Senate Standing Committee on Public Safety

The Senate Committee on Public Safety will now come to order. Good morning. I'd like to make a few announcements as we begin today's Bill hearing. This is our last hearing on Senate bills and there are 34 items proposed for consent. File item two. S.B. I'm sorry, two. Sorry, two. Two items proposed consent. File item 10. S.B.

641, Ashby. And file item 20, S.B. 857, the Public Safety Committee omnibus Bill. We're entertaining a motion on those two consent items when we establish a quorum. As we do not have a quorum yet, we will meet as a Subcommitee and begin our Bill presentations.

And just to let everyone know, today is a busy day in the California Legislature where there are multiple Bill hearings happening at the same time.

As we approach Friday's deadline for bills to lead policy committees, I may have to leave at various points to present bills and other committees or to vote in other committees that the Vice Chair, Santo, may have to step away or other Members. But we'll make sure that we have a chair to preside and we'll have a quorum.

And I know that a lot of people are here on a lot of very important bills this morning. I expect that this hearing will go past noon. We will have to take a recess at noon and reconvene at 1:30 to take up the remaining business.

So I just want to let everyone know we're not likely to get through everything before noon and we'll have to reconvene for an afternoon session. But we thank you all for coming to Sacramento, for being here. We look forward to your testimony. With that, we'll begin with the first Bill presentation. File item one, SB75 by Senator Smallwood Cuevas. Good morning.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Senator, good to be here with you. I am so honored to present SB 75. This is the prison re-entry program that we are thrilled to to be lifting up today. It creates a structured pathway for formerly incarcerated individuals to secure meaningful employment in the skilled trades.

And we know this is a critical gap for our workforce and particularly for those underrepresented populations such as women. As Chair of Labor Committee, I know firsthand the need for a labor force that is inclusive, that is skilled and supported. Yet our re-entry system continues to fail.

Justice involved individuals offering few opportunities for sustainable employment or successful reintegration. I had the honor of traveling to Norway, and I say this in every Committee because it was really a profound experience for me seeing how other countries address this issue of rehabilitation.

And there's a slogan that they use and they use it everywhere, the Administration, the staff of those facilities, and the residents of those facilities. And they say that courts punish. It's the court that punishes. It is prisons that create good neighbors. And I think we have to be about the business of creating good neighbors.

And we can't do that if we are not sufficiently focused on opportunities that create sustainable employment and successful reintegration so that our residents coming out of those facilities can join and contribute to our neighborhoods and grow our economy together. I've worked closely with vulnerable communities all of my professional work life.

I grew up in the labor movement, and I want to highlight the urgency for our women in custody. Incarcerated women face a 70% chance of experiencing the highest levels of unemployment in our society.

And I know, having worked directly with these communities, that they are locked out of the majority of jobs because they have served their time and paid their debt to society. Despite being a growing segment of the incarcerated population, however, women are consistently underserved, lacking access to education, job training, and mental health resources.

That is unacceptable in a state that says we want to prioritize rehabilitation. And we are very proud of all of the programs that exist in the men's prisons. We think that Pelican Bay is a model, but we cannot just focus on men alone. We also have to focus on women. Why? Because they're mothers.

Because many of them are the primary wage earners. Because they are the caregivers. Because they often, and we all know in every community are the anchors of those communities. And so when we fail to reinvent in rehabilitation for women, we're failing our communities and we're failing our shared future. SB 75 isn't just about job placement.

It's about long term economic mobility, public safety, workforce equity. And this is a pilot program that includes comprehensive evaluation of employment retention and recidivism and reduction. And we know that that is a cost savings. And we have already experienced cost savings when we invest more in rehabilitation at the state.

This is an opportunity for us to do exactly that. And the goal is to build this into a scalable model for statewide expansion. This is a critical and practical common sense Bill. It will be data driven in our approach. It will strengthen the workforce and ensure that rehabilitation is a real opportunity, not just a promise.

With me today in support is Tatiana with the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights. And of course, I ask for your aye vote.

And you'll have two minutes to testify in the Bill.

Good morning, Committee chair and Members. My name is Tatiana, organizer with the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, and strong support of SB 75. The goal of this Bill is simple, to provide real support, real opportunities, and create real pathways for people returning home.

This Bill is deeply personal to me because I know what it feels like to come home and feel completely alone. When I was released, there was no roadmap, no support system, just a probation officer who asked me once a month, are you employed yet?

And every time I had to say no, I watched them mark that down as another strike against me. It didn't matter that I was trying. It didn't matter that I wanted to do better. I kept asking, are there any resources that can help me? And every time I heard the same thing. There are none.

I wasn't asking for a handout. I was asking for a chance. And no one reached back. No one saw me as someone worth investing in. Eventually, because I couldn't find a job or enroll in school, they sent me back, which caused me to do be behind bars and incarceration for an extra 30 days.

Not because I couldn't commit another crime, but just because I needed help and no one showed up. But I knew that if someone gave me a chance, an opportunity, I would not waste it. One day that opportunity came and I worked really hard.

And I am proud to say now that next month I will be graduating with my associate's degree in Social justice. And I transferred to UC Berkeley in the fall for 2025. I know first hand that people coming home, they don't like the will and they don't like the heart.

But they're just waiting for someone to open the door, someone to believe in them. Someone to believe that we are more than our worst mistakes. This Bill is that door. This Bill says that we are worth investing in because when you give someone help and opportunity, they'll find their way.

And I want to end with a quote from Ella Baker. If you give light, then people will find the way. And I am living proof of that. And thank you for your consideration and your time.

Thank you so much for being here. Are there any other Members of the public in support of Senate Bill 75? You can please approach the microphone and state your name, organization and position.

Simelia Rogers, Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, in full support.

Good morning. Margo George on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association and support.

Good morning. Katie Dixon with the California Coalition for Women Prisoners, in support of this very important legislation.

Liz Blum-Gutierrez on behalf of La Defense, in support.

Liz Stroder on behalf of Woman II Woman, in support.

Jenny Higgins, on behalf of Women's March Action, in support.

Anastasia Franco, Flying Over Walls Prisoner Solidarity Project, in support.

Torren Eileesheva, Flying Over Wells Prisoner Solidarity Project, in support.

Colby Lenz, California Coalition for Women Prisoners, in support

Elizabeth Nomura, Statewide Membership Organizer for the California Coalition for Women Prisoners and Formerly Incarcerated, in strong support.

Diana Sands from Oakland, California, California Coalition for Women Prisoners, in support.

Joss Greene, sociology Professor at UC Davis, in support.

Angela Chan, San Francisco Public Defender's Office, in support.

Aubrey Rodriguez with ACLU California Action, in proud support.

Cinthya Muñoz, Alameda County Board of Supervisors, District 5, in support.

Kelly Savage-Rodriguez, with Survived and Punished, in support.

Damon 'Shuja' Johnson, with Black Men Speak, Inc. & Men and Women of Color, in support.

Thank you. Are there any other Members of the public in support of SB 75. Okay, we'll now take two principal witnesses in opposition to SB 75. Is there anyone who wishes to testify in opposition to the Bill? Are there any Members of the public who wish to state their opposition to the Bill? Okay, that completes testimony.

We'll bring it back to the Committee for any questions or comments. Vice Chair Seyarto to.

Senator, thank you for your Bill. This Bill is actually very much in alignment with some of the things that need to get done to reduce recidivism, but at the same time to enable us to use our prison system to get people ready for when they are released.

And I just want to make sure that a lot of this work of being prepared in the workplace, the training, especially in the trades, is done while people are incarcerated so that when they are released and they can be released into programs like this, that these programs don't have to last as long because they're thrust into the workplace almost immediately where they are making good paying jobs.

That's where the good paying jobs are. And it's also where our workforce needs are. So we're matching up what our workforce needs are with their needs, which is to have a good paying job. And so I see this as a really positive step in the right direction and ensuring that people have every opportunity.

Not everybody will take it, but they'll have every opportunity to come out and stay out and have a good job and therefore be able to have the type of lives that they may envision now.

And I also want to say congratulations to the young lady that was here for her success and her post release success because those are the things we need to see to be able to make those investments.

So anyway, I'll be supporting your Bill today and look forward to other bills that do, that have the same type of good pipeline into great paying jobs that are needed where we have labor shortages.

I join the Vice Chair and thank you for bringing this important Bill forward. My recommendation is an aye and I'll turn it back over to you close.

Well, I want to thank you both for your comments and really appreciated your perspective. Senator Seyarto and I look forward to working with you on this. It is important and we know that there are thousands of Tatianas out there.

We just need to invest, lift her up as a model and make sure we don't make the same mistakes that we invest in these women in a way that puts them on a pathway to sustainability for not just themselves but for our communities. Because we know when when these workers do well, our communities will do well.

And with that I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. We'll entertain a motion when we establish a quorum. So with that we'll proceed to the next file item which is also by Senator Smallwood-Cuevas, file item 2, SB 303 and I'll turn it back over to you to present on the Bill.

Thank you Mr. Chair and yes colleagues, I am thrilled to be presenting today SB 303 and Mr. Chair, I want to say that I am accepting the Committee's amendment. I really thank your team for working with my team on this.

This is the Public Workplace Bias Mitigation and Employee Protection act and the goal is simple is to protect the space for meaningful anti bias work while ensuring real misconduct is still investigated and addressed through proper legal and disciplinary channels.

These protections do not apply in criminal cases and we know that this Bill will ensure that any employee who participates in an anti bias training, we want to protect them.

We want to make sure that their conversations, their assessments, their tools to help address this bias in our workplace that it is protected and shielded and we want to protect our employ our public employers and our public employees alike.

This Bill ensures that employee participation in these trainings and assessments and mitigation efforts cannot be used against them in civil lawsuits. Public agencies are required by state and federal law to prevent and correct workplace discrimination, often through bias mitigation and anti discrimination programs.

But these efforts face serious challenges and we know there is a drumbeat around DEI and and so many efforts to create a safe workplace for individuals and safe we mean free of discrimination, free of bigotry and those things are under attack. And we need to make sure for workers participation in these programs should not feel risky.

Without legal safeguards they may hesitate to engage openly and honestly out of fear their words or actions could be used against them. And we as the state know, because we've done the research and we moved data driven, evidence driven policies that say anti bias training does work.

It creates safer work environments and more productivity in the workplace and stronger retention. We need to protect that. Employers too worried that records from these programs could be used as evidence in civil litigation, discouraging them from implementing meaningful equity efforts. The results is programs aimed at identifying and addressing bias will be undercut before they can succeed.

And we cannot eliminate bias if we do not know that it exists and that we don't have the tools to help folks who want to do and be better in the workplace. Bias elimination efforts are a proven tool to identify and create safer workspaces.

And we know that participants have a real opportunity to discuss and ultimately address some of the tools that they want to address to address the needs that they want to address in their workplace.

We are in the state protecting so many of our agencies against national action and it is very necessary that we safeguard our anti bias training work.

The goal of this Bill and I want to be clear, and we have been working with the opposition obviously on this, I want to be clear that this does not shield employees from accountability for discriminatory actions, speech or sharing an intent to discriminate against their peers or employees.

This is not trying to in any way get around our Title VII protections in the workplace to make sure that we have discrimination free work sites. The need for this Bill is urgent to protect the tools and the training.

And in 2024, the State Department of Fair Employment of Housing was clear with us when they received nearly 30,000 workplace discrimination complaints. In 2025, LA County reported an all time high rate of hate crimes with over 800 in one year, 2023 alone, and that was 124% increase in incidents involving white supremacist ideology.

Despite our best efforts, hate is on the rise in this state. We also know there's a lot of division fueling some of that. And so we need tools like anti bias training to work and we need SB303 which helps to make that possible. We have already taken significant amendments to narrow the scope of this Bill.

We're continuing, as I said, to work with the opposition. And our goal is to protect the victims of discrimination and make sure that they remain intact. But at the same time, what can we do to prevent it by ensuring we educate our workplaces and provide tools, anti bias tools for our workers. With me today is Dr.

D'Artagnan Scorza. He is Executive Director of the Los Angeles County Anti Racism, Diversity and Inclusion Initiative and he is here to discuss some of the real world impacts of these trainings and to answer any technical questions you may have.

Before we go to the witness testimony, just want to summarize the amendments that the author has accepted which take out the privilege and limit the exclusion of evidence only to Fair Employment and Housing Act claims. Just want the public to know as we begin testimony, those are the amendments the author has agreed to accept today. And sir, I'll turn over to you.

Thank you, Senator, and thank you, Mr. Chair and Committee Members. I am D'Artagnan Scorza with the County of Los Angeles Chief Executive Office and as a sponsor of SB303, we aim to proactively address and reduce bias in the public sector.

This Bill will help us foster training in workplace environments, as you heard the Senator say, where employees can take action to mitigate the role that bias plays in the workplace and in the delivery of public services. The bottom line is this.

We must ensure that government workplaces and services are free from bias discrimination and that all of our residents receive fair treatment in our work. I've seen firsthand how safe spaces for self discovery and introspection can make it possible for employees to understand how bias might influence their decision making and actions.

This in turn makes it possible for public employees to identify points of intervention, including customized training or resources for employees that can also improve outcomes and service delivery and programs. There's an urgency to make this change in the public sector.

Because of how we serve our populations, we're uniquely positioned to make sure that both the General population as well as vulnerable and marginalized populations receive their need. As you've heard from the Senator, we've also worked very closely with various stakeholders to address concerns and strengthen this legislation.

And We've clarified that SB303 is not intended to apply to situations when employee commits or admits to committing an act of harassment, discrimination or retaliation during a bias mitigation training. Nor is it intended to prevent an employer from addressing unlawful discrimination or conduct that is actionable.

This Bill represents a concrete step to ensure that this Committee can help support our local governments and take fair to take efforts to ensure fair and equitable public services for all Californians. And for this, for these reasons, we respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you. Thank you very much, sir.

Are there any other Members of the public in support of Senate Bill 303? If you can please approach the microphone and state your name, organization and position for the record.

The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors in support. Thank you. Thank you.

There any other Members of the public in support of Senate Bill 303 wish to state their position for the record, seeing no other witnesses in support, will now take 2 principal witnesses in opposition and each witness will have two minutes to address the Committee on SB 303.

Oh, it's going to be pretty quick. So if you don't mind. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chair. Good morning Members. Robert Moutrie, California Chamber of Commerce we are respectfully opposed.

We are working with the author and sponsor and I want to be clear our opposition does not come with any disagreement about the importance of biased training or the issues raised in the community. Certainly the recent changes in the data from recent years, not there.

Our core concern comes from the idea of creating a privilege where that only applies to public sector employees, where we see the same policies applying to private employers. Private employers do, either optionally or mandated by law, provide similar training, particularly in the health care as a 2019 law mandating it.

So in that context, we see the same policy concerns around making sure employees feel safe answering these questions and addressing their implicit bias applying in our private sector workplaces too. So we would just ask that it be expanded to cover all workplaces evenly there. And we are working with the author and sponsor to hopefully address that. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Are there any other principal witnesses in opposition at SB303? Now take me to testimony. Anyone who would like to express opposition to SB303, if you can please approach the microphone. State your name, organization and position for the record.

Matt Easley, on behalf of Associated General Contractors of California and just wanted to do a ditto for the chamber comments. Thank you. Thank you.

Any other Members of the public in opposition? SB303 okay. Thank you all for your testimony. I'll bring it back to the Committee for questions and comments. Vice Chair Seyarto

In regards to their because I had the same concern is this, this actually is something that blankets over public and private. Is that just too big a hill to climb right now or why are we leaving out the private sector?

Well, initially, you know, the Legislature has put anti bias training in play for a number of our public agencies in our court system, in our health care system, education. So we wanted to start there. We understand the interest to expand.

That wasn't the intent of this Bill, but we certainly will continue to work with them to address those needs.

I would encourage you to work with them because you know, I think when we're doing this type of thing for employers, it shouldn't apply to everybody, not just the public sector.

Well, you know, this Bill was designed for the public sector, but we continue to work with them.

All right, thank you.

Thank you. My recommendation is an aye, as amended. And I'll turn it back over to you, Senator, to close on the Bill.

Yeah. I just wanted to thank my witness for traveling up here today, given all that's going on in LA County. And I really appreciate the discussion and looking forward to protecting our agencies and our workers through this Bill. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you so very much. We'll entertain a motion when we establish a quorum. And I believe those are your only two bills on our agenda today. Thank you. Have a good rest of the day. So is Senator Wahab here? Okay.

Seeing that the next author in file order is not present, we will go to an author who is present. Senator Azo. We are going to stick to the file order as much as possible. So we're going to Transition to number nine file item nine, SB 635, by Senator Durazo.

And if you have any principal witnesses in support, if they can, please come forward.

I know this is not a very big room for an agenda that I know has elicited a lot of interest. And so we do our best to try to make sure that we get people in and out of the room as we proceed with our agenda items.

Okay.

Okay. So when I 9 Proceed to file 9 SB 635 by Senator Durazo and Senator I turn over to you to present.

Thank you Mr. President and Members for the opportunity. I want to thank the Committee staff for their hard, hard work and accept the Committee amendments. This Bill is a significant step towards ensuring that street vendors have the support that they deserve as they participate in local government programs without fear.

Street vending is an essential part of and has become an even greater part of the civic fabric of communities across California. It provides valuable economic opportunities, especially for low income and immigrant workers. And it offers entrepreneurial individuals the chance to start and grow their own businesses to support themselves and their families.

For many vendors, street vending is the first step towards climbing the economic ladder and reaching the American dream. As the Federal Government intensifies its actions against our community, this Bill represents a crucial opportunity to safeguard and empower workers in California.

This Bill will safeguard micro business owners personal information to ensure that they can continue their work in peace and safely by enhancing data privacy, clarifying local government programs and preventing sensitive information from falling into the hands of immigration enforcement agencies.

Today we have the pleasure of hearing from Gustavo Landeros Varillas, vendor in Davis, California and Viejes Edu Cruz Sanchez, a vendor in Riverside where she has sold for about 30 years. She sells artisan ice cream cream, also known as Nieve De Garrafa.

Lastly, we have Doug Smith, Vice President with Inclusive Action for the City, who can help answer any technical questions. Thank you, Mr. President.

Thank you. Before I proceed, the witnesses. Just to summarize the Committee amendments that the author accepted which do ensure that there are protections for information regarding street vendors, but delete the references to the California Values Act. So those are the technical amendments that the author has accepted and I'll turn it over to you to present.

Good morning Mr. President again and Members of the Committee. My name is Gustavo Landeros Varillas and I am a street vendor in Davis, California. I have been street vending for over two years. I am also a DACA recipient. I have a one year old, a two year old and a nine year old.

As a street vendor, I have found the financial freedom to support me and my family. But today there is an imminent threat that threatens our future. This is because many cities have implemented many steps for street vendor licenses and these steps are not required for any other licenses.

These practices are discriminatory because they injustify and treat street vendors unequally. For example, they require fingerprints, criminal background checks and disclosing sensitive information. This is even more terrifying because of the current anti immigrant atmosphere that can lead people towards deportation. This extra burden and fear deter people from even applying.

It's also a double and sword because if we don't apply, then the city will not stop harassing us and they will cite us. But if we do apply, we can be separated from our families. So many of you are asking why is it that many cities are implementing these extra steps to license?

One of the reasons is because City Council people have a lot of misinformation about street vendors. And the other reason is because a lot of powerful business owners have stamped an unjustifiable signal of dirtiness and unfair competition towards street vendors. These complaints have helped create an anti vendor atmosphere. Street vending is a Hispanic dominant industry.

Most of them are undocumented. Most of them don't speak English. So the chances of them going to court is very minimum. And this is the reason why I'm here, to give the street vendors of California a voice so they could have, they could be fairly treated.

I believe civil rights are economic rights and we all have the right to drive for economic freedom without the fear of deportation. My children also have the right to have their father present with them to support them economically and emotionally. And I will fight to retain that right for all of us.

This is why I ask you to please Support Senate Bill 635 so vendors can work with dignity and without the fear of deportation. Thank you for your time.

Thank you very much.

Good morning, Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Doug Smith. I'm Vice President of policy and Legal strategy at Inclusive Action for the City. We're a proud co sponsor of this Bill. This morning I'm going to be reading a statement from one of California's street vendor leaders.

A vendor from Riverside who wanted to share her story but is not able to travel, was uncomfortable traveling here this morning due to the current climate. So I'm going to read on her behalf. Good morning, chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Eduviges Cruz Reyes Sanchez, a resident of Riverside, California.

I come before you to respectfully request your support to vote in favor of Senate Bill 635. My family and I have been living in the United States for over 20 years. We've been street vendors for more than 30 years. And throughout all of these years, we've paid our taxes just like any other citizen.

My children have grown up here with us and we are all hard working, law abiding people, even owners of our own small business selling traditional Mexican style ice cream.

After all these years of working and supporting our family without seeking any government assistance, I am writing to respectfully request that you please consider my case so that my husband and I, he's a cancer patient currently undergoing medical treatment, may be protected under Senate Bill 635.

This Bill would protect us by ensuring that our personal information, such as our ITIN, our IDs, our addresses are not shared with federal agencies. I began the process of obtaining permits in the City of Riverside and Riverside County where fingerprints are not required. And I'm grateful for that process.

Sharing so much personal information for just one to five permits is frightening, especially when you're just beginning to formalize your business as a street vendor. We are just two out of tens of thousands of vendors across the state who would be protected from being criminalized simply for being immigrants in this country.

This Bill also extends protections to more street vendors throughout the entire state.

I respectfully ask that you take the time to carefully review and analyze my situation because in the event of a deportation, not only would the stability we've built over all these years living in California be affected, but also the cancer treatments my husband is receiving would be jeopardized in the event of such an occurrence.

Thank you in advance for your collaboration and I stand together with my fellow street vendors hopeful for your support. Please vote yes on SB635.

Thank you very much. Okay, we'll take any other Members of the public who are in support of Senate Bill635. You can please approach the microphone and state your name, organization and position.

Hi. Liz Bloom Gutierrez on behalf of Law Defensa Vera, California and initiate justice in Support.

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

Simelia Rogers, Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in support. Thank you.

Tracy. Tracy Rosenberg on behalf of Oakland Privacy in support of the Bill.

Jeannette Zanipatin on behalf of the Coalition For Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles in strong support.

Aubrey Rodriguez with ACLU California Action and strong support.

Christopher Sanchez on behalf of Carreras and the Central American Resource center and Asians Americans Advancing Justice Southern California in strong support.

Good morning Mr. Chair and Members. Gregory Kramer on behalf of Disability Rights California in support.

Good morning. Whitney Francis with the Western center on Law and Poverty in strong support.

Karen Stadt, on behalf of Power California Action and strong support.

Are there any other Members of the public in support of SB635 who wish to testify? Okay. If not, we'll take any principal witnesses in opposition to SB635, seeing none. Is there anyone who wishes to Express opposition to SB 635 seeing none. Okay, that completes our testimony.

I'll bring it back to the Committee for any questions or comments. Senator Gonzalez.

Senator, thank you, Mr. Chair. And I just want to thank the author for bringing this forward in such a time that is even more dire for us to lift up these bills. I thank the witnesses for their good work to and having worked with them.

I know you're working with a really incredible group of folks who understand the value of street food vending, of sidewalk vending, but also the value of these communities and the families that they also are working to support. So with that, I would love to move the Bill when appropriate.

Thank you very much. Any other questions or comments from Members of the Committee? Thank you. I'm a proud co author of this Bill. Thank you very much for bringing it forward. And my recommendation is aye's amended and I'll turn it back over to you to close.

Yeah, I think this is a great opportunity for our burgeoning small businesses have the. Have the ability to continue with their dreams. So I'm very proud of our street vending culture and businesses. And I ask for your aye vote. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much, Senator. We'll entertain a motion when we establish a quorum. We need one more Member to establish quorum, and I believe that's the only Bill on our agenda today that you'll be presenting. So thank you. Thank you, Members. Okay, our next file order is filed Order 3 S.B. 258 by Senator Waha.

But I don't see Senator Waha present. I have a Bill I can present. I don't know if my witnesses are here. Are my witnesses present for SB 704? We can check. If not, I'll just proceed with the Bill presentation to keep things moving.

Order of the day.

Not quite yet. We do have an author present, so we will hold on proceeding to my Bill and proceed now to file item 5, SB274 by Senator Cervantes and Good morning, Senator.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Committee Members. I want to thank your team for their work on this Bill.

I've worked with both Senate Judiciary and Senate Public Safety to take amendments to the retention provision to limit retention for public agencies to more than 30 days from the date of collection if it does not match information on the hot list. We also are removing the geolocation aspect from the Bill, so just want to move forward.

Just note that I accept the amendments today. In response to some of the growing unchecked cybersecurity concerns, we are bringing this Bill to you 274 that addresses the automated license plate reader systems and surveillance technology that scans and stores the movement of millions of law abiding Californians each day.

These systems capture and store data on the movement of vehicles, effectively tracking where we go, when we go and who we associate with. Over time, ALPR data forms a detailed map of our daily lives. The core function of ALPR systems is to collect vast amount of data on individuals movements without their knowledge or consent.

Retaining this data longer than necessary raises significant Fourth Amendment concerns. While ALPR can be a valuable tool for public safety, it is being used far beyond its intended scope, without oversight and in ways that threaten civil liberties. We've already seen what happens in the absence of accountability.

In 2020, an audit revealed that LPR data was being misused across our state. Since then, agencies have continued to share sensitive information despite clear concerns about constitutional overreach. This undermines public trust and puts entire communities at risk, particularly immigrant and communities of color. There have been documented cybersecurity threats posed by large scale data retention.

ALPR systems have been breached in the past, placing millions of location records in the hands of bad actors. The longer this data is retained, the higher the risk of exposure.

In many cases, ALPR data is stored not only by police departments but also by private third party vendors who often operate with minimal oversight and broad data sharing networks. These practices exponentially increase the risk of misuse.

In a direct response to the growing public concern, the Joint Legislative Audit Committee commissioned by the California State Auditor to evaluate the use of ALPR systems by law enforcement. The result of the 2020 report is not only damning, it's a clear call to action.

The audit revealed that agencies have consistently failed to protect individuals privacy and in many cases couldn't even demonstrate basic control or understanding over how their systems operate.

In fact, Auditor specifically recommended for the Legislature to establish a maximum retention period for ALPR data to better protect individual privacy and ensure agencies are accountable for how they use these powerful systems. The responsibility to protect Californians include protecting their freedom to move, assemble and live without fear of surveillance. That is what this Bill does.

It limits data retention to 30 days unless there is a match with the vehicle on a hot list, limiting retention to 30 days. Not only it's not an arbitrary restriction, is it a necessary privacy safeguard that prevents routine tracking of innocent Californians? And those systems are used for legitimate, timely criminal investigations, not unchecked surveillance.

Other jurisdictions have implemented Shorter retention periods, as short as seven days without documentation harm to criminal investigations. California's 30 day standard already reflects a compromise between public safety and civil liberties. It also requires audits by the Department of Justice to ensure agencies comply with privacy and usage policies, preventing misuse before it occurs.

With me to testify in support of the Bill. We have two witnesses and I will allow them to self identify.

Great. You have two minutes to present on the Bill.

Oh, sorry. Good morning Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Dave Moss and I have been researching automated license plate readers, or ALPRs, for more than a decade at the Electronic Frontier foundation. Today's Bill, SB274, offers two main reforms. First, this Bill would task the California Attorney General with auditing ALPR practices for compliance.

In 2020, the State Auditor investigated the use of ALPRs and found severe violations of estate law requiring policies that protect privacy and civil liberties. California DOJ oversight is a step forward. The second reform sets a retention period. Law enforcement could store ALPR data for 30 days.

Then they would decide which data they need to keep and then delete the rest. As you know, the Federal Government, particularly DOGE, is ransacking every database it can find, feeding that data into AI and using it to investigate the administration's perceived enemies.

The Federal Government is weaponizing data to target and punish migrants, academics, scientific researchers, Trans people, law firms, judges, federal employees, DEI professionals, election workers, whistleblowers, nonprofits, news organizations, student activists, and even law enforcement personnel who investigated January 6th. ALPR data is dangerous because it shows where we've been and reveals our daily travel patterns.

Yes, California's existing law restricts sharing ALPR data with Federal Government, but we've already seen this Administration ignore and blow through legal firewalls. Just yesterday, the White House issued a new Executive order targeting sanctuary jurisdictions. Getting rid of this precious geolocation data is the best way to protect it, and not just from DOGE.

Hackers have breached AOPR data, and officers have been caught abusing data for their own personal vendettas. We would prefer an even shorter retention period, but we support 30 days because it significantly reduces how much data can be abused. 30 days is more than sufficient for public safety.

For example, the Riverside County Sheriff's Office, with one of the largest ALPR programs in the country has a 30 day redemption period. Governor Newsom's ALPR initiative with CHP only stores data for 28 days. California should take a leadership role in demonstrating public safety and privacy are not mutually exclusive.

We respectfully urge you to vote yes on SB 274. Thank you.

Good morning again. Margo George for the California Public Defenders Association. We support SB274. Its purpose is to limit surveillance by protecting California's privacy and preventing the misuse of ALPR from becoming a tool of the current federal administration's Draconian Immigration policy, which we see already deporting noncitizens and citizens alike. Immigrants are Members of our communities.

Nearly half of working households in California include immigrants. Immigrants are important to California's economy. They pick our crops, serve in our medical facilities, teach and study in our universities. And over half of all California workers are either immigrants or the children of immigrants.

These protocols are similar to protocols that are already in use by the California Highway Patrol. So this is not a new area. There are also policies in Los Angeles and San Francisco. It's important to have limits and training and controls over the retention of this data.

So for those reasons, we respectfully ask for your vote yes on SB274.

Thank you very much. Okay, we'll now take any Me Too witnesses in support of SB274. If you can please approach the microphone, state your name, organization and position.

Good morning. Tracy Rosenberg, on behalf of Oakland Privacy. We are currently in a support if amended position, but we expect to change that to full support. Come going forward.

Angela Chan with the San Francisco Public Defender's Office in support.

Thank you. Any other Me Too witnesses in support of SB274? Okay, we'll now take two principal witnesses in opposition to SB274, and you'll have two minutes to address the Committee on the Bill. Before you start. Sir, we do have a quorum, so I'll ask the Committee assistant to call the roll to establish a quorum.

[Roll Call]

Okay, we do have a quorum present. And sir, you'll have two minutes.

Yes, and before I start, there is a representative from the Sheriff's Department that will be a tweener. Before I start, I want to let you know there is a representative from the Sheriff's Department that will be a tweener on this Bill after me. My name is David Bolog.

There is a current trend in this legislative session to protect an exceptional class of people in California called the illegal alien. A classification that is not a pejorative or dehumanizing but part of the United States code for immigration enforcement.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4 of the United States Constitution states that the Congress has the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization. They have done just that and have a federal enforcement agency that they've created known as ICE to execute and enforce these codes.

May I remind you this is the same Constitution that each of you legislators have sworn an oath to uphold and defend. But here we are with another proposed legislation with the intention to stifle enforcement of the codes Congress has laid down for the protection of the people of the United States.

In this Bill we have a proposal to not allow police to use license plate readers to hinder enforcement of immigration laws. Yet with the California Values Act, I don't see why this is even necessary. Local police are not to be involved in immigration enforcement. This is just.

Are police actually allowed to create data files and track people's coming and going? My understanding that these plate readers are just to look for cars that are stolen, wanted in a crime, have expired tabs and have a known driver or owner with an arrest warrant.

If they are going beyond the intended use that is stated in this law. We have a problem. I like how the analysis is worried about tracking people going to gun shops. All of a sudden the supermajority cares about gun owners rights. I appreciate that.

The analysis states that these systems are travel systems that track are coming and goings, that they are a threat to civil liberty and pose significant security risk. I agree with you and I think you should go all the way and outlaw these privacy invaders completely. They are the first step to having a total control surveillance grid.

These camera systems have too big of a cost of giving up our liberty and privacy of travel in exchange for the security they bring. This Bill is unnecessary. I urge you to vote no on this legislation.

Okay, thank you very much. We'll take any other witnesses in opposition to SB274 please state your name, organization and position.

Good morning. Lieutenant Julio De Leon from the Riverside County Sheriff's Office. I just wanted to mention that we don't have any opposition to the immigration enforcement. We agree with the Senator on that portion. The only thing that we have concerns of is a 30 day purge period.

We currently do have a 30 day purge period for ALPR data, but that is for any crime, not only for felonies. And we would like the Senator to extend that 30 day to all crimes, not only felonies. An example is the simple misdemeanor theft that we investigate.

We usually turn those into large-scale investigations for organized crime, and those are eventually felonies. But if we are required to purge those, purge that data within 30 days, then that would jeopardize that in that type of investigation. Thank you.

Thank you. That is the second principal witness in opposition will now take me to testimony in opposition.

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

Good morning. Jared Moss on behalf of the California Police Chiefs in opposition.

Any other witnesses in opposition to SB 274? Okay. Seeing no additional testimony. If there's a question, we'll direct to the appropriate witness. Now, in order for the Committee to discuss the Bill, are there any questions or comments from the Committee moved by Senator Gonzalez? Senator Seyarto?

Lots of questions. Okay. We've heard a lot of testimony this morning, some of it regarding federal stuff, which, you know, we're trying to deal with our state, not the Federal Government. But I do have a question for one of the witnesses, if I may.

Yes.

All right. You brought up your data that says the Federal Government is using these type of systems to mine people's information, to, you know, all sorts of things that you've said. What is the data? How many of these incidences have occurred that you know of, that you can prove?

So at this point, I mean, I am concerned about.

So it's theoretical when I hear at this point it's theoretical.

Well, I mean, ICE access data to, you know, a member of ICE accessed data to spy on their ex. ICE has gotten hold of various law enforcement data like Long Beach, San Diego for their purposes as well. So this does happen. But the thing is, is that ALPR data is not particularly well audited in California.

So we don't have the kind of data that we have for, say, kletz. So for example, with Kletz, the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Office violated the privacy of gun owners more than 6,500 times in 2023 by running concealed carry permit data through their system in violation of rules.

So if they're violating things like Kletz, which is highly regulated, I can only imagine what they're doing to ALPR, which is not regulated nearly as strongly.

So the answer is. You don't have an answer.

The answer is that California is not auditing enough for us to have a good answer.

Your concerns are theoretical. You have not been able to find or list or prove that anybody is doing any of the things that you.

Had mentioned, like data breaches or things like that. I mean, the system used by CBP was hacked and that data was put on the Internet.

So here's my concern. A license plate reader, as I've seen them, and I probably have to refer to the law enforcement part of this, these basically produce scatter graphs and when they find a license plate, just say there's a mailbox that has been broken into in my neighborhood and they go to this license plate reader program.

It shows if there is a similar vehicle at this mailbox and then a similar vehicle are the same license plate and another stolen mailbox area and then another mailbox stolen area. And then they have to identify who that is and go. Is that correct? Is that how those work?

I'm not in law enforcement, so I think you could ask the gentleman from Riverside Sheriff's Department. He might be able to answer that, give you a better clarification. Gentleman from Riverside, can you please come forward?

Correct? That is correct, Senator. We don't monitor those unless we're conducting an investigation. So yes, we do monitor those and we collect data based on our investigation.

So the license plate reader itself has no idea who the person is. All it knows is a car with that license plate seems to be at the same place as all of these crimes. And that's how they're able to find somebody that they've never been able to find before.

And I can tell you in my community that's one of the big issues is our mailbox thefts. And they're starting to be able to find those people because of this system. So, you know, I understand that, you know, there's a bunch of our legislation is now bent about, you know, trying to combat Federal Government stuff.

But I'm looking at some of the things that we're doing to be able to finally solve problems and solve issues that are bothering or that are affecting everyday, everyday citizens that are just trying to mind their own business and live their lives and they can't get those problems solved. But now they can because of technology like this.

And those, you know, the 30 day thing, sometimes it is more than 30 days. The person that breaks into our mailbox and steals all of our mail and causes everybody in my neighborhood to go down to the post office, you know, a couple of times a week to get their mail while we get our mailbox repaired.

They're not going to come back in a week or two weeks or three weeks. But they may come back in two months and do it again because they've done that.

So if we're going to limit it to 30 days, how do they track that if we're going to demand that they purge every 30 days or even sooner through the author.

Yes, no and valid concerns. I understand what our communities are facing when it comes to male theft and other related crimes. But again, this does not take tools away from law enforcement. I want to be very clear about that.

There are many agencies across our state, over 3 nationally, actually over 300 that already have a 30 day retention.

So if there is a case in which an individual is flagged based off of their license plate and that person is linked a person of interest on a case, then law enforcement is able to still move forward and investigate and potentially criminally charge.

Okay, so the argument that this somehow is disproportionately aimed at certain groups of people, to me is not valid. Like I said, these readers, they have no idea what the makeup of the person driving the car is. All this does is identify that the car's there.

And if they can see that pattern, and sometimes it doesn't take much, they can improve our public safety. And so, you know, we have assumptions that I think are just that they're assumptions. There are theoretical assumptions that things are going on, but then we have the real life.

And the real life is this is helping us catch people that we would not ordinarily have been able to catch. And that improves our public safety. And that's what this Committee is supposed to be about, is public safety. And so, yeah, I oppose this because of that. I'll be opposing it because of that.

I want our communities to be safe and I want people who just can't behave themselves and who keep making victims out of citizens that are just trying to live their lives. I want them to be caught and held accountable for what they're doing.

Just want to clarify the Committee amendments strike the language prohibiting public agencies from using automated license readers to collect geolocation data for immigration enforcement purposes to avoid conflicts with the California Values Act. So I just want to provide that clarification.

There seemed to be some confusion as to what is currently in the Bill and so I'll entertain any other questions or comments. Senator Gonzalez?

Yeah, I just want to say thank you to the author for bringing this forward because you're not banning this technology and I know you'll continue working with your, even your own law enforcement agency to ensure that, you know, if the 30 days needs to be discussed a bit more you can certainly do that. But there are concerns.

I have concerns in Long Beach. I have a whole Public Safety Committee in Long beach that has talked about the use of this technology. And I don't think that putting safeguards is a bad. A bad, you know, bad thing to do.

I think that it's something that we absolutely need to continue discussing, especially as the technology develops and ensuring that communities are at the table, too. So I look forward to working with you on this Bill. And I look, I know you'll continue to do the good work on. On this to make it better.

Any other questions or comments from Committee Members? Now I'll turn over to Senator Cervantes to close.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I do want to, you know, say that, yes, we will be continue working with our those in opposition and have further discussion. Again, this is because of an Auditor's report that calls into question how these systems are being run, how the data is being protected and what is being collected.

This Bill, again, is ensuring that we provide safeguards relating to employee access and system usage and that the DOJ does an annual audit of public agencies using ALPR. Respectfully ask for an aye vote for this measure

And I think it's a motion by Senator Gonzalez on SB274. If the Committee assistant could please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Keep that Bill on call. Thank you so much, Senator. Thank you. Witnesses. Okay, since we have a quorum, let's now entertain a motion on the consent calendar, which includes file item 10, SB 641, Ashby. And item 20, SB 857, the Committee omnibus Bill moved by Vice Chair Seyarto. We can please call the roll.

Arreguin, aye. Arreguin, aye. Seyarto, aye. Seyarto, aye. Caballero. Gonzalez, aye. Gonzalez, aye. Perez. Wiener, aye. Wiener, aye.

We'll keep that Bill on call as well. Let's entertain a motion now on file. Item 1, SB 75, Smallwood-Cuevas. Employment Reentry Pilot Project. Is there a motion on that Bill moved by Senator Gonzalez, If we can please call the roll.

SB 75 motion is do pass to Appropriations. Arreguin, aye. Arreguin, aye. Seyarto, aye. Seyarto, aye. Gonzalez, aye. Gonzalez, aye. Perez. Wiener, aye. Wiener, aye.

We'll keep that Bill on call as well, and we'll entertain a motion on file item 2, SB 303. Smallwood-Cuevas. And my recommendation is an aye as amended, moved by Senor Gonzalez. So if you can, please call the roll.

SB 303, Smallwood-Cuevas, motion is do pass as amended to the floor. Arreguin, aye. Arreguin, aye. Seyarto, no. Seyarto, no. Caballero. Gonzalez, aye. Gonzalez, aye. Perez. Wiener, aye. Wiener, aye.

Okay, thank you. We'll keep that Bill on call. And lastly, on the team of motion, file item 9, SB 635 Durazo, as amended. And my recommendation was that aye as amended on that Bill.

SB 635 Durazo, motion is do pass as amended to appropriations. Arreguin. Did somebody make the motion? Yes, Gonzalez did. Okay, I vote aye. Arreguin, aye. Seyarto, no. Seyarto, no. Caballero. Gonzalez, aye. Gonzalez, aye. Perez. Wiener, aye. Wiener, aye.

Okay, thank you. We'll keep that Bill on call as well. Okay, we're gonna go back to the file order. And next on file order is file item 3, SB 258 by Senator Dr. Wahab. And good morning.

All right. Okay, I'll turn over to you. Senator, Present.

Thank you. Chair and Members, I'd like to present SB 258, which is justice for disabled Spouses. I want to highlight that this Bill is a cleanup Bill to close the last remaining loophole on spousal rape in California law. Currently, our law permits the rape of a spouse who is unable to consent due to a disability.

While the same act of rape committed by an unmarried partner is a crime. SB 258 would remove the spousal rape exemption and discrimination against disabled spouses and creates parity in the law.

The California Legislative Women's Caucus has made SB 258 a priority Bill, recognizing the historic nature of finally ending the barbaric laws that treat women as the sexual property of their husbands and now obviously, sometimes in the same sex relationships.

SB 258 is backed by a grassroots coalition of disability advocacy groups, most notably the Association of Regional Center Agencies, which represents California's network of 21 community based nonprofits.

Nonprofits Regional Centers. The Regional Centers are the primary service providers for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities, or IDDs, coordinating services for and advocating on behalf of nearly a million Californians with IDDs.

San Francisco Senior and Disability Action, as well. Gender equity organizations like the National Women's Political Caucus of California, Feminist Majority, California now and Joyful Heart Foundation. Democratic organizations like the Santa Clara County Democratic Party and the LA County Democratic Party and many others.

Support for this Bill is widespread because of our society and the fact that we must recognize the horrific impact of spousal rape and the devastation that is caused to the victim when justice is denied. The case in France involving Giselle Pelcot struck a chord and resonated with people around the world.

In the United States, an estimated 1 in 10 married women have been raped by their spouse, often 20 or more times, according to the National Resource Center for Domestic Violence. We also know that there is an epidemic of sexual violence against disabled people.

According to the U.S. Department of Justice, disabled people are four times as likely to be sexually assaulted than their non-disabled counterparts. The same report found that less than one in five sexual assaults against disabled people are reported, leaving victims isolated and without essential support. Spousal rape exemptions are a relic of when women were considered the sexual properties of their husbands.

The myth that marriage itself gives irrevocable and ongoing consent persists to this day. Prior to 1975, spousal rape was not a crime in any state. Today, however, 42 states have passed laws to remove spousal rape exemptions but California has lagged behind.

In 2021, assembly Bill 1171 repealed the Spousal rape section in California law, but there is still one remaining disparity when a spouse is unable to consent due to disability. AB 1171 left marriage disabled people behind. In fact, the author highlighted that there needs to be cleanup and did support the effort.

SB 258 rights that wrong and removes discrimination based on disability and marital status from the rape law. SB 258 protects disabled individuals from being raped by their spouses when a disability renders them unable to consent to sex. Today, rape of a spouse who is too disabled to consent is not a crime.

That same rape, if committed by a non-spouse, is already a crime. That means that a couple that is unmarried but together 40 years the defendant would face criminal charges. But within a legally married couple that had been married for 24 hours, the defendant would be exempt from charges.

Defendants with same sex marriages, married couples do not have this exemption, only opposite sex couples. Forced oral copulation has no spousal rape exception, nor does sodomy. Only penetration of a vagina by a penis rape under California Penal Code 261 contains the spousal exception. Highlighting further the archaic, outdated and unfair nature of spousal rape exceptions.

Let me speak briefly. Opponents highlight the requirements that the victim might be unable to legally consent in the law. These claims are that it's confusing. It is not confusing at all. It is the same language that is found throughout the penal code on sex offenses.

This requirement works in favor of the defendant and provides the defendant with an additional layer of due process protection. Under SB 258, the prosecution is required to show that the defendant knew or should have known that the victim was completely unable to understand the act or its consequences.

That is a far harder thing for the prosecution to prove than that defendant knew or should have known that the victim did not want to have sex. This protects the defendant from a mistaken or false accusation. Another suggestion that victims should receive know your rights training and that would further fully prevent spousal rape of the disabled.

This is also nonsensical that this claim, given that the disabled spouse is covered by this Bill, are so disabled that they are unable to understand the act itself. So it is unclear how they would benefit from these types of trainings.

As far as sex education for spouses of disabled persons, domestic violence and sexual assault service providers can Attest Spousal rape occurs with alarming frequency and there is no evidence to show that this is effective in reducing the rate of Spousal rape in particular.

That said, we do not object to consent education being provided to the disabled so long as the spousal rape exemption is removed. Finally, I want to emphasize that this is a probation eligible offense whether the individuals are married or not. This is not a new mandatory minimum.

The judge will decide, using their discretion, after hearing all the facts and the circumstance of the matter, whether or not there is a need for education or training, or whether sterner accountability measures are appropriate.

This Bill respects the ability of all people, including disabled married people, to have the choice about their bodily autonomy to have sex when they choose and not have it thrust on them without their consent. Current law contains an ironclad presumption that a disabled spouse can never be too impaired by their disability to consent to sex.

It doesn't matter if the victim is paralyzed from a stroke. It doesn't matter if the victim is unable to understand their surroundings, move or speak after being hit by a drunk driver. It doesn't matter if they have dementia and no longer recognize their spouse. It doesn't matter if they are unable to scream, fight back or flee.

It also doesn't matter if the defendant knew for a fact that the victim was too disabled to consent, but sexually violated them anyways. That is the problem of what we're facing today.

According to opponents, if a victim was competent on their wedding day, then the marriage itself is proof of ongoing capacity to consent to sex, regardless of how distant in time the marriage may have been, what has happened with their health since then, or what the specific facts and circumstances were at the time of the rape.

They inadvertently make the same argument that has been made to justify spousal rape for centuries, that marriage should include irrevocable and ongoing consent to sex. SB 258 narrowly addresses this outdated and discriminatory law. There is nothing unusual about defining rape in circumstances where a person is incapable of consent due to a disability.

It is found that in other states and across the California penal code on sexual violence, what is unusual is the spousal rape exception, which is only found in California section on rape. I respectfully asked for an aye vote, and I will highlight that I have two witnesses here with me.

Terry Harman, Assistant DA at the Santa Clara County District Attorney's Office, and the head of their sexual assault case unit. And Tony Anderson, Associate Director for the Association of Regional Center Agencies, a network of 21 community organizations that support over 400,000 individuals with developmental disabilities. Thank you.

Thank you. You have two minutes to present on the Bill.

Good morning. On behalf of District Attorney Jeff Rosen, the Santa Clara County DA's office comes here today in support of SB 258. My name is Terry Harman. I'm an assistant DA and I'm charged with overseeing our sexual assault unit. There can be many defenses to an allegation of rape.

I am married to the victim should not be one of them. Far more people are vulnerable to sexual assault because of this loophole than if we get rid of it. The ability to consent is not a permanent label for any of us. It is not static or unchanging. People can be born with disabilities.

People can suffer from disabilities due to age, disease, car accident, a fall, a stroke. Whether someone is capable of consenting to sexual intercourse must be evaluated in conjunction with the event itself and the surrounding circumstances. This Bill does not criminalize consensual sex.

It protects the disabled and respects their rights to control their own sex life. And part of sex life control is the right to say no, regardless of whether you are married to the person. We prosecute acts of rape stemming from all sorts of situations and within the confines of different relationships. Stranger, dating, life partner, spouse.

Rape is an act of violence. Rape often leaves physical wounds and always inflicts emotional trauma. Rape is rape regardless of the marital status of the individuals involved. And it is high time that California law reflects that. Thank you.

Good morning. Good morning, Chair and Members. My name is Tony Anderson. As you heard, I'm representing the 21 Regional Centers from the Association of Regional Centers Agencies. We are. You've heard about our charge.

We are not only charged with the health and safety of people with developmental disabilities, the 450,000 Californians with developmental disabilities, but also with quality of life. And we also find ourselves fighting for the human and civil rights of people with developmental disabilities. It is with this purpose and statutory responsibility that we support Senator Wahab's SB 258.

While it is true that people with developmental disabilities have unique needs that are related to their disability, they also have needs and concerns that are typical of anyone else. And we at the Regional Centers are charged with ensuring that they live the full life that is similar to the needs of anybody else in society.

Unfortunately, the law today makes our clients more vulnerable to rape and sexual assault if they choose to get married. This is not fair or equal treatment. If any group of people should have additional protections, it would be people with developmental disabilities. The research shows that people with developmental disabilities.

We have known this now for a couple of decades. The research shows that they are disproportionately victimized of crimes victims of crime, including sexual assault and rape. Some studies have even shown that 10 times the rate of crime for people with developmental disabilities versus the General population, which is an incredible number.

There are various studies that show very similar numbers and it has been a focus to keep people with developmental disabilities safe. There have been many factors that have highlighted the research for why they are targeted as victims of crime.

Many of these, what they find is that many of the perpetrators talk about, they think there's a perception that people with developmental disabilities are good victims that they will not report and that there's a history of teaching people with developmental disabilities to be compliant.

So California has a long standing dedication and strong dedication to people with developmental disabilities. And it would be terrible for us to be amongst the last remaining states that keep a law like this on the books.

Today it is a crime to commit rape against an unmarried person with a developmental disability, but it is not a crime if the victim is a spouse of the offender. 258 will close this loophole and treat all people with developmental disabilities who are victims of rape the same as non disabled victims. Thank you. Thank you very much.

We'll not take any other Members of the public who are in support of Senate Bill 258. If you can please approach the microphone and state your name, your organization and your position on the Bill.

Good afternoon, Senators. I'm Michele Dauber. I'm a Professor of law at Stanford Law School. I'm here to speak in my individual capacity in strong support of this Bill and of ending the spousal rape loophole in California once and for all.

Good morning. Mr. Chair and Members. Karen Humphrey for the National Women's Political Caucus of California. We're co-sponsors and we strongly support this Bill. Thank you.

I'm Jenny Hutchinson of Coalition of Gender Equity, and we are here in strong support of this Bill.

Sharon Byrne with Women's Liberation Front. Thank you for bringing the Bill forward. Strong support.

LezLi Logan, with Action Together Bay Area, in strong support of SB 258.

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

Good morning. Doria Hana on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association, in strong support. Thank you.

Jenny Higgins with Women's March Action. Rape is Rape, so in strong support.

Erin Friday in support.

Beverley Talbott, with Women are Real and very strong support. Thank you.

Liz Stroder with Woman II Woman, and we are in strong support.

Denise Aguilar, Freedom Angels in support.

Tara Thornton, Freedom Angels in support.

Elizabeth Kenny in strong support.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support of SB 258. Okay, we'll now take up to two principal witnesses in opposition to SB 258. And if you can, please sit at the center of the table here. You have two minutes to address the Committee on the Bill.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members, My name is Gregory Cramer, and on behalf of Disability Rights California, we're in respectful opposition to Senate Bill 258. We protect and advocate for all disabled Californians, whether a victim or a defendant.

We respect the author's attempt to address sexual violence against disabled people, but as drafted, this Bill creates unintended consequences that hurt disabled people. People with intellectual and developmental disabilities have autonomy, which means they can consent to sexual activity. This was a hard fight after decades of involuntary sterilization and California's shameful history within the eugenics movement.

While the author intends the Bill to protect people with IDD, it's protection that's based on stereotypes and bias, which we don't find as protection. SB 258 removes the state's promise that people with IDD have the ability to consent to sexual activity in their marriage.

This presumption already unfortunately exists for unmarried people with IDD where the current law on capacity to consent to sexual activity has never once found an individual with IDD has capacity. This is no surprise as current law does not require the prosecution to present medical professional evidence of the person's disability or symptoms.

It allows the consideration of parents wishes as a substitute for the victim and even allows interferences or inferences that a person who cannot speak is incapacitated. Current law effectively presumes all sex among people with IDD is unconsensual, except for marital sexual activity.

While we disagree with the State of current law in this area, it's also why we are so protective of the language now threatened by Senate Bill 258. The unintended consequences of this Bill also do more than discriminate against disabled victims, but also discriminate against disabled defendants.

Prosecution under the law is rare, but mostly typically happens when two adults with IDD have sex with each other and the parents of one of them find out and disapprove.

Removal of this protection will jeopardize many sexual relationships that the couples thought were consensual, placing people with IDD at risk of a violent strike based solely on their disability. We're open to discuss this Bill with the author during the interim, but we're unable to support this Bill as it's stands. We respectfully request a no vote thank you.

Great. Next speaker, please. Got a few minutes?

Margo George on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association, though we certainly agree that, you know, all rape is wrong and should not be tolerated.

Unfortunately, because of the paternalistic and backward criminal code, the exception for sex within a marriage is the only legal way that two individuals or an individual with IDD intellectual and developmental disability are allowed to have sex under California's penal code. And this is taking this away would discriminate against these individuals.

And it's the very class that SB 258 seeks to protect. And as Mr. Cramer indicated, it does this in two ways.

One, unlike the probate code, which looks on a fact to fact code situation and requires expert medical opinion, the criminal code, repeatedly case law has said that this is a matter of fact for the jury to ascertain that it's a matter of lay opinion.

So then it means that a jurors eyeball this defendant and the victim and they decide based either on their biases or their desire to protect the individual, whether the person has the ability to consent when they have no expertise in this area. And then the other thing that Mr. Kramer mentioned was the case law.

Every single reported case has found that the individual did not have the capacity to consent. Even when the individual had said, no, I don't want to have sex. They said, this person doesn't have the capacity. Even when two young men came and testified, yes we agreed to the sex.

The court found they did not have the capacity to consent. And I personally have represented one person who was also IDD and had sex with another IDD person outside of marriage. And the parents pushed the prosecution and the individual was convicted of a lesser. I also represented a client who went to a parole hearing.

Yes, I will wrap it up. And the victim at the parole hearing testified they consented. They still found that the individual had sex with someone who could not consent. So respectfully ask for your no vote. Thank you.

All right, any this time we'll take any me toos. In opposition, please come to the mic your name, organization you represent and your opposition in the building.

Natasha Minskir, Smart Justice Respectfully opposed unless amended.

Liz Blum-Gutierrez, on behalf of the Los Angeles County Public Defenders Union, Local 148, La Defensa and initiate justice in respectful opposition.

Good morning. Emily Harris on behalf of Felony Murder Elimination Project. In opposition.

Aubrey Rodriguez with ACLU California Action. Opposed unless amended.

Angela Chan with the San Francisco Public Defender's Office. Opposed unless amended.

Any other witnesses in opposition to SB 258. Okay. If not, we'll bring it back to the Committee for any questions or comments. Vice Chair Seyarto.

Yeah. So I'll be supporting your Bill today, but would you like the opportunity to respond to some of the concerns that the opposition express, because. And you can do it in your clothes if you wish.

Definitely, no. I appreciate that. I'd actually like to turn it over to our witnesses who have far more detail in the legal perspective.

Yes. Thank you. Mr. Cramer mentioned that this would not require the prosecution to present evidence of someone's ability to consent. This is just wholly inaccurate. It's one of the things that the prosecution would have to show that, in fact, the victim did not have the ability to consent.

And this is done through expert testimony, not just a lay opinion. The jurors don't just eyeball the people involved and make their decision. There's expert testimony. There are witnesses that have provided services to the people involved.

And the jurors do what they do every day, which is they evaluate the evidence, they determine the facts, and they apply the law to those facts. Anecdotally, if I may, we did have a case where the issue of consent, there were factors on both sides, and the victim in that case had received services from SARC.

She presented as someone that struggled to communicate, but on the other hand, she had a driver's license, she was able to work a job. And so these items of evidence were presented to the jury. The attorneys argued the point, and the jurors ultimately concluded that this person had the ability to consent.

There were other issues in the case, but the point I want to illustrate is that the jurors understand and can make the right decision here. And at the end of the day, whether or not someone is married should be irrelevant to the question.

Thank you for your answer. Thank you. Any other questions or comments from Members of the Committee? Senator Wiener, thank you.

Thank you for bringing this Bill. I'm going to support the Bill, and I assume you'll be engaging with the opposition in the coming months.

This is a you know, an issue where we want to really get it right and make sure that because consent is incredibly important, we also want to make sure that folks living with a wide array of disabilities are able to live full, fulfilling lives. And, you know, the reality is that when it comes to consent.

It can be - people have to think about that in every sexual encounter, whether a person has a disability or doesn't have a disability, and that's important here as well. So I'll be supporting the Bill and I know that you'll be engaging with the opposition.

Thank you very much. Thank you for bringing this Bill forward. My recommendation is an aye and I'll turn it back over to you Senator to close on the Bill.

Thank you again I really want to thank the folks that brought this Bill forward. It is genuinely something that's very important to my district and all Californians and this Bill literally just seeks to bring parity so I respectfully ask for an aye vote and thank you for your time. Thank you very much.

Okay we'll keep that Bill on call thank you witnesses. We're going to proceed to our next Bill. And our next Bill is also by Senator Wahab SB 691, and we'll just take a brief recession it.

SB 258 Wahab motion is do pass to Appropriations. Arreguin, aye. Arreguin, aye. Seyarto, aye. Seyarto, aye. Caballero. Gonzalez. Perez. Wiener, aye. Wiener, aye.

Moved by Senator Seyarto, can please call the roll.

Doctor Wahab to present on S.B. 691.

Thank you, Chair. Folks, I just want to bring S.B. 691 to this Committee. S.B. 691 will require law enforcement agencies to update their body worn camera policies to ensure we protect the privacy of patients undergoing a medical or psychological evaluation, treatment or procedure.

Currently, if a firefighter paramedic is on scene rendering aid to a patient, they they may attempt to request law enforcement personnel to not record their treatment to protect the privacy of a patient. However, if local policy does not contemplate that specific circumstance, the law enforcement personnel may not have clear authorization to limit that recording.

The protection of patient privacy is critical, especially when the provider of care needs to collect information vital to delivering appropriate treatment. While our first responders can establish a perimeter and limit public access, a scene where a patient or patients are undergoing evaluation and or medical treatments needs to have clear direction.

When law enforcement is present and active body worn cameras are being used. By requiring agencies to update their body worn camera policy, we will ensure we have clear policies to protect patient privacy while preserving the important role of these cameras play in the field.

I want to note that over the course of the past few months I have been working with law enforcement and with many of the other groups that you're going to hear from.

My team and I are in conversation with a lot of the stakeholders to address the concerns and obviously I'm very committed to working and finding a solution with all parties. I do want to highlight the importance of when firefighter paramedics are the first to a call.

Many times there there is a sense of trust and we want the individual seeking the treatment or potentially getting the treatment to be honest about their circumstance.

This is not only potential, let's say admission of drug use, admission of some type of health concern or anything like that for our firefighter paramedics to be able to give the best treatment at that moment in time. They would like to ensure that there is trust and truth in the situation in the matter.

The concern is that if law enforcement is recording it and everyone knows that law enforcement have body worn cameras, that the individual in need may not be fully transparent about what is going on, delay potential support and help and the consequences are deeply negative. So with that I do just want to highlight my two witnesses.

I have with me Rex Pritchard, Secretary Treasurer of Long Beach Firefighters Local 372 and Doug Subers on behalf of the California Professional Firefighters.

Good morning and turn over to you Sir. You have two minutes to present the Bill.

Thank you. Good morning Mr. Chair and Senators, my name is Rex Pritchard and I'm the Secretary Treasurer, Long Beach Firefighters Local 372 and 2nd District Vice President for California Professional Firefighters.

I am pleased to be here today in support of SB691, critical legislation to further protect patient privacy when firefighter EMTs and paramedics are rendering aid in the field. As an active engineer in the Long Beach Fire Department, I am regularly on scene of medical emergencies.

In addition to rendering aid to patients, it is my responsibility to take the steps to reasonably protect the privacy of my patients, not only because federal legislation states it, but more importantly because our patients deserve privacy while being medically examined.

Whether performing an evaluation or providing care, it is critical that I can speak to my patient in a manner that protects their privacy and facilitates effective communication.

We ask our patients very personal questions in order to try to diagnose their medical condition and the privacy of that conversation is vital in order to get the answers we need to provide effective treatment. Depending on the medical complaint, we may have to ask questions such as are you using sexually enhancing medications?

Have you ever had a miscarriage or abortion? Can you please remove your shirt so we can do a 12 lead EKG? Many times I am on scene. Law enforcement is also present. Under those circumstances, law enforcement personnel have typically activated their body worn cameras and are recording because Department policy requires them to do so.

So even when on scene of a traffic accident with no criminal investigation occurring, officers are recording our patient examinations while we are trying to get our patients while they are trying to get their patient's driver's license and proof of insurance.

It's situations like this that make our patients uncomfortable in answering our questions and or having to have their naked body recorded. In order to protect the privacy of my patient, I ask law enforcement personnel to stop recording or move to another location during my assessment.

Unfortunately, local policy does not provide sufficient direction on how to handle these situations. That's why SB691 is so important. This Bill will allow local law enforcement agencies to update their policies in a manner they see fit, so long as that policy outlines steps to protect patient privacy when undergoing a medical or psychological evaluation or treatment.

For these reasons, we respectfully request your aye vote on this measure today.

Thank you. Mr. Chair and Senators, my name is Doug Subers. I'm here on behalf of the California Professional Firefighters. We represent 35,000 firefighters and emergency medical services personnel statewide. We're pleased to sponsor and strongly support SB 691 and would like to thank the author for bringing this measure forward.

As noted by Senator Wahab and Secretary Treasurer Pritchard, this measure is critical to protect the privacy of patients receiving aid from emergency medical professionals in the field. We've been working closely with interested parties on this measure.

We continue to have deep discussion about different ways to adjust the language to preserve the role of body worn cameras and make demonstrable steps forward on how to appropriately protect patient privacy in the field.

We believe we're making progress with all parties and we think if this should this Bill move forward today, we're committed to continuing to work through these issues and hopefully find a landing spot that ultimately protects patient privacy in the field. And for those reasons, we would ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. We'll take any other Members of the public in support of SB691. If you can please approach the microphone. State your name, organization and position. Okay. Don't see any other witnesses in support. We'll now take up to two principal witnesses in opposition to SB691.

Mr. Chairman, Members, Randy Perry on behalf of PORAC. We've been working with the author and his sponsors. They have taken our language. However, I know we're going to continue talks on some additional language that they're putting in the Bill if they want to run by us but at this point we're likely to go neutral on the Bill. Thank you.

So that one doesn't count.

Okay.

Your opinion counts, but that I'm not going to. I'm not going to assume that that's a principal witness in opposition.

Marco George, on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association. We're opposed unless amended. We appreciate the conversations with the author and the sponsors. We agree with the Committee analysis pointing out the problems at this time and zeroing in on our concerns. Body worn camera footage provides the only objective evidence of interactions between law enforcement and our clients.

And that becomes even more crucial with the advent of AI generated police reports which are generated based on voice transcription only. We're especially concerned about officers having complete discretion to turn off their body worn cameras. And one example of that is in Los Angeles.

There were two gang unit officers who the LA Police Department was seeking to fire. They had uncovered misconduct in the San Fernando Valley unit where the officers were routinely turning off their body cams to conceal alleged misdeeds such as theft and falsifying reports.

The other concern we have is the possible redaction that that would even be worse than a turning the camera off. But they're both bad and we're really. The bottom line is that no policy should allow law enforcement to decide what should be recorded with their body worn cameras.

We're perfectly happy for the firemen or EMTs to ask the officers to step away. So we look forward to continuing working with the firefighters and the author. But at this point we're asking for no vote unless it's amended to address these issues. Thank you.

Thank you

Chair Members. My name is Aubrey Rodriguez. I'm a legislative advocate with ACLU California Action. I want to start by thanking the author and her staff for engaging in honest conversations with us to address some of our as we navigate our concerns.

The ACLU has long valued the right to privacy and we have fought for privacy rights in courts throughout our entire history. So we deeply appreciate the author's intention here in wanting to protect a patient's right to privacy and dignity during treatment.

However, we believe SB 691 as currently written as a prone to abuse by law enforcement because it would authorize officers to stop recording their body worn cameras. No policy should ever permit law enforcement to turn their body worn cameras off as there are way too many examples of officers turning off their cameras to hide their misconduct.

As Margo just mentioned here, one major flaw in authorizing law enforcement to turn off their cameras is that it is difficult to draft appropriate guidance on when the camera should be turned back on. This ambiguity will result in officers who forget to turn their camera back on preventing the officers preventing the recording of the officer's actions.

These cameras are one of our few accountability tools that we impose on law enforcement in the first place, so we shouldn't weaken it in any way. The amendments outlined in our letter that we provided to the author and the Committee does not permit law enforcement officers turning off their body worn cameras.

Instead, it simply requires the officers to step away from a patient as they are not health experts nor are they medical professionals who can offer valuable insight. Furthermore, our amendments clarify the decision to initiate patient privacy protection as properly in the discretion of medical professionals, not police officers.

For these reasons, we're opposed to SB691 unless it is amended and we look forward to ongoing conversations with the author. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. We'll now take any other witnesses in opposition to SB 691. Please come forward and state your name, organization and position.

Liz Blum-Gutierrez on behalf of Initiated Justice in opposition and on behalf of La Defensa who's opposed unless amended

Good morning Lieutenant Julio De Leon with the Riverside County Sheriff's Office in opposition.

Good morning. Tracy Rosenberg with Oakland Privacy. We would match our comments to both of the opposition witnesses. We're in an OUA position.

Good morning, Chair and members. Usha Mutchler, on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association, in opposition. Thank you.

Hello. Angela Chan with the San Francisco Public Defender's Office, opposed unless amended.

Colby Lynn, California Coalition for Women Prisoners, opposed unless amended.

Doria Hana, California District Attorneys Association, will be withdrawing our opposition. Thank you.

Anastasia Franco, Flying Over Walls Prisoner Solidarity Project. Opposed, unless amended.

Elizabeth Nomura, California Coalition for Women Prisoners, Formerly Incarcerated. Opposed, unless amended.

Nedric Miller, All of Us or None, Sacramento. Opposed unless amended.

Okay. Unless there are any other witnesses in opposition. I'll bring it back to the Committee for any questions or comments on the Bill. Senator Gonzalez,

Thank you very much. And I first want to say hello to Rex, my former Long Beach Union President at the Fire Department. I haven't seen him for some time. He's very cool now, so we don't see him as much, but it's great that you're in the position you are.

But thank you to the author for bringing this forward. And I think that there's a lot of work that needs to be done here. Clearly, obviously, the opposition still.

And it seems that there's still a lot of holes that need to be patched in terms of what, you know, constitutes when you can turn off the camera and for what reasons, which I think.

I agree, I think there are valid reasons for why you'd want to turn that off, but I think there needs to be a clear sort of pathway for both. For both groups to come forward.

So I'll be supportive of the Bill today, but I do want, of course, the author to continue working with the opposition to ensure that we get to a good place. And if this needs to continue on for some time, then we need to do that, too.

But I think the opposition does bring valid points, and so I look forward to working with you all on this. Thank you.

Yeah, I appreciate this bill. I think it's something that we don't necessarily think about until an emergency happens. And very interestingly enough, had this conversation come up after one of my sister's friends was in a major collision with someone driving under the influence. And, you know, they had to go and pull her out of the vehicle.

Some of her clothes, you know, had come off in the process. And, you know, she was like, oh, my gosh, it's so embarrassing. You know, officers are there, they're recording. Then I hadn't even considered that, like, what it means that now all of our police Personnel are wearing cameras.

So I do think there is a privacy component to take into account here. And I think it can make folks feel, like, very uncomfortable to know that or to want to share maybe personal information, because we're mindful of those things. Right? We're human.

And I think taking that into account, especially when we're trying to protect people's health and make sure that people are safe, is really, really important. So I'm happy to vote on the Bill today. I understand your point about also, you know, this being an important tool just for, you know, oversight and, you know, accountability.

It's also, I a helpful tool for our officers as well. But I think that there's an important middle ground for us to try to define here. So at the end of the day, I think the work that our firefighters are doing is protecting people's health and their safety.

And that's what's most important, right, is making sure we're serving that.

Didn't think I was going to sit this one out. So real life, everybody out in the field is subjected to a lot of scenes where people are just dying to figure out a way to sue somebody sometime at some point.

And a lot of these incidents that paramedics and firefighters go on also have a crime component to it. And so we have this clashing interest, but we also have, as the medical provider, we have a legal obligation to protect the privacy of that patient no matter what. It's a HIPAA violation to not do that.

And if we are not, and I say we, and I've been out for many years, but I still affiliate. It's hard to take the we out of 35 years of doing this.

But when you have a situation like that and you're going to violate your HIPAA violation, you commit a HIPAA violation, not only do you get fined, but you get sued. And so everybody has to protect themselves from lawsuits.

And it's interesting to note you have law enforcement and people that don't usually agree on a Bill are both on the same side. And why? Because while this side thinks or opines that this is all about officers trying to get away with something, you will ask the officer's side and it's.

They're recording this so that they can prove what's going on on scene instead of the, you know, instead of being accused of something and they don't have the proof. We also see snippets of body cam footage used in court against officers. When they only use the snippet, they don't show the whole thing.

Especially, and this is especially in the court of public opinion that gets on TV, so that whole process can be abused. But back to this particular item, somehow we have to come to an agreement. And usually, you know, we used to work very well with the, with our officers, but they didn't have body cam back in.

Back when I was, when I was a medic. But as cell phone footage and all that stuff started coming on, people actually did try to record what was going on. And, and, and then HIPAA came along and we had to protect that, and we had to tell people, stop recording. Don't take pictures of our patient.

Because it is, all the situations that my colleague from Alhambra is talking about are situations that we have to take into consideration. Nothing like being hurt in an accident and then laying naked in front of everybody, and it's humiliating for them. So we have to protect that. And so I can see where this Bill came from.

And, and I can also see that it needs some work so that we can come to a good agreement on how to handle these situations so that our officers are protected, so that patients are protected, and so that the scene is protected at the same time and recorded so that we have some real live footage of what is actually occurring as opposed to the interpretations that happen in court.

And so I will be supporting the Bill today and, you know, with the hopes that we continue to work on this so that we can get everybody on the same page and protect each other's interests, because this is one of those few incidents where sometimes law enforcement and fire have kind of almost opposing issues.

So look forward to working with them to continue this conversation a little bit. So. And with that, I'll move the Bill.

Thank you. Any other questions or comments from Committee Members? You know, I know this Bill is coming from a really good place, wanting to protect the dignity and the safety of people that are receiving emergency care. There are a lot of things to balance. And so I appreciate the conversations that you've been engaged in with the author.

I will be supporting the Bill today. I know that, that working together, we'll be able to come to a resolution. I think that balances the important need for this Bill with, I think, the issues that have been raised by law enforcement as well. So with that, I'll turn it back to the author to close.

Thank you. You know, for all the points that were raised. I do want to say that there's a lot of sensitive content out there.

I think that we've talked to opposition groups to kind of find some type of middle ground, whether that's blurring out, beeping out, redacting, everything's on the table as to exactly what we can come up with. And we've worked with opposition in the past. We're more than happy to continue our conversations with them as well.

However, I do just want to highlight that this type of content, if out there, does violate federal HIPAA laws. And we just want to, again, protect the particular patient in all circumstances, as well as still allow law enforcement to do their jobs.

I've worked, you know, on City Council, and when you see a lot of the video footage in closed session, sometimes it's hard to actually see what you know you're truly looking at, especially with the blurry cameras, but sometimes you can hear audio, things like that.

So I just want to be able to have laws that are, you know, up to par with technology as it advances. Again, respectfully ask for an aye vote and all the commentary. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Moved by Vice Chair Sierra, the Committee assistant could please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay, thank you. We'll keep that Bill on call. So, Members, this is how I'd like to proceed. I'd like to now proceed to file item 6, SB 337, by Senator Menjibar, then thereafter proceed to file item 11, SB 850, by Senator Ashby. And then we'll proceed back to the second Bill by Senator Menjobar, without objection.

So we'll proceed now to file item six, Senate Bill 337, by Senator Menjibar. And good morning, Senator.

Good morning, Mr. Chair. Man. Allergies are getting me today. Colleagues, for those who were here last year, you, in the past years, you see me work to address sexual assault in our prisons, predominantly our women's prisons. SB 337 continues that work I have started in addressing these kind of issues.

And it's a big bill with a lot of provisions in it because it's looking to address a lot of different things that are going on in our prisons. We want to make sure that we have a comprehensive approach to not just how we respond to sexual assaults and harassment in our prison, but to find a way to eradicate it.

Because what's happening right now is the very people that we've entrusted to take care of our incarcerated individuals, predominately women, are the very individuals that are committing and re-traumatizing our individuals. You've heard two years ago, less than two years ago, of one individual who is now charged with 50 counts of sexual assault.

Now, earlier this year, a gynecologist in the very prison was also charged with tens of tens of other accounts of sexual assault and harassment during pap smears, medical visit, medical visits, and so forth. And you'd wonder, are they alone? No, they were with another individual that was complicit in these attacks against our incarcerated women.

So I don't want to hear another, oh, we're going to have another CDCR individual be an advocate. We don't want that. We need a third party individual to come in and make sure that we're holding people accountable. So I'm going to go through this somewhat long list of provisions of things we're looking to address in our prisons.

We want to make sure that individual is allotted the opportunity to have a third party advocate whenever searches happen. Not anyone that works for the CDCR, just someone outside that is not beholden to what CDCR is going to tell them to do. We want to make sure that CDCR documents the searches.

Did you know right now anyone can be searched and it's not documented? So when an individual, incarcerated person comes forward and says, I've been searched and I was harassed, there is no proof or evidence documented that ever happened. And it's going to be officer said, incarcerated person said.

And we know how those, where people will land on that. We want to make sure that we extend the grievance window from 60 to 120 days. If you're sexually assaulted, are you going to tell me that you only have 60 days to collect your bearings, maybe recover from any physical attacks and then report? No.

You need additional time. We want to make sure that they are giving double that time to collect the strength they need to come forward and report a horrendous act like that. We want to make sure that they're also able to file these grievances in an, in an anonymous manner.

We all have heard that there's retaliation that occurs when people report and say that an officer attacked them sexually or physically. So we want to make sure they do it anonymously and we want them to go directly to OIG. In the Governor's proposed budget right now, there's money to allocate to the officers, Office of Inspector General to beef up their ability to respond to these kind of cases.

So let's make sure they can report to them directly. And we want to prohibit the hiring of CDCR staff or applicants found guilty of violent or sexual crimes in the community. This, colleagues, to me is a no brainer. Why are we going to hire someone who has a history of sexually attacking the very gender of the community they're looking to go and spend a lot of their time with? And we want to mandate termination and permanent ineligibility of CDCR staff once they're found guilty.

Because what's happening in these prisons is what I saw happen in the military. Somebody was charged with something, accused of something, and instead of rectifying the situation, they merely transferred them to another facility so they can run rampant again. We want to also require CDCR to disclose relationships.

If I am conducting an investigation against my sister or my brother who is the alleged perpetrator in the situation, I am going to have a biased approach. I should recuse myself and not be the lead investigator. So we want CDCR to disclose these kind of relationships so that we have a fair investigation on these kind of cases.

And finally, this is kind of similar to what the conversation you just had with the Senator Wahab. We want to address and update the CDCR's body worn policy because, again, when we come with the he said, she said situation, officers don't have to turn on their cameras until someone approaches them. But how do we know someone approached them? They can merely just have their cameras off the entire time and say no one ever approached me, but in that time actually have someone that approach them.

So colleagues, this is just a very comprehensive with the work with the Chair and the Committee to ensure that we are addressing a lot of the situations that we're seeing in our prisons and rectify that. And with that, respectfully asking for an aye vote. Mr. Chair, I'd like to now turn to my two witnesses in support.

And if you are here to testify in support of SB 337, please come forward.

We have Tina-Marie Silva speaking on behalf of the California Coalition of Women Prisoners and Grace Glaser on behalf of Valor in the Sexual Assault Response and Prevention Working Group.

Great. Good morning. You'll each have two minutes to address the Committee.

Good morning. My name is Tina-Marie Silva. I'm formally incarcerated and was released in 2023 after serving 10 years. I spent 2 years at CCWF and the remainder at CIW. Towards the end of my sentence, my boss began making sexual comments to me. It turned into inappropriate advances and worse.

I was only four months from my parole date, and I was worried that if I reported I'd be removed from the fire program and possibly transferred. A few days after I was assaulted, a peer reported him. The Investigative Services Unit, ISU, came to interview me at my job.

I was just starting to process being sexually assaulted and they interviewed me where I was assaulted and with his CO friends in the next room. The officer started my investigation saying the CO who assaulted me is a well liked and family man. I did not feel safe to report.

This bill gives victims more time to process and decide if they want to report, which can come with traumatizing consequences. It also allows victims to report anonymously to the Office of the Inspector General. I'm hoping this will give victims the strength to name predators without fear of being shamed or threatened.

Reporting to an outside entity is also crucial for an unbiased investigation. My abuser was transferred to the prison across the street, where he is today. This bill will stop abusers from continuing to work for CDCR, which allows them to preserve their dignity after destroying ours. Lastly, this bill will stop more officers from turning off their cameras.

If my interrogation was on video, it would have proved I was being blamed, not supported. It would have shown ISU harassing me after and including handcuffing me and walking me across the yard like I was to blame. It is my sincere hope that SB 337 passes to allow victims like me time and safer ways to report the abuse. I believe this bill will help stop the cycle and culture of violence that CDCR allows.

Thank you, Chair and Committee Members. I am Grace Glaser, and on behalf of Valor and the Sexual Abuse Response and Prevention Working Group, I speak in strong support of SB 337 by Senator Menjivar. SB 337 makes important changes to the reporting, investigations, and disciplinary process that takes place after staff abuse has occurred, addressing well founded fears of retaliation and preventing abusers, including medical staff, from perpetrating further harm. But SB 337 also includes critical measures to prevent sexual abuse from occurring in the first place by increasing oversight.

We consistently hear from incarcerated individuals about the improper and frequent deactivation of body worn cameras by custody staff, often during incidents of assault or other misconduct. By closing loopholes in CDCR's policy that allow staff to evade detection of their abuse. This bill offers a step towards greater transparency and accountability within these facilities.

SB 337 also seeks to address the incredibly problematic practice of body searches, which can be ordered by officers at any time and are required for incarcerated people to be able to visit their family. Excessive and traumatizing strip searches are a common experience.

We frequently hear horrifying stories about never ending strip searches and invasive pat downs that lead to individuals to stop accepting any visits from their loved ones because they fear a repeat experience. SB 337 would require documentation of every search and scan, create a paper trail of abusive searches and the opportunity for an advocate to be requested, adding real time oversight to the very vulnerable and traumatizing situation.

We appreciate Senator Menjivar's continued leadership and her willingness to incorporate key recommendations from our working group's report, which is based on outreach to over 700 incarcerated people in CDCR women's designated prisons. SB 337 directly addresses this concern, and we firmly believe that these measures will significantly enhance the safety of both officers and the people living in these facilities. For these reasons, Valor and the Sexual Abuse Response and Prevention Working Group urge you to strongly support SB 337. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We'll now take any witnesses in support of SB 337. Please line up and approach the microphone and state your name, organization, and position.

Natasha Minsker, Smart Justice California, in very strong support.

Liz Blum-Gutierrez on behalf of La Defensa, Initiate Justice, and the Los Angeles County Public Defenders Union Local 148 in strong support.

Eve Banas with the Sacramento LGBT Community Center in strong support.

Simelia Rogers, Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, in strong support. Also registering opposition for the California Alliance for Youth and Community Justice and Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice, otherwise known as CURYJ.

Support, not opposition.

Sorry, support. Thank you.

Emily Wonder on behalf of Sister Warriors Freedom Coalition, proud co-sponsors of SB 337, in strong support. Thank you.

Kelly Savage-Rodriguez working with Survived and Punished in strong support.

Good morning. Dax Proctor, Californians United for a Responsible Budget, and on behalf of Decarcerate Sacramento and Universidad Popular in strong support.

Good morning. Emily Harris on behalf of Young Women's Freedom Center and Felony Murder Elimination Project in strong support.

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

AD Lewis on behalf of the Trans Advocacy Group and the SB 132 Coalition in strong support.

Jesse Lerner-Kinglake from Just Detention International in strong support.

Anastasia Franco, Flying Over Walls Prisoner Solidarity Project, formerly imprisoned, in strong support.

Jacquie Corrigan, former Chapter President of PFLAG, current member of PFLAG, and mother of an adult transgender individual in strong support.

Colby Lenz, California Coalition for Women Prisoners, proud co-sponsor. Thank you.

Good morning. Shayna Kirk here on behalf of myself and Amy Wren and Rainbow Families Action in strong support of this bill. Thank you.

Toran Ailisheva, Flying Over Walls Prisoner Solidarity Project, strong support.

Elizabeth Nomura, survivor of abuse by Dr. Lee, formerly incarcerated, California Coalition for Women Prisoners, in strong support.

Diana Sands, California Coalition for Women Prisoners, in strong support of Tina-Marie Silva and this bill. Thank you.

Hello. My name is Joss Greene. I'm a professor of sociology at UC Davis. My areas of expertise are gender violence and prison, and I'm in strong support of this bill.

Good morning. My name is Ryann Hall, and I'm on behalf of CalPride, and we are in strong support. Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Oakley Phoenix. I'm here on behalf of the Miss Major Alexander L. Lee TGIJP Black Trans Cultural Center, and I'm in strong support.

Emme Rackham. I'm here in support of Tina-Marie and about this bill. Just a community member.

Damon Shuja Johnson, a black man, speaking men and women of color, in strong support.

Nedric Miller, All of Us or None Sacramento, strong support.

Denise Aguilar from Freedom Angels in support and request to amend it to include SB 132 transfers.

Tara Thornton, co-founder of Freedom Angels, in support with a request to include SB 132 290 transfers.

Jennifer Orthwein, Orthwein Law. I'm an attorney who represents incarcerated folks all over California, and I'm in strong support.

Hi, everyone. Sarah Lee with the Immigrant Legal Resource Center in support.

I'm Jared Thaler on behalf of myself, my friends, and my family, strongly in support.

Aubrey Rodriguez with ACLU California Action in proud support.

Nicole Kidd from TGIJP in strong support.

Alice Kessler on behalf of Equality California in support.

LR Roberts, support.

Jessica Gachet on behalf of PFLAG Danville/San Ramon Valley, San Jose/Peninsula, Oakland/East Bay, and Tri Valley. We are in strong support. Thank you.

Lena Mallett with the Children's Defense Fund California in strong support.

Joshua Stickney on behalf of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights and the SB 132 Implementation Coalition in strong support.