a legislative advocate with ACLU California Action. I want to start by reminding everyone that existing law already imposes severe penalties for the offenses considered in this Bill. And strong evidence indicates that longer criminal sentences has failed to promote either deterrence or incapacitation.

This notion is supported by the Federal Department of Justice, which discourages increasing existing punishments, noting that longer sentencing does little to deter crime. Other findings have concluded that the certainty of punishment, that someone would be punished for a particular crime has a greater deterrence effect than the severity of the punishment itself.

I implore every Member in this Committee to follow the evidence and to not move forward with the tired and failed carceral solutions of tough on crime policies that have ravaged our communities.

It is no coincidence why this nation has the highest incarceration rate in the world, making up less than 5% of the world's population, but a quarter of its prison population.

And it's because we continue to pass policies that contradict evidence and lock people up for egregious amount of time rather than focusing our energy on the root causes of crime.

We have to honestly ask ourselves what the purpose is in increasing criminal sentences when there is so much evidence that it does nothing to deter crime and cost taxpayers roughly $130,000 to incarcerate an individual each year. Can this sort of public investment be spent elsewhere? Better be better spent elsewhere, honestly.

In conclusion, given the absence of a compelling reason for increasing these penalties, the fact that evidence indicates increasing these penalties does nothing to deter crime, and the state's history of prison overcrowding, we do not believe this Bill is necessary or prudent. For these reasons, we respectfully urge your no vote on SB571.

Thank you, thank you and you may have two minutes also.

I'm Reiko Bunsen, a Member of Essie Justice Group, a Pasadena local community organization of women with incarcerated loved ones fighting to end mass incarceration. Essie tracked how the Los Angeles wildfires directly impacted our membership and neighbors. The range of impact included loss of homes, loved ones and income. I lost my job in Santa Monica due to smoke damage.

I oppose SB571 because I have unique understanding on how system impacted communities experience criminalization and face unseen inequalities and climax crisis. Last year, SE Members canvassed over 1300 Altadenas, 65% of them opposed the increased criminalization in Prop 36 after the Eaton fire. SE Members made Wellness calls to 538 Altadena neighbors in 12 days and provided community resources.

So far we analyzed 137 of the 538 conversations we had and not a single person we spoke to was concerned with looting. Not one black homeowners and renters already being racially profiled and accused of looting while evacuating and returning to Altadena to remove what left of their belongings.

If this Bill passes, it will worsen racial profiling across California under the false appearance of safety. We need electance to invest in community solutions rooted in equality and care. That's why I'm testifying against this Bill. It's too broad in scope, invites racial profiling and waste resources that should instead go to urgent needs of people impacted by wildfires.

Over 100 women with incarcerated loved ones from SC were directly impacted by the wildfires and the Altadena residents we spoke to want speedy reconstruction, environmental protection and hazardous waste removal. We want electance to approve the government's infrastructure of emergency preparedness, especially around the emergency warnings, evacuation notification system and fire prevention measures.

Support us by preventing further criminalization in our communities. Wildfires to virus need care right now on behalf of SC Justice Group and our neighbors In Altadena, I urge a vote no on SB 571.

Thank you. All right. Well, thank you for your testimony this morning. So for additional people who wish to oppose the Bill, you may come up to the mic, state your name, the organization you represent, and that you oppose the Bill.

Natasha Minsker, Smart Justice California opposed.

Good morning. Glenn Backes for Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, in opposition. Jim Lindbergh, Friends Committee on Legislation of California, opposed.

Liz Bloom Gutierrez on behalf of the Los Angeles County Public Defenders Union, Local. 148 law defensa and initiate justice, opposed.

Margo George on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association, opposed. Thank you.

Good morning. Anna Camino with UC Irvine Underground Scholars, opposed.

Tyena Vargas with Initiate Justice Action in opposition.

Ellie with SC Justice Group and Vera in opposition.

Greetings. Nicole Butterfly Braton with the SE Justice Group, strongly opposed.

Good morning. Joanne Shear with Felony Murder Elimination Project. We oppose. We also oppose on behalf of. Thank you.

Daniela Dane, on behalf of All of us or None and Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, oppose.

Good morning, everyone. Natil Sharma with LSPC opposing. Ed Little on behalf of California's for Safety and justice and respectful opposition.

Right. That's all of the people opposing. We're going to bring it back up to the diocese. Do we have any comments, questions for the authors? Ms. Caballero,

thank you very much. Thank you for bringing this Bill forward. Let me tell you what my concerns are, and I'm going to support the Bill today. But I do have some concerns, some that are raised by the opposition.

One of the hallmarks of our legal system is the ability to give judges discretion to make decisions when a DA is overcharging or where the facts might suggest that the charge is filed too high. And so as I read the Bill, there are three parts of it.

The first part, which is to to make the crime punishable as a felony and remove the court's discretion. And I really think that it's important to have discretion because the Bill is very broad, because it extends way beyond the emergency area. And, and we want to make sure this is surgical.

If you're going to charge looting, which is worse than regular theft crime, in my mind, you know, looters are punks. They're coming in during an emergency and they're hurting people. And when everybody else has been kept out, they're the ones who come in. So I think taking away the court's discretion is not necessary, not a good thing.

The second thing it does is it expands the definition and makes it an Extended period of time, 180 days. It's a long time. But I'm not as concerned with 180 days because it takes a while to get in, clean it up and then to start rebuilding. And you don't want people coming in when you're rebuilding and taking things as well.

And then finally the last part of the Bill is it's makes it a crime for impersonating a first responder and that's really serious because you need to be able to trust the people that come in and that look like they're responding to an emergency situation, trying to maintain the peace and to make sure that people are safe, that everybody gets out.

You don't want someone coming in and, and having ulterior motives under that situation. So that's a part that I support as well. But like I said, the first part I have some concerns about. Just ask you to think about it. I know where you're trying to go with this.

I'm just not sure that I think I agree with the opposition that really what we want to do is utilize the existing crimes and not increase the penalties necessarily. So with that said, I am going to support your Bill today, but I do have some concerns about it.

All right, thank you. So I guess I'll throw in my comments. I have a little bit of experience with this, especially up in fire ravaged areas. And really the looting laws are not for the ashes, the burned down homes as much as, I mean they have had people go through and try to find, you know, jewelry and things like that.

But when we go, like when we have a fire up in Malibu and we evacuate an entire area, one of the things that we are trying to do is create safe spaces for us to retreat to. And so we deliberately ask people, leave your door unlocked. And we will try, you know, we'll secure the area.

And that's a safety thing for us. If we get overrun by a fire, the best thing for us to do is run into one side of the building and run out the other if we need to.

But it's just one of the things that we ask and we have to have a tremendous amount of trust from the public to be able to get them to comply with that. And so, you know, that creates an opportunity for, for well organized looters.

People make it sound like somebody just walking down the block and think, hey, you know what, I'm going to go looting. They don't pretty much. These are a lot of organized groups that look for these type of opportunities. That's why they Go out and acquire what they do.

If you leave your brush jacket unattended on an engine, they'll take it. And they accumulate these things over the years. So it's a very much very planned event. So this is what they can do to avoid either the lighter penalties or stiffer penalties. They cannot do it.

There's a concept don't involve yourself in that and you won't go to jail and we won't fill the jails. So maybe people should not engage in this.

And while there may be a deterrent for some people, I can tell you during the riots that we had in the 90s, I saw people looting that would never ever, never loot under a normal circumstance. But given the opportunity, they were doing that because everybody else was doing it. These type of efforts take.

Especially if you're going to have the increased penalties to help deter people. The it needs to be advertised out there so people know it because that will weed out some of the hardcore people from the people that would would never ever normally participate in something like that. So I will be supporting your bills.

I don't, you know, for me it's. I think the punishment fits the crime. Especially in these type of situations when people are the most vulnerable and they need their property preserved. And the worst thing we can have are people that have such a disregard for everyone else that they think that it's a free for all for them.

And I'm tired of protecting them. I really am. I think people are sick and tired of it. So anyway, we still do not have a quorum. So if you would like to close, I'll give you that opportunity. And also I would like to be added as co author if you're able to do that.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So on behalf of the 40 million people in California, I think everyone can see that we as legislators will be taking action and these people will be praying that it never happens again. But God forbid it does. But they know that we've taken action. And I urge an aye vote.

All right. And with that we'll be moving on to the next thing. As soon as the Chair comes up, pass the gavel back. There you go.

Okay, thank you. We'll proceed now to file item 3 in the Special Order SB368 by Senator Smallwood Cuevas. Good morning. I'll turn it over to you, Senator, to presenting your Bill.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I apologize. 368 is on consent.

Zero, that's right. We're on.

So we're on Senate Bill 423 that's correct. Thank you.

I also am have not had my cup of coffee this morning, so absolutely feel you on that. Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. I'd like to start by saying thank you to the Committee and the Committee consultants for all their hard work on this Bill. Our teams work closely on drafting those amendments and I have accepted them.

I am here today to present on SB423, which reduces the barriers formerly incarcerated firefighters face when seeking employment upon release. Specifically, this Bill would standardize training and credentialing, provide an incarceration to employment pathway, and track and report the success of these programs to the Legislature.

The good Senator from the Inland Empire and firefighter and I had the opportunity to visit Pine Grove where we got to see those young future firefighters in action as they were training and coming back and learning from what they got from the front lines of the La Palisades and Eaton fires.

And it was really incredible to see them in action. Los Angeles and its surrounding areas, as you all know, were devastated by the fires earlier this year. 100 mile per hour wind scattered flames across Southern California.

It became nearly impossible to predict when that fire would end and certainly after it, we don't know when the next one will begin. And our firefighters bravely risked their lives to put out fires to protect our communities as quickly as possible before the disaster could spread any further.

These were frontline men and women fighting these fires alongside our first responders in our communities. The forgotten labor force, many have called them, the incarcerated firefighters, bring so much to ensuring the safety of our communities.

Despite incarcerated populations having been critical in working alongside our local fire departments to fight wildfires and other natural emergencies, they are unable to receive any form of credit for their work experience once they are released from prison.

In other words, if they wish to pursue a career as a firefighter upon receiving their freedom, they must start the process from the very beginning without being able to count their previous experience fighting fires toward relevant credit.

SB423 would ensure that that work of our incarcerated labor force, the folks that we have to care for, that are in the care of the state, that this labor force is not forgotten.

And upon paying their debt to society, serving their time in prison and getting this invaluable on the job experience, this time has meaning and real value. I had the opportunity to visit Norway and toured their prison system.

We've modeled some of our California plan after that system and they have a motto there and it's one that, you know, I believe California is beginning to really commit to and I think this Bill helps to take us in that direction. And that motto is that courts are for punishing, prisons are for creating good neighbors.

Courts are for punishing, prisons are for creating good neighbors. Through our fire camps, we are creating good neighbors. And we need our neighbors to come out and to be able to contribute and to deliver on their commitment to us.

With me today to speak in support of this Bill and to answer technical questions is Lawrence Cox with the Legal Services for Prisoners and with Children. And also with me is Anthony Pedro, a system impacted witness and a CEO of Future Firefighters. I enthusiastically ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. Welcome. You have two minutes to address the Committee.

Honorable chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Lawrence. I'm the regional advocacy and organizing associate for Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, as well as for all of us or none. I2M system impacted. I spent 17 years of my life incarcerated behind walls.

And I made the conscious decision to make sure, like the Members said, that I became a good neighbor and I had to do that by rehabilitation. I want to start by saying California's wildfire calendar is growing longer and longer, more unforgiving for each passing year.

Drought, climate, volatility and forest fuel buildup have pushed the state into a near perpetual fire season. Yet despite this heightened threat, California has approximately 3,800 potential hiries on civil service wait lists while simultaneously having more than 3,100 fire line vacancies remaining unfilled statewide, even as CAL FIRE allocates $124 million annually in overtime expenditures.

I want to repeat it, but I won't. In counties like Shasta, Siskiyou, Lassen and Trinity, where wildfire frequency is higher and local recruitment pools are sparse, engines sit idle, fully staffed on paper, but unmanned in practice.

In San Bernardino and Riverside counties, vacancy rates in certain units exceed 35% and critical hand crew shortages persist across Region 5 despite active eligibility lists. While these vacancies widen, approximately 3,100 incarcerated firefighters continue to respond to some of the state's most dangerous emergencies.

Stationed across 34 conservation camps and prison firehouses, these individuals distribute and are deployed in burning canyons and rugged terrain with the same equipment, under the same threat, with the same courage as any other firefighter. The difference lies not in their performance, but in what follows. Their bravery earns them the guarantee of stability or career upon release.

SB423, enhancing workforce development for Incarcerated Firefighters act seeks to rebalance this discrepancy. It doesn't simply acknowledge their labor, it transforms it into an opportunity. The Bill provides scalable evidence based infrastructure to convert frontline services into a bridge to employment, education and reintegration. It is not a finished product, but it is a foundation.

And when executed with accountability and vision, it will serve public safety, reduce recidivism and and protects taxpayer investments. Thank you very much.

You have two minutes as well.

Yeah. My name is Anthony Pedro. I'm the founder and CEO of Future Fire Academy. We've been established since 2021 and have helped over hundreds of folks get in the fire service who are just as impacted and from disadvantaged communities. We're sponsored by CAL FIRE. We stand with CAL FIRE. Future Fire Academy does.

And that's because they hire folks that come through our academy as well as the U.S. forest Service private departments as well. So we have a partnership with CDCR where we teach folks who are incarcerated people at the FCRP MCRP program similar to what they have on overseas.

You know, like programs that help our neighbors be fully qualified is that's what we kind of provide already right now, currently. So what through this Bill, you know, that's going to help us be able to gain access to helping more folks in fire camp and in the institutional firehouse.

So every prison has a firehouse program and so we just want to be able to provide that. I came from a firehouse program myself and I was able to be qualified when I came home. And that's what helped my transition to become professional in the fire service.

I worked with CAL FIRE and also with a local government Department. I have my license EMT right here in our state and nationally recognized.

So I just want to help other folks like us who come from this background to be able to get that access and to be able to help them as well, you know, and with this Bill will also help us make them like apprenticeships. And that's the angle where our Governor is trying to go with more apprenticeship programs.

And we'll be a registered program under the apprenticeship program next year. So that's going to be able to help Fund these things. We obtain grants to help Fund these things and this Bill will help continue that support for folks like myself from prison fire camp and firehouse and institutional MCRP FCRPs.

Yeah, yeah. Great. Thank you very much. I will take any other witnesses in support of SB423. Please hit your name, affiliation and position for the record.

Natasha Minskir, Smart Justice California in support.

Ed Little on behalf of California for Safety and Justice and strong support.

Alyssa Moore. All of us or None. Oakland Headquarters.

Caitlin Andersen on behalf of Debt Free Justice California in support.

Jim Lindbergh Friends Committee on Legislation of California in support.

Jess Temple on behalf of Rubicon programs and strong support. Thank you.

Barbara Chavez on behalf of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights and support.

Eugene Day with the Crop Organization. Strong support.

Margo George on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association and strong support. Thank you.

Joanne Scheer on behalf of Felony Murder Elimination Project and strong support. Thank you.

Anna Camino with UC Irvine Underground Scholars in support.

Aubrey Rodriguez with ACLU California Action and proud support.

Taina Vargas with Initiate Justice Action and support.

Minor Mendez, UCLA Bruin Underground Scholars in strong support.

Glenn Bacchus or Prosecutors Alliance Action in. Support.

Daniela Dane on behalf of All of Us or None and Legal Services for Prisoners with Children and strong support.

Sally Ching with the alliance for Boys and Men of Color in strong support.

Nateel Sharma with Legal Service for Prisoners with Children Strong support.

Liz Bloom Gutierrez on behalf of Law Defense and Initiate justice in support Yanelli Rose with Silicon Valley Debug in support Ellie Vireta with SE Justice Group and Vera California Strong.

Support Reiko Bunton SC Justice Group and. Strong support. Greetings Nicole Butterfly Bratton with the SC Justice Group and reimagining Child Safety and Legal Services for Prisoners with Children and positive progressive support.

Thank you all very much for being here today. Are there any other witnesses in support of SB423? Okay, if not, we'll take any principal witnesses in opposition to Senate Bill 423 and then we'll take me too statements after hi, Good morning.

Thank you Mr. Chair and Members. Megan Subers on behalf of the California Professional Firefighters. CPF has an opposed unless amended position on the Bill in print and we're reviewing the amendments that we received last night.

I want to thank the Committee, the author and the staff for the time spent talking to us about the Bill and our concerns. We do appreciate the proposed removal of the bonus point system and the Reinvestment Fund. We're not clear what the requirements of the new firefighter hiring pipeline are for departments.

The state has allocated tens of millions of dollars to the Ventura Training center which is an 18 month program that includes a 12 month placement on a hand crew. So we aren't sure quite clear how this existing pipeline is different from what is proposed in the Bill.

Additionally, the current statewide apprenticeship program that exists for firefighters will likely conflict with the provision of this Bill that require the Division of Apprenticeship standards to establish a separate apprenticeship program while in custody. The California Firefighter Joint Apprenticeship Committee is a Joint Labor Management Committee.

The State Fire Marshal is the employer sponsor and the union is the employee sponsor. The way apprenticeship works is that the credits are only awarded for time spent in the occupation. They do not recognize training received from other sources that count towards time in the apprenticeship.

We are also hoping we can continue dialogue about our alternative approach outlined in our letter, which would provide a new pathway to a job as an Los Angeles County firefighter with the Los Angeles County Fire Department.

The proposal is to create a pilot in Los Angeles County where the state provides funding to hire formerly incarcerated to fill new county and crew positions. Again, we appreciate the Committee's engagement. We do still have questions and concerns and hope they can be resolved before the next Committee. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Are there any other Members of the public in opposition to SB423 who would like to state your position on the record? Please come forward to the microphone. Okay. Seeing none. Thank you to all witnesses for being here today.

If there are any questions, we'll direct them to the appropriate witness and I'll bring it back to the Committee for discussion. Before I recognize my colleagues on the Committee, I just want to follow up on something that the opposition witness has stated in conversation with the author. There are several amendments that the author has agreed to make.

They will be made not today, but. But in the second Committee when this goes to Senate Natural Resources.

That's right. Mr. Chair, you know the timing of our hearings. There wasn't enough time to present those amendments, but we will be making them in the next Committee.

And I really appreciate your willingness to work with myself and Committee staff and the various different parties to try to find a way to make amendments. I think respond to some of the concerns of opposition. Just to summarize what those amendments are so everyone is aware.

Striking the references to the reinvestment Fund, striking the language in section 2776A around the issuance of preference bonus points, and then 2776B, striking the language around offering participating departments offering interview opportunities and conditional job offers. The prior language.

Local fire departments may participate in the program through the memorandum understanding through Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Department of Forestry. That would still remain. So I just want everyone to have an understanding of what the amendments are that the author has agreed to make in the second Committee.

And with that, I'll recognize my colleagues if there are any questions or comments. Senator Sierrata.

So this is a difficult subject. On one hand for me, I have great respect for the work that CDCR and CAL FIRE does and even Los Angeles County Fire, who I was with our incarcerated crews, and we had both men and women incarcerated crews and the work that they do out there on the fire line to assist in fighting some of the big wildfires that we've had is always appreciated.

And I always let them know that when I was on those fires, one of the things that the idea of the program is that you're not sitting around doing nothing or sitting around doing menial tasks for people that have a higher level of trust with the guards and want to improve themselves, and they're improving themselves by working in, in a group and learning how to be a team Member and all of those things.

But when you get what I'd like to see is people prepared to go out and compete for the jobs because it's going to be up to each agency whether or not they want to hire somebody who's been previously incarcerated. For people who have had their records expunged might be easier.

But you're going to sit there in an interview and they're going to ask, they're going to ask a question. And so that makes it a little more difficult. You know, the fire service, police agencies, doctors, nurses, they all have a.

Those are all professions that are competitive, number one, but all have a high degree of the people need to trust. And that's, you know, hopefully you can, you can build that back in when, you know, an incarcerated person can build that in when they get back out.

So I'm glad you took some, some of the amendments that you took. It's still not supportable for me. I think there's a lot of work that needs to be done with the fire service to, you know, if this is going to be explored. But, you know, right now, being on a camp crew is not a career.

That's usually where our young people start. And if there's no pathway after that, then that's, you know, that's going to be difficult. But there are other pathways that can be pursued with the knowledge and skills that somebody would get in the environment that we have now.

And you can start a business, you can go out and help people do brush clearance and things like that. We have lots and lots of brush clearance that needs to be done. And those are jobs that people can create for themselves and others. You can be a business owner and still use those skills.

So I am not prepared to go down this path where we're trying to, you know, force agencies to, you know, give preferences and things like that. When we have. I know, I know that's one of your amendments was that we took that out for now.

But I've seen this come back over and over and, you know, that's not something that I'm willing to take a chance on later on either is the preference thing. We give preferences to bonus points when people are applying for that job to our military people. That's it. That's who gets those preferences because they already.

They've been serving our nation and while they're away, they're coming back and now it's time for them to get involved in a job. So that's the issues I have is I don't think the fire service is ready to move off of not hiring.

And some have done it Already some have hired incarcerated individuals based on what it is that they're incarcerated for and they're a little open minded about that.

But I don't think the Legislature, based on fires in, that we've recently had, is, should be in a position right now to override the job that those fire agencies are trying to do out there. So I'm not going to, with all.

With all due respect, I appreciate that point and I'm sorry, Chair, are we responding or. . Oh, I wasn't sure if you were asking a question.

Let me just make sure that Senator Seyrto has completed his comments. I thought, I wasn't sure. I thought, I wasn't sure if he was. I think he was just stating his position. But I will give you an opportunity.

No, I appreciate that and I, and, and, and that's what this forum is for. And you know, there are a lot of folks who've been charged with felonies who hold very high positions, the highest in the land. Even. So I am really, you know, that analogy concerns me deeply. But I appreciate that position.

And if not now, when? And if not us, then who? And I absolutely respect the firefighters. I believe in labor.

I stand with labor 100% because they ensure that families are sustained, that they are able to thrive in this economy and they ensure that we are able to sustain this state through their wages and working conditions and property taxes and income taxes and sales tax. Unions help to ensure a thriving working class.

You know, but we also know that not every community has the same starting point. Not every community has access to a level playing field. And we know some industries because of the past and institutional barriers of racism and sexism and exclusion. We do have to look at ways to address those issues and create a pathway.

We had 25,000 formerly incarcerated people coming back to Los Angeles County a month in the early 2000s. A month, 70% of the jobs they were locked out of.

If we don't figure out how to address this, and we see this happening in many sectors, if we don't figure out how we are going to fix this problem and not keep having. Like you said, we are not ready. We're not ready.

If we don't figure out how we deal with this problem, we are going to continue to invest more to imprison people than we are to educate them. We're going to continue to make these ridiculous contortions around these budgets that we can't make ends meet because so many people are in the safety net. I'm sorry to get on it. So I just want to let.

And, Senator, I want to make sure we can continue.

I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Let me close.

Well, let me make sure that Senator Caballero is an opportunity. Questions or comments?

I'm so No problem. You're very passionate about this issue, and I appreciate the passion, and I wanted to give you an opportunity to respond. So, Senator Caballo,

I appreciate that. I just wasn't sure if you were closing and before I had a chance to just make a. I really appreciate what you're working on here. This is not an easy task. Anytime that you're creating an opportunity to go from being an inmate working on a crew to then be working a pathway towards a career is going to be tough. So my only comment is I support what you're trying to do here.

I appreciate you taking the amendments and want to make sure that you work with the firefighters Association, California Professional Firefighters, so that because we're not just dealing with the state institution, we're also dealing with local government. And the more that. What's great about the fire service is there's a real camaraderie that's created.

And I want to second what my colleague said. It's all about teamwork. It's about working for the good of the community. And many of the individuals that come out of a facility are looking for that. They're looking to give back. They're looking to participate in the community.

And so we need to do it in a way that doesn't step on the toes of the California Professional Firefighters, but also creates an opportunity for them to become one. So appreciate it. I'll support your Bill today when we get a quorum.

Thank you. And I'm recommending an aye as amended. And thank you very much, Senator, for your work on bringing this important Bill forward and your work with the Committee as well. And I'll turn it back over to you to close.

Well, I just want to say I absolutely appreciate all of the comments, and particularly yours, Senator Caballero, and absolutely will work with the firefighters on this, because this is the future of the work workforce.

And we know that it's very important, given climate change, given the fact that urban cities are burning and our rural communities are burning, that we needed 26,000 firefighters to adequately deal with the Los Angeles fires. This is an incredible opportunity.

We are already investing as a state in these men and women, and what we need to do is give them a chance. And I hope that we will continue to invest in our wildfire funding, so we create more hand. I always mispronounce that. Hand crews. I would say hand crews. Hand workers. Hand crews.

To be able to continue to build those skills and to one day have a fire chief say, come join me in my ranks. That's what we're looking for. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you so very much. We have not yet established a quorum, but at the appropriate time, we're entertaining a motion on the Bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you so much. Okay, our last item on our special order of business is file item 5, Senate Bill 245 by Senator Reyes.

Senator Reyes has asked me to present on her behalf, so I'm going to turn the gavel back over to our Vice Chair.

All right, as stated, this will be SB 245. Senator Reyes Bill and Chair is presenting. Go ahead.

Well, thank you, Mr. Vice Chair and Committee Members, for the opportunity to present Senate Bill 245 on behalf of Senator Reyes. SB 245 would streamline the expungement process for individuals who have successfully participated in the California Conservation Camp program and in institutional firehouse programs and in county incarcerated individual hand crew programs.

In 2020, the Governor signed AB 2147, which was authored by Assemblymember, now Senator Reyes, which allows formally incarcerated fire crews to receive an expungement so they are able to pursue a career in firefighting.

Incarcerated fire crew Members have risked their lives, as we just discussed, protecting our communities most recently during the Los Angeles fires, but continue to face significant challenges in obtaining expungements under AB 2147. Upon reentry, many face delays in certification from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Many often lack legal support.

They get stuck in the bureaucratic process and encounter licensing restrictions despite meeting eligibility under Assembly Bill 2147. Senate Bill 245 removes these barriers by automating certification upon program completion, shifting the responsibility of initiating expungements to the Department of Justice, and improving coordination between CDCR, DOJ and the courts.

These individuals have fought for themselves and for California residents to earn these expungements under state law. It's time that we ensure that these individuals get the second chance that they've earned. And we have today. Robert Wine from the Anti Recidivism Coalition, please come forward, sir.

And Ed Little from California for Safety and Justice can also please join us here at the table who are going to speak in support of the Bill. I'll turn it back over to you, Mr. Chairman.

All right. Thank you for your appearance today. You guys are speaking in favor of the Bill. You have two minutes each.

The mic's not on. No, it has to turn red.

Thank you so much. Good morning, Chair, members of the Committee, public and guest. My name is Robert Wynne. I was sentenced to 10 years in prison in 2011 and served seven and a half of those years. Two and a half years at Chuckwalla Valley State Prison Fire Department serving and protecting Chuckwalla and Ironwood State Prisons and the community of Blythe. My debt to society was fully paid and I was released on August 13th of 2018.

The more important information I would like to share is who I am today. I've been happily married for the past five years. My wife and I have a beautiful family with three young children, four years old, two years old and nine months old.

I've been employed by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, CAL FIRE, since May of 2019. I am now a Fire Captain at CAL FIRE Training Center, instructing the future of our fire department. The journey in my personal professional life from the data release has been everything but easy.

I only share this to push out all doubt of credibility coming from me today. The topic of expungement is what I am here to speak on today. However, I must say that there are many other conversations that need to be had. I have made it to where I am without an expungement.

The process is daunting and time consuming for someone trying to rebuild their entire life from the ground. I started the process and quickly found out that I had to commit a significant amount of time and navigate complex law procedures. I still do not have my record expunged.

Even with all I have accomplished and overcome, I still have my record hanging over my head. The fire service has changed my life along with many others like me. Having an expungement would elevate the opportunity that would be available to those who have completed the the Institutional Firehouse Fire Camp Program.

If my record were to be expunged, it would open up opportunities to compete with city and county fire department jobs. I believe in transparency and vulnerability. I want to be able to express my, to my young children that always doing the right thing pays off in the end.

I want to use my life story as an educational component for helping my children navigate this life. Having an expungement, working towards a governor's pardon will show that that through hard work, insight, reflection, and service to the public and always doing the right thing is more rewarding than not. I want to be able to finish this chapter of my life. All of you could help be a part of that. Why SB 245 matters. It matters because people matter.

This bill would automate certification for fire camp participants, shift the expungement filing from us to DOJ and ensure we're not blocked from jobs like EMT and/or paramedic firefighters because of past convictions. In closing, SB 245 is about believing in CDCR and the programs that are in place to rehabilitate individuals who have served their debt to society.

After all, the state government funds state prisons and the programs that are run by them. If the state funds it, the state should believe enough in it to initiate the process at the DOJ level. This will give individuals with similar backgrounds as me an opportunity to break the cycle.

I strongly urge you to vote yes on SB 245. Please feel free to ask any follow up questions or reach out to me for a closed session. Thank you.

Thank you and thank you for your testimony today. Next up.

Good morning, Chair and members. My name is Ed Little and I am a Government Affairs Manager with Californians for Safety and Justice and proud cosponsor of SB 245. The devastation wildfires have caused in California is well known to those who call California home.

It is also well known to those who live outside our state, but more importantly to those people who reside in the communities directly impacted by the wildfires, the scars remain. Over the past several years, California wildfires have caused widespread devastation, impacting lives, property, and environment.

The fires have led to loss of life, the displacement of individuals, families, and wildlife, and the destruction of homes and businesses, with some events potentially causing billions of dollars in damages. What has not been widely known until recently is the bravery and commitment of incarcerated people who volunteer to work to protect our homes and communities.

California has relied on incarcerated firefighters since 1915. Thousands of those courageous individuals have been trained to fight alongside professional firefighters all across the state. A TIME investigation found that incarcerated firefighters are at higher risk of serious injuries.

They're also more than four times as likely to get cuts, bruises, and broken bones compared to professional firefighters working the same fires, the report found. They are also more than eight times as likely to face injuries from inhaling smoke, ash, and other debris compared with those firefighters, the report said.

And yes, there have those who have given their lives in the course of this work. In 2020, the California Legislature took a critical step forward by passing 2147, which allows people to successfully complete a fire camp, institutional firehouse or county incarcerated hand crew programs to petition to expunge their records, provided that they meet certain criteria.

While AB 2147, a critical foundation, eligible applicants have experienced operational challenges receiving their expungement. This bill would simply remove the barriers and streamline the process for individuals who successfully completed fire camp from accessing the relief that they have earned. For these reasons, we've respectfully asked for your aye vote on SB 245. Thank you.

Thank you very much for your testimony. We're going to take a short moment here to establish a quorum.

[ROLL CALL]

Thank you. We have a quorum established, so that helps us along here. All right. At this time, we're going to take other people in support of this measure to come to the mic. State your name, the organization you represent, and your support for it.

Margo George, on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association, in support. Thank you.

Taina Vargas with Initiate Justice Action cosponsor and proud support.

Esteban Nunez with the Anti Recidivism Coalition, a proud cosponsor in support. Thank you.

Michael Mendoza with Latino justice in proud support.

Tyrique Shipp with the Anti Recidivism Coalition, proud cosponsor in support.

Chris Larson with the Anti Recidivism Coalition, proud cosponsor in strong support.

Jess Temple on behalf of Rubicon Programs in support. Thank you.

Glenn Backes for Prosecutors Alliance Action in support.

Isabella Solomon with the Anti Recidivism Coalition cosponsor in proud support.

Joanne Scheer on behalf of Felony Murder Elimination Project in strong support.

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

Liz Bloom Gutierrez on behalf of Initiate Justice in support.

Good morning, Emily, on behalf of Californians United for Responsible Budget, in strong support.

Ana Camino with UC Irvine Underground Scholars in support. Thank you.

Aubrey Rodriguez with ACLU California Action in strong support.

J Vasquez on behalf of Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice. Strong support

Jeronimo Aguilar on behalf of Legal Services for Prisoners with Children and All of Us or None in support. Thank you.

Ellie Virrueta with Essie Justice Group i strong support.

Nicole Butterfly Braton in strong support with the Essie Justice Group and graduate of ARC, Anti Recidivism Coalition.

Reiko Bunsen with Essie Justice Group in strong support.

Claudia Gonzalez, Vera California, in strong support.

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

Nateel Sharma with LSPC, All of Us or None, strong support.

James King on behalf of Smart Justice California in strong support.

At this time we'll take opposition. Is there any opposition witnesses? There are primary opposition witnesses. Is there anybody in opposition to it would just like to come up and state their opposition. If there are not, we will bring it back to the dais. Any comments, questions? Senator Caballero.

I know this isn't your bill, but I just wanted to say that I think it makes a lot of sense. Part of the challenge is trying to get through the legal system when you get out. It's just impossible.

So I think the ability to be able to start the paperwork, have someone help you through it and get it done is really important. So thank you for your testimony here today. It's very moving and glad to see you being so successful because it can be done.

Anything we can do to help that along is going to be good.

Senator Gonzalez.

I will move the Bill.

Thank you. Motion.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And same building off of Senator Caballero. Both of you did such a great job explaining why we need this bill. I want to thank Senator Reyes as well for bringing this, and Senator Arreguin, our chair, for presenting this really critical bill.

My home county is LA County, so this is even more special because I know the need and I've seen it for myself. I saw the incredible fire crew out there, and it just really, like, touched me to be able to see these really brave, mostly men, men of color, that were doing the work that so many people would not be able to do.

So that I really want to say thank you and again to Senator Reyes for bringing this forward. Happy to support.

All right, with that, if there's no other comments, you may close.

I really just want to thank our witnesses for being here today. And I think you're an example of why this bill is so important and then giving people a second chance. And that's what this really, this bill really is about.

It's about streamlining the process so people can take advantage of the opportunity under state law to expunge their records and to have successful careers in the fire service. With that I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Okay. Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I'm sorry. Secretary, you can call the roll.

[ROLL CALL]

Okay, thank you. So that completes our special order business before we proceed to our regular file. Since we have established a quorum, let's go back and entertain motions on the bills. So, first file in one was Senate Bill 36 by Senator Umberg. I am recommending an eye on that Bill I obtain a motion on Senate Bill 36 moved by Caballero, and that is do pass to Appropriations. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Perez, Wiener. Okay, we'll keep that Bill on call. Thank yous. File item 2 is Senate Bill 571 by Archuleta and Araguin. I am recommending an eye on that Bill, and I'll just need a motion on that Bill moved by Gonzalez. And that is the motion is do pass to Appropriations. Senate Appropriations Committee. Thank you. So with that, if the Committee assistant call the roll.

[Roll Call]

File item four is Senate Bill 423 by Senator Smallwood Cuevas. I am recommending that we approve that out of Committee today as amended.

No amends taken in this Committee.

Oh, yes, the amendments will be made in the second Committee of Natural Resources, but the author did agree to amendments working in consultation with opposition and with the supporters. So I entertain a motion on SB423 moved by Senator Gonzalez, and that motion is do pass to the Natural Resources Committee. And once again, the amendments will be made in Natural resources.

[Roll Call]

Okay, we'll keep that Bill in call as well. Let's go to consent. The consent calendar consists of file item 3, SBS 368 by Senator Small Cuevas, Price gouging. And can I do a motion on the regular file order consent items, or should that be a separate motion?

It's just a consent.

Okay, so we'll do one omnibus motion on the consent items in both the special order business and the regular file order. So once again, the consent consists of item 3, SB3, 368. File item 9, SB485 by Reyes. File item 10, SB349 by Archuleta, and that is the consent calendar. Entertain a motion on the consent calendar. Okay, Moved by Senator Caballero on consent. And please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay, we'll keep that on call as well. So we'll now proceed to our regular file order and our first Bill is SB11 by assemblymember. By Senator Ashby. And we have several Ashby bills that are on the regular file order as well. So. Welcome, Senator.

And if you have any witnesses, you can please come forward as well.

We do. I have a quick question for you before my witness sits down. Yes, I think I am. One of my witnesses for SB11 is in another Committee.

Okay.

So would it be all right if we start with SB319?

And I think if, If. If my witness gets done in time with Senator McNerney, then maybe we can go to SB11. Second.

Absolutely.

Okay.

Thank you so much.

Okay, so we'll proceed now to file item 7, SB319.

Yeah, that's all right. With.

And I'll turn over to you, Senator. Present.

Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. I am here to present SB319. This is a Public Safety Transparency Act. I'd like to begin by accepting the Committee's amendments. Thank you to the chair and his team for your help in improving the Bill.

SB 319 requires the superior courts, the Department of Justice, and counties to collect and report key data to to ensure the outcomes of Proposition 36. In other words, we want to keep the goals met by the people who voted for Prop 36 in the State of California.

In November, California voters overwhelmingly passed Prop 36, and the Bill reclassifies certain misdemeanors as felonies, as well as requiring courts to provide additional mental health and drug treatment programs.

We know that this will be an expensive Proposition to put in play, and the change is expected to significantly increase the number of individuals with behavioral health conditions who will need help in the criminal justice system. The Bill also eliminated one source of funding. So we're going to have to be creative about full implementation.

To be clear, this Bill assumes full implementation, but currently, California lacks a framework to assess the effectiveness of public safety dollars when they are spent. The gap in data makes it difficult to determine how much is being spent and how effective those dollars truly are.

SB319 will close that gap by forcing collection of vital information at both the local and state levels. Voters have given California a clear mandate on Prop 36. They want it implemented. SB319. Make sure that the transparency is in place, that Prop 36 is successful, and that if it's not, we know right away.

I think we've all learned, as we've addressed homelessness over the last few years, that accountability on major expenditures is a critical component to what we do here.

I am asking for an aye vote on this transparency Bill that will help us implement Prop 36 and more importantly, keep the promise to Californians and provide all of the data necessary to know whether or not the dollars are actually serving the purpose that we intend for them to serve. With me Today I have two witnesses,

Mr. Chair. One is Tara Gimbo Eastman. She's the Director of Government affairs for the Steinberg Institute and Tanish Hollins, the Executive Director of Californians for Safety and Justice.

Welcome. Good morning and you may begin and whoever would like to start, you have two minutes.

Good morning. Chair and Members, Tara Gambo Eastman with the Steinberg Institute. We're an independent, nonprofit Public Policy Institute dedicated to breaking the cycle of incarceration, homelessness and hospitalization for Californians with mental illness and substance use disorders. We were founded by former Assemblymember, Senate Pro Tem and Mayor of Sacramento Darrell Steinberg.

I'm happy to be here as one of the proud co sponsors of SB319. In 2004, our founder authored a different groundbreaking Proposition, Proposition 63, also known as the Mental Health Services act, which dedicated billions of dollars annually to community mental health services.

By far the greatest failure of the Mental Health Services act was the failure to collect and report meaningful spending and outcomes data. This lack of information stunted system improvements and undermined our ability to tell the success stories of the Proposition.

Last year, in addition to Proposition 36, voters also passed Proposition 1, which updated the Mental Health Services Act. One of the reasons our founder and the Steinberg Institute so enthusiastically endorsed Proposition One was because it corrected the mistake of not collecting proper outcomes and spending data. SB 319 creates the missing outcomes framework for Proposition 36.

Notably, SB 319 builds upon Proposition 1 and aligns the spending data between the two initiatives to ensure integrated local data that will allow state and local governments to serve the overlapping population of individuals with mental illness and substance use disorders who are justice involved.

No public policy can be successful if we don't have the opportunity to improve upon it based on accurate and reliable data to ensure the effective implementation of Prop 36. I respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Here we are. Good morning to the Chair and Members. My name is Tinisch Hollins. I'm the Executive Director of Californians for Safety and Justice, and I'm also here today as a proud co sponsor of the Public Safety Transparency Act. SB319.

Californians for Safety and Justice is a nonprofit organization that is working with Californians from all walks of life to replace prison and justice system wasteful spending with common sense solutions that actually create safe neighborhoods and save public dollars.

Our goal is to address the root causes of crime and violence, to scale up the appropriate responses, for accountability that does not continue to harm our communities, and to protect dollars so that we can continue building at the community level.

SP319, the public safety Transparency act is a measured approach to aid in the implementation of Proposition 36 by providing a pathway to vital data collection and transparency. Last November, California voters approved Prop 36, the Homelessness, Drug Addiction and Theft Reduction Act.

The initiative established a new class of crimes, treatment, mandated felonies and increased penalties for a number of existing crimes. Proposition 36 did not, however, provide an implementation plan or a funding strategy. This responsibility has fallen on the counties and the Legislature.

SB319 will give the state the vital tools it needs to make sure that Proposition 36 works as voters intended it to. Data is the necessary foundation for informed and effective policymaking. We need to more clearly understand what is working and address the underlying issues that created this crisis.

SB319 is the first step towards robust statewide drug and mental health treatment services that respond to the needs of this moment. This Bill provides for the necessary data to be collected and published to further inform how the state can best invest in effective and cost conscious public safety solutions.

We urge you to support this vital piece of legislation. Our state's public safety budget and moral obligation to its most vulnerable citizens depends on it for those above reasons. California's for Safety and Justice is a proud co sponsor of SB319 and we strongly urge your aye vote on this measure.

Thank you. Thank you so very much. We'll not take any other witnesses in support of Senate Bill 319. If you can please come to the microphone and state your name, affiliation and position for the record.

Madison Whittemore on behalf of Cal Voices and NAMI Contra Costa in support.

On behalf of your California, a nationally recognized research organization and strong support.

Barbara Chavez on behalf of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights and support

Joanne Scheer on behalf of Felony Murder Elimination Project in strong support. Thank you.

Sarah Williams on behalf of Rubicon Programs in support.

Liz Bloom Gutierrez on behalf of La Defensa and Initiate justice in support.

James King on behalf of Smart Justice California strong support.

Glenn Backes for Drug Policy Alliance and Prosecutors Action in support.

Aubrey Rodriguez with ACLU California Action in support. Marshall Aller re entry attorney Strong support.

Okay, thank you all for joining us today. We'll now take any principal witnesses in opposition to SB319. Are there any Witnesses in opposition or is there anyone who would like to express opposition? SB319 okay. Seeing none.

I'll bring it back to the Committee for discussion and just want to summarize the Committee amendments that the author has worked with Committee staff to agree to the Committee amendments, make minor amendments to correct typos, make a technical change to the structure of the data collection requirements in subdivision C of the Bill and clarify the timelines for data collection and publication.

And really want to thank you for bringing this forward. I think it's absolutely critical that we collect accurate and ongoing data around the impact of Prop 36.

I think that's one of the challenges that we face right now in implementing the measure is we just don't have a full understanding of the full costs associated with at the state and county level in terms of how to implement this Proposition. Once again, not a single dollar was appropriated when the Proposition in the actual Proposition itself.

So it's going to be really critical to understand the impact of this law and how it's, how it's actually being implemented in counties across California. So I really appreciate you bringing this forward and I'll ask my colleagues if there are any questions. Senator Gonzales.

Yeah, I just want to thank the author for bringing this forward as well as the witnesses who spoke so eloquently on the need for this Bill. And I would absolutely agree. I think this should have probably been part of our safer California package because I think that the accountability is what folks want.

Then we're going to give that to them and it's going to be transparent. It's good governance. And we need to ensure that the public knows that this is being implemented as been needed by and wanted by voters. And so we're going to make sure that it's done.

And it's going to be very clear for folks what was spent, what was unspent, who is doing what, the responsibility, the court activities, the probation, the sheriffs, every single player will have accountability, which is the key point here. So with that, thank you. And I would love to be added as a co author at certain point. Thank you.

Love to have you, Senator Gonzalez.

Thank you. Any other questions or comments from Members of the Committee? Okay. I am recommending an aye as amended and also love to be a co author as well.

Love to add you.

Okay. And I'll turn it back over to Senator Ashby to close.

Thank you very much. I appreciate everyone's comments. Appreciate the great sponsors. Fun for me to get to do one with former pro tem and Mayor Steinberg. Good Friend of mine. And thank you all very much for your comments. I respectfully request an aye vote.

Thank you very much. So I'm seeing a motion moved by Gonzalez as amended and that the motion is dp pass as amended to the Committee on Appropriations. If you can please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay, we'll keep that bell on call. Thank you. And Senator Ashby, which Bill would you like to.

I think we're ready for SB11, the artificial intelligence Bill.

Okay, we'll proceed now to file item 6, SB11.

Chair, you'd like me to proceed and good morning.

Yes. Senator Ashby, you may now present in the bill.

Great. Thank you so much. Thanks for having us here as my witnesses. Take a seat. We're here to present SB11. This is an Artificial Intelligence Abuse Protection act, which I hope to not have to say too many more times. That's quite a tongue twister.

This establishes a legal framework for regulating artificial intelligence, voice, image and video cloning technology. The rise of artificial intelligence presents an opportunity. No doubt. The innovation is incredible for various industries. Many good things have come from the technology and the powerful tools that are advanced by AI.

However, there is a lack of comprehensive legal framework for addressing deep fakes and non consensual images and videos that are troubling to say the least. This leaves individuals vulnerable for various forms of exploitation, identity theft, scams, misinformation and misrepresentation of their character. Unfortunately, the technology is disproportionately negatively impacting women and girls.

Though not exclusively, the creation of sexually explicit photos and videos are prolific on social media and often hurt women and very often hurt women who are famous. For example, AI generated images created of Taylor Swift gained over 45 million views on social media in less than a day. A similar instance occurred to singer songwriter Billie Eilish.

And there are very few remedies for which they can seek. Of deep fake videos found on the Internet, over 95% are sexually exploited and feature women who did not consent to their creation. While some deep fakes target public figures, easily accessible AI software allows users to create non consensual content of anyone.

SB11 addresses the misuse of AI technology by establishing guardrails. And here are those guardrails. Number one, it clarifies the existing definition of likeness to include AI content requires consumer warnings on AI software that can lead a buyer to this situation.

Establishes violations for the misuse of AI technology, which astonishingly have not yet been established and it prevents AI generated evidence tampering in the courts. The bill provides a balanced approach to AI regulation while providing remedies for victims of AI abuse. I respectfully ask for your Aye vote and have with me two key witnesses today.

I have Rob Eleveld, which is the founder and Chairman of Transparency Coalition, and Javier Saini, who's the founder and President of the National AI Youth Council.

Good morning. You have two minutes to present to the Committee. And if you'd like to start, the mic is on you. Just press the button there and if it's red, you're good to go.

Can you hear me? Yes, we can.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you all. My name is Rob Elivald. I have 25 years of tech experience. I've been a CEO of four small and medium sized businesses in tech and I am a co founder of Transparency Coalition and here representing Transparency Coalition today we're a nonprofit supporting common sense AI guardrails to protect our children and citizens.

And I am advocating strongly in favor of SB 11, the AI Abuse Protection Act. In my time in tech and then watching AI evolve, deepfakes have quickly become one of the most tangible and widespread harms of these early renditions of AI artificial intelligence.

Even in 2020, over 100,000 AI generated images of women were created and an alarming number of AI generated pornographic videos. And you can imagine if that's 2020, just how exponentially and it's grown since then. These deep fakes can be generated by literally anyone with no real knowledge needed.

Girls here in high school, girls here in California and across the country are being scarred by in their youth by fake nudes and fake pornographic videos without their consent. In fact, here in California, all citizens are vulnerable to various forms of exploitation, identity theft, scams and misrepresentation of character due to deep fakes.

Today, any of those victims have no legal recourse and there are no penalties or accountability. To discourage these deepfake abuses, SB11 would require warnings that creating these deepfakes without permission is a crime and that perpetrating these crimes could result in significant civil or criminal penalties. This technology also affects courtroom evidence.

Importantly, SB11 directs judicial counsel to develop methods to determine whether evidence has been tampered with by AI. In closing, by creating legal remedies and directing the courts to process these cases, we can make a positive impact and deter bad actors from creating non consensual artificial intelligence replicas. I respectfully ask the Committee for a Yes vote on SB11.

Thank you very much. Hi good Morning. Good morning. My name is Javier Saini and I'm a junior at Dublin High School, as well as the founder and President of the National AI Youth Council, one of the nation's largest youth led organizations fostering digital equity and promoting safe AI regulation.

I'm here to express my strong support for SB11 because I firmly believe that addressing the misuse of artificial intelligence technologies, particularly digital replicas, is a critical step towards safeguarding both personal identity and integrity in our society. Artificial intelligence is rapidly shaping our future, and with it comes an alarming rise in deepfake generated content and digital impersonations.

As a student, I've witnessed firsthand how this technology can affect people's lives in devastating ways. A lot of people don't realize that deepfakes are incredibly easy to make and accessible even for students my age. 53% of young people aged 13 through 20 who created deepfake imagery report that they found tools through an online search engine.

And that's exactly why in 20251 in 10 teenagers aged 13 through 17 said they personally know someone who has been the target of of deepfake nude imagery. One of my own closest friends fell victim to AI generated deepfake impersonations online. And this was spread for weeks.

Combined with the stress that we already face as students every single day, the emotional toll this had on her was extremely overwhelming. I watched her fall into severe depression and I was powerless to do anything to help. Experiences like hers aren't just isolated. They reflect a larger issue faced by students across the country.

There is an urgent need for strong regulations like SB11 to protect individuals from exploitation, which is why I strongly urge you to vote yes on SB11. Thank you. Thank you so very much. Austin.

Are there any other Members of the public here in support of SB11? If you can, please come forward to the microphone and state your name, affiliation and position for the record.

Good afternoon. Brandon Knapp with a Chamber of Progress in a support if amended. We look forward to working with the author. Thank you. Thank you.

Good morning. Katrina Ranum, California District Attorneys Association. I strongly support SB11.

Thank you very much. There any other witnesses in support of SB11? If not, we'll take any principal witnesses in opposition to SB11.

Do you mind if I do it here? Sure. It's a quick statement opposed less amended position. Laura Bennett, on behalf of California Chamber of Commerce, we have an opposed less amended position for SB11.

As we expressed in Senate Judiciary, our opposition is not with the underlying intent of this bill, but rather with the need for some Additional clarity, we are in process of finalizing and vetting the April 10th amendments with our Member companies to address the bill, including the changes from synthetic content to digital replica in broad strokes.

With respect to the consumer warning, our amendments generally seek to clarify that the warning is to be provided when the technology is made publicly available to consumers as opposed to when tools are made available from one business to another.

And most importantly for this Committee that the mandated warning regarding any unlawful use of technology, as opposed to an ambiguous warning over misuse, which is undefined in the bill and could therefore have a significant chilling effect when attached to the threat of civil and criminal liability.

While we are unfortunately unable to get these proposed amendments finalized in time for this Committee, our goal is to have them to the author by the end of this week and we look forward to continue conversations with her. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Naomi Pedrone, on behalf of the Computer and Communications Industry Association, we would echo the position of the California Chamber of Commerce. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair, Members. Robert Boen on behalf of TechNet. Sorry opposed unless amended position. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in opposition to SB11? Okay. If not, thank you all for being here today and for your testimony. We'll bring it back to the Committee for any questions or comments. Senator Seyarto.

So last year there was a very similar bill and there's like no opposition. And this year there seems to be opposition. Are you going to work with the opposition to hear what their proposed amendments are and perhaps work those into your bill?

It's a very similar Bill. In fact, it was the exact same Bill. So yes, I don't know why the opposition has issued this year, but not last year. But we have been working with them. We right now, our office, as I think she stated to you, we await their true ask.

They have let us know about their issue. We're not opposed to anything that they have an issue with, but we're waiting on their language.

I would imagine last year there's quite a considerable less amount of information regarding AI in General.

You're right.

So people don't really know how they were going to be affected.

So I would imagine that's probably why that and you know, Senator Sierra, you know this, but the AI every year.

Yeah.

That's why we need to. I remember you were very supportive last year. I appreciate that. And yeah, it's, it's still us in California trying to get out ahead of this issue.

Yeah. Well, I would just, I'm going to support your Bill. I just would encourage you to work with. People have now identified that, zero, we might have some problems. Absolutely. We can resolve those through doing a couple of these things. So that's all. Thanks. Thank you.

Thank you for bringing this Bill forward. It's so important to protect Californians. And for that I'll ask for you to close.

I respectfully ask for an aye vote. And thank you all very much.

Thank you. My recommendation is an eye on this Bill.

Is there a motion? I'll give a courtesy motion. I would generally defer to one of my.

I know. Thank you, Senator Seattle.

I appreciate that.

The motion is do you pass this amended to. We don't have it amended. zero, this one is not amended. Apologies. The motions do pass. Two appropriations. Please call the roll.

SB 11. Ashby. [Roll Call]

Okay, thank you. We'll keep that bill on call. I need to go present across the street. And so I'm going to hand the gavel over to Vice Chair Seyarto. Just our next bill is SB 562. Ashby. And then Senator Cortese. He's been waiting very patiently and I would recommend we go to his bill thereafter. SB551.

Thank you very much.

Thank you so much.

Okay, we are on item number eight. That's SB562 by Senator Ashby. You may present.

Thank you. Senator Sierra, thank you for hanging in there with me. I'll try to get us through today here as my witnesses come forward and take their seats. Let me just begin. We are going to accept the Committee's amendments on this one and thank you for your help helping us improve the Bill.

This one is a labor of love for me and I'd like to thank the chair for his dedication. When he comes back, you guys tell him I said thank you.

The Committee's amendments will require bond exoneration as a precondition for refund and require that an arrestee is only eligible for the refund if they have not failed to appear in think that is a good amendment. My team has also been working tirelessly and if I could emphasize that by 10,000, I would with the opposition.

Since this Bill was introduced, we have taken significant amendments and have agreed to a final set of amendments to clarify that the refund in the Bill applies to an amount paid. I think your Committee staff is aware of that, but that is also one that we would will be taking.

I'm here to present SB562, the debt free Justice Act. This Bill provides much needed financial relief to a specific, very narrowly tailored yet often overlooked group of individuals. Those who are arrested use a bail bond agency but ultimately have either no charges filed against them or their charges dismissed very early in the arraignment process.

Right now, these individuals face an incredibly unjust situation. Despite never being charged with a crime or the charges not being upheld in any form, they're still financially liable for the bail bond fees and have no pathway to recover that money.

In the State of California, if you put up the total bond, which is generally between 50 and $100,000, as an individual, you can get that money back if no charges are filed or in these instances.

But if you don't have $100,000 to put up for bail, which most people do not, then you seek the assistance of a bail bond company and the bail bond company is able to then keep the money that you pay, which would be in this case, five to $10,000 in those bail bond amounts, which is the average, even if the charges against you are dropped, dismissed, or never filed.

This Bill addresses the first 21 days during arraignment. So we're only talking about very early in the process. SB562 offers fair and focused solution. To be clear, this Bill does not ignore the needs of bail agencies. No one should work for free.

They'll still be allowed to retain a percentage of the bond's value plus any taxes paid to the state. You are going to hear from folks today. I'm sure that bail bondsmen do not arrest people, and that is true. Nor do they decide who's guilty. Also true. They don't decide whose charges are filed and whose charges are not.

Also true. We are not arguing that point and I actually agree with them. You will also find that there are people in this room today in opposition to this Bill that are longtime friends of mine and we've had many lively conversations over the last few months.

This Bill is straight from my heart and I appreciate my sponsors deeply. But this one came from me and some experiences from my friends that I felt were unjust. And so as a Senator, I wrote a Bill about it and I am hoping to strike a very fair balance.

The Bill simply ensures that individuals can reclaim a portion of their money if their charges are dropped or were never filed within 21 days. When a person pays their full bail amount directly to the court, they can already do this. SB562 simply creates parity between those two circumstances, the wealthy and those who are not.

SB562 ensures that no one is left in debt for a crime that they were never charged with or that was dismissed early in the process. This really is not a criminal justice issue. It's a financial justice issue and it's long overdue.

I thank my witnesses for being here and I respectfully ask for an aye vote at the appropriate time. Center Sierra. With me today is Anthony DiMartino, who's the Director of Government affairs at California for Safety and justice, and Esteban Nunez, who's the managing Director at Actum, representing the Anti Recidivism Coalition.

Okay, thank you for that. And we will go directly to your witnesses in support of your Bill. Go ahead.

Thank you, Chair. I will be speaking. I'll be giving the testimony on behalf of Stephanie Jeffcoat, who is the Executive Director for Families Inspiring reentry and reunification for everybody. And quick reminder, each of you have two minutes. Yes. Thank you. Good morning, Chair and Members of the Committee.

I wish I could be with you in person to testify today, but unfortunately I had a scheduling conflict that prevented me from attending. I'm incredibly grateful that my colleague is able to read this testimony on my behalf so that my voice and experience can still be a part of this very important conversation.

When I co signed a bail bond to help a loved one get out of jail. I thought I was stepping up during a crisis. What I didn't realize was that I was stepping into a trap.

Once the person was released, the bail bond company turned their attention to me, calling nonstop, demanding money I didn't have, and threatening legal action if I didn't pay. They even contacted my job, weaponizing fear and shame to pressure me into silence and compliance. What made it worse was the fear I carried every day.

Not knowing what they could legally do and feeling like I had no one to turn to. I wasn't informed of my rights. I was never told I could challenge the charges. I was treated like collateral. The emotional toll was overwhelming. I lost sleep, missed work, and lived with the weight of constant intimidation.

It felt like I was being punished not for a crime, but for caring for a loved one and for showing up. And that's the trap that so many of us fall into with this predatory industry. The moment you say yes, they own the narrative. This wasn't just a misunderstanding.

It was a business model built on manipulation, especially targeting women and loved ones. I later discovered that these tactics aren't isolated. A class action lawsuit against bad boy Bales Bonds revealed a disturbing pattern. Co signers like me were routinely misled about their financial obligations and then subjected to aggressive, often unlawful collection practices, including harassment and threats.

SP562 is not just a policy change. It's a long overdue correction to a system that profits off of fear and desperation. Predatory bail bond companies have operated in the shadows for far too long, exploiting people during their most vulnerable moments. And this Bill is a step towards ending those abusive factors and adding consumer protections.

We can wrap up. I urge your support on SB562 to put an end to a system that does not help people in their times of need. Thank you. Thank you very much, Nick.

Speaker Good morning, Chair and Senators. My name is Anthony DiMartino. I'm the government Affairs Director for Californians for Safety and Justice. We are a proud co sponsor of SB562. For anyone arrested and detained, the priority is to avoid a night in jail. Most people will do anything they can to avoid the situation. In California.

The vast majority of people who make bail use a bail agent and pay a non refundable fee for their freedom. Under current law, even if there are no charges filed against someone who has been arrested, they cannot receive any of their money back from the bail bond agency.

This means that people who are not charged with a crime may be in a lifetime of debt simply because they were wrongly arrested. This is not justice. People often have to borrow from friends and family, enter into exploitative financing schemes or put up their property as collateral.

Regardless of whether a case is dismissed or charges are not ultimately filed after an arrest, the bail company keeps its premium despite this plain inequity. The only alternative is worse.

Spending time in jail, which could mean losing a job, missing rent payments, losing custody of a child, or ultimately pleading guilty when innocent just to get home and prevent these harms. My last point reminds me of my old Boss, Secretary of State Dr. Shirley Weber.

She used to say that when one person gets arrested, often the whole family is punished and experiences the trauma of the criminal justice system.

As it relates to this Bill, Money bail particularly harms women as they are most likely to bear the financial burden of bail and other fees when family Members are incarcerated and they themselves are less likely to afford bail.

SB 562 will bring some equity and fairness to the pre trial process and eliminate the subsidizing of the bail industry and their profiteering off of the backs of individuals who are never charged or have their case dismissed. We urge your aye vote. Thank you so much for the time.

Okay, thank you very much. If there are anybody. Is there anybody else in the room who would like to come to the microphone, express your off your gosh. Your support for this Bill. zero, boy. Please state your name and your organization you represent and your support for the Bill.

Ed Little, proud co-sponsor with California for Safety and Justice.

Chris Lodgson, Anti Recidivism Coalition. Proud sponsor. Please vote. Yes.

Hello, Committee Members. Ken Mendoza, associate Director of Policy, in strong support of this Bill with the Anti Reservism Coalition.

Isabella Solomon with the Anti Recidivism Coalition. In full support.

Liz Blum Gutierrez on behalf of Initiate Justice in strong support.

Sarah Williams on behalf of Rubicon Programs and support.

Margo George on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association. Thank you very much.

And support Joanne Shear on behalf of Felony Murder Elimination Project. In strong support.

Anna Camino with UC Irvine Underground Scholars in support. Thank you.

Hyena Vargas with Initiate Justice Action. In support.

Communication Workers of America Local 9415. In support.

James King on behalf of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights and Smart Justice California. In support.

Marshall Lawler, reentry attorney. Strong support.

Xochi Larios with Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice. And support.

Patrick Murphy on behalf of Underground Scholars Initiative. In support.

Hakimo on behalf of Underground Scholars. UC Berkeley in support.

Great. Okay. Anybody else? I don't see any. Have them get lined up then.

Silicon Valley Debug in support of Bill.

Cecilia Morales, Silicon Valley Debug in support.

Graciela Franco from Silicon Valley Debug supporting Ana Ramirez, Silicon Valley Debug as well in support.

Emilia Avila, Debug support too.

Emma Franco, Silicon Valley Debug in support.

Yanelli Rose with Silicon Valley Debug in support.

Dan Seaman, Reentry Providers Association of California in strong support.

Kimberly Best with Silicon Valley Debug and support.

Djuan Williams with Silicon Valley Debug in support.

Okay, now is that all? No more hallway. Okay, good. Next up, we have opposition lead witnesses. Come on up. You have two minutes each. Welcome. One of you wishes to go first.

Thank you. I just had to get my glasses on.

Good morning, Mr. Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Holly Hoekstra and I'm a licensed California bail agent and have been for 33 years. I'm a small business owner, a single mother, and I operate a 24.7bail agency serving eight counties in Northern California. I employ seven people and I rely on local vendors.

Okay, Good.