Senate Standing Committee on Public Safety

Okay. Good morning and welcome to the Tuesday, June 10, 2025 meeting of the State Senate Committee on Public Safety. And we do not yet have a quorum of the Committee present, so we will meet as a Subcommitee. And once we establish quorum, we'll call roll and entertain motions.

But we do. We do want to proceed with our Bill hearings. This is the first of the Committee's hearings to hear Assembly bills. We have 12 bills on the agenda, although I want to note that file item 5, AB 387 by Assemblymember Alanis has been pulled by the author. That will be taken up at the author's request in the future.

And we have six bills on the consent calendar. And I'll read those bills at this time. File item 4, Assembly Bill 354, by Michelle Rodriguez. File item 6, Assembly Bill 584, by Assemblymember Hadwick. File item 7, Assembly Bill 741, by Assemblymember Ransom. File item 8, Assembly Bill 799, by Assemblymember Celeste Rodriguez. File item 9, Assembly Bill 879, by Patterson. And file item 12, Assembly Bill 1213, by Assemblymember Stefani.

So once we establish quorum, a motion on the consent calendar, and with that, we can proceed with our Bill presentations, we will take up all measures in file order.

And the first Bill we have on our agenda today is file item 1, Assembly Bill 379 by Assemblymember Schultz. And before we turn over to the Bill author, as the chair of this Committee, I just want to make a few introductory comments. This Bill, Assembly Bill 379, has been the subject of a great deal of public interest and discussion.

The original iteration of the Bill by Assemblymember Maggie Krell would have increased penalties for solicitation of a minor of the ages of 16 and 17 years old, as well as make it a misdemeanor to loiter in any public place with the intent to purchase commercial sex.

This Bill went through an extensive process in the State Assembly, ultimately resulting in the current version of this Bill, which restores criminal penalties for solicitation of a minor of the ages of 16 and 17 years if there's an age difference of three years between the victim and the perpetrator, as well as restoring the penalties for loitering with the intent to engage in prostitution.

I believe that the current version of the Bill is a reasonable compromise that balances the concerns of opposition with the goal of protecting our youth from being victims of human trafficking, as well as holding perpetrators accountable.

I want to acknowledge that this Bill is a result of work that started several years ago in the Legislature, working with victim advocates to begin to change the laws in the state to center victims and to ensure accountability and prosecution of people engaged in human trafficking of minors.

This work is incredibly important as not too far from here in Sacramento, we have youth who are being trafficked on a nightly basis. It's time that we prioritize victims and that we take seriously the terrible crime of human trafficking here in the State of California.

This Bill is about protecting our youth, centering victims, increasing prosecution of traffickers and johns, and providing the resources to community based providers who serve victims of human trafficking. This is a significant step towards justice.

And to that end, as chair of the Senate Public Safety Committee and in recognition of the many months of work and negotiations that led to the current version of this Bill, my goal this morning is to pass this Bill out of Committee with no amendments.

Given that this Bill has already undergone significant work, I believe we should move it forward in its current form, the Senate Appropriations Committee and ultimately the Senate Floor. I want to acknowledge the important policy discussion around the loitering provisions of this Bill and commit to working with the author and Senator Wiener to discuss that specific piece separately.

And if we can come to agreement on a proposal, it could be advanced through separate legislation. But for now, my goal is to move this Bill forward as is today, and that will be my recommendation to the Committee.

So I want to thank my colleagues and I want to turn it over to the Bill author, Semlin Verscholz, to begin his Bill presentation on Assembly Bill 379.

Good morning, Mr. Chair, and esteemed Committee Members. Are you ready for me to begin? All right. Well, I am pleased to be with you all today. And I want to begin by thanking you, Mr. Chair, for your comments. I want to thank the entire Committee for your dedication and focus to this issue.

You certainly have my commitment to continue the conversation as we go today to address any of the unanswered questions or concerns that there might be.

Before I get into a more robust discussion of AB 379, I would like to emphasize that California already has some of the strongest laws in the nation on the books regarding human trafficking and the protection of our children.

Many of those laws, including the law that prohibits contacting a minor with intent to commit a sex offense, carry felony penalties. In recent years, this body and the Legislature at large has voted on a bipartisan basis to strengthen these laws, and that record has continued so far with Assembly Bill 379.

Sex trafficking and the exploitation of children are serious issues in California, and they deserve serious, strong and nuanced legislative solutions.

The Bill before us today is a stronger and more comprehensive version than the original Bill introduced by Assemblymember Maggie Krell, but we are grateful to have her on as a coauthor and supportive of this incredible piece of legislation before you today.

While the focus has been on the sentencing piece of this Bill, I will note that AB 379 also includes tougher penalties for the businesses that are complicit in human trafficking. It includes new tools for prosecutors and enhanced support for survivors of human trafficking.

I'd like to briefly talk about the four major provisions of the Bill with regards to sentencing. AB 379 does authorize felony punishment for solicitation of a minor by an adult more than three years older than the minor.

In those instances, it would be a wobbler and at the discretion of the District Attorney, subject to review by the Superior Court of California. A second or subsequent violation would be punishable as a mandatory felony.

It also creates a misdemeanor for loitering with the intent to purchase commercial sex, and it requires any person convicted of solicitation of a minor who is granted probation - it requires them to attend an education program on human trafficking, child exploitation, and how their conduct continues to fuel this dark industry in California.

With regards to the financial fines and penalties, this legislation authorizes the California Attorney General to enforce the human trafficking noticing requirements that are currently the law of the land and to pursue civil penalties against hotels and other establishments that allow sex trafficking in their facilities.

I will note that from my background as a criminal prosecutor working on these kinds of cases, one of the things that AB 379 does is answer the unanswered question of who is actually responsible for enforcing these already tough laws on our books.

This has been a gap in legal coverage that has existed for many years, and that's a gap that we've endeavored to close in the course of creating 379.

It also increases fines on hotels that turn a blind eye to sex trafficking occurring at their facilities, moving the range up from 1 to $10,000, which is the current range, to a range of 3 to $25,000.

It increases fines for failing to post human trafficking notices for specified businesses, moving the range up from 500 to 1,000 dollars to the new range of 1 to 2,000 dollars. And it requires a person convicted of the new loitering offense or solicitation to pay an additional $1,000 fine.

With regard to victim support, AB 379 requires the California Victim Compensation Board to establish a grant program to support community based organizations that provide direct services and outreach to the survivors of human trafficking. And it deposits all collected fines into the Survivor's Support Fund.

And lastly, with regards to enforcement, AB379 creates a new vertical prosecution grant program. I'll note that this is a really exciting piece that we're really pleased to see in the latest version of this Bill.

This prosecution grant program for human trafficking would incentivize District Attorney offices to assign prosecutors and investigators to specialized human trafficking units and to ensure that they stay for the entire history and duration of the case.

In closing, I'll just note that with me today to speak in support of AB 379 and we'll go in this order, we have Ashley Faison, the founder of Diamond Collective, and we also have with us the elected Sacramento County District Attorney, Thien Ho. And I'll turn it over to them at this time. Thank you very much. Good morning.

Good morning. Thank you for letting me be here. First, I want to ask a question. Can you imagine at 16, being raped by a sex buyer hundreds of miles from your home, powerless with them on top of you, to then be violently beaten, stabbed or murdered? These are real childhood memories of mine and other victims.

Yet some leaders in California believe sex work is empowering and should be an option for our children. That mindset will keep our marginalized populations oppressed.

At 16 years old, I was a little mixed girl lured into this dark underworld and sex trafficked across California where sex buyers couldn't care less about my age or that I was a missing child. They preyed on my vulnerabilities. Like many child sex trafficking victims, I reached the age of adulthood while being trafficked, not realizing I was coerced.

It was another survivor running an anti-trafficking organization that helped me understand the legal definition of sex trafficking and break free from the invisible chains of coercion that kept me in shame for years after my trafficking ended. This is why the Survivor Support Fund pouring back into survivor led organizations is so vital.

On behalf of the Survivor Coalition, we hope to see amendments in the future, but we want to thank the original author, Assemblymember Maggie Krell, Senator Shannon Grove, and our allies in the anti-trafficking movement for fighting to protect children. With your aye vote, you honor every survivor present here, every victim here today and across the state.

You honor the child we once were that had endured the abuse and perverted requests of sex buyers. The man was overlooked when we were trafficked as minors. But you have the power to say this ends now.

We appreciate you seeing us and hearing our cry to have loitering with the intent to purchase someone for prostitution become a crime is a win. Thank you for upholding the fact that 16 and 17 year olds are still children and ensuring my child, yours and every child in California will have this enforcement in place. Vote aye, hold buyers accountable.

Thank you. Thank you so much for joining us today and for your courage in telling your story and your advocacy on behalf of victims. We really appreciate it. Good morning, Mr. District Attorney. Oh, before we do that, we do have a quorum presence. So I'd like to ask the Committee assistant to call the roll.

[ROLL CALL]

Okay. Thank you Mr. District Attorney.

Good morning, Mr. Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to be here and to testify and speak on behalf of AB 379. AB 379, in my experience as a 25 year prosecutor and the District Attorney of the state's capitol is necessary. It is a strategic approach to dealing with human trafficking. It is precise. It is victim centered and survivor focused.

It allows us as prosecutors the opportunity to go after those individuals who are buying sex. But what it also does is it allows us to approach this in a measured way with the three year age gap, making sure that we treat people who are differently situated appropriately.

I believe there's a difference between somebody in their 50s buying sex and soliciting sex from a minor versus somebody who is 18, 19, or 20. And this law does it. Additionally, it provides us with the tools to help victims with the fines that are focused on the buyers.

One of the amendments that we had from the original version was to remove the fine that were on the victims and and that way we were then able to really create a Bill that is victim centered and victim focused.

It gives us the tools to do so in a way that is strategic. And with that I would ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We'll now take any me-too testimony in support of Assembly Bill 379. If you can please approach the microphone and state your name, organization, and position on the Bill.

Michele Hanisee for California District Attorneys Association. In support.

Coby Pizzotti on behalf of Bakersfield Mayor Karen Goh in strong support.

Michaela Lavatoria on behalf of Lieutenant Governor Eleni Kounalakis as a proud cosponsor in support.

Brock Campbell on behalf of Freedom's Way Baptist Church out in Kosteic in strong support.

Emily Campbell from Santa Maria with Lighthouse Baptist Church in strong support.

Pastor Brandon Campbell, California Baptists for Biblical Values, Northern California Director, in strong support.

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

Pat Espinosa, San Diego County District Attorney's Office in support.

Molly Sheehan with the California Catholic Conference in support. Thank you.

Zach Cefalu with the League of California Cities in support. Thank you.

Mr. Chair and Members, Matthew Siverling on behalf of the Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs and the California Peace Officers Association both in support. Thank you.

Good morning Chair and Members. Moira Topp here on behalf of San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria in strong support.

Good morning. Kyra Ross on behalf of the City of Stockton in support.

Rachelle Ditmore on behalf of City of Refuge. Strong support.

Sawan Vaden on behalf of Community Against Sexual Harm, a survivor led organization. And strong support.

My name is Anita Chen and I stand with survivors in supporting this Bill.

My name is Emerald Rubio from Milpitas, a sex trafficking advocate and survivor and therapist from Set Free Marriage and Family Therapy doing healing circles for survivors as a survivor, and strong support.

Vanessa Russell, Founder and Executive Director of Love Never Fails and cosponsor of this Bill. And strong support.

Heidi Gehrke with Love Never Fails and strong support.

Christina Rangel, a survivor of sex trafficking, formerly incarcerated, work in international human rights law and right now the Director of Public Policy at Exodus Cry in strong support.

Marjorie Saylor with the Survivor Leader Network of San Diego, Love Never- sorry, 3Strands Global Foundation Survivor Advisory Board, San Diego District Attorney's Office and Rights for Girls in strong support.

Thank you.

Brianna Price, on behalf of being a former 16 and 17 year old youth that was trafficked and the Three Strands Global survivor Advisory Board and strong support.

Thank you. Are there any other members of the public here who'd like to to express support for AB 379? If so please approach the microphone. Okay. Thank you all for being here today. And with that, we'll take two principal witnesses in opposition and each will have two minutes to address the Committee on AB 379.

And if you could please sit on this end of the table. Yes. Thank you.

Yeah. There's a button where I test... It turns red when your mic is on. Thank you. And whoever would like to begin.

Yeah. Testing. Okay, it's working. Thank you. Good morning, Chair and Committee Members. Soma, Executive Director and Cofounder of the Sidewalk Project, a lived experience organization that works with unhoused people in Skid Row, MacArthur Park, and the Figueroa Corridor.

Our drop in center in Skid Row serves unhoused and unstably housed cis and trans women, most of whom are street-based sex workers and survivors. I am also a queer sex worker and a survivor and I lead from that wisdom. Excuse me.

The last few days my team and I have been on the front lines providing medic services in our beloved Los Angeles streets amidst mass kidnapping and violence from the Feds. With that community safety effort fresh in my mind, I come to urge you to vote no on AB 379.

This Federal Administration is battering my city because we refuse to hand our migrant neighbors over to unidentifiable goons who spit on the Constitution and due process. Amidst this climate, 379 will cause devastating harm especially to migrant sex workers and survivors.

In February, one of our Members, Linda Moran, a trans woman of color, was held hostage and sex trafficked in a hotel in Pacoima. She called 911 for help. When LAPD arrived they shot this survivor in the chest, handcuffed, and arrested her.

I was with Linda when she passed away and am witness to the horror of her death when she was just calling police for help. This is a law enforcement approach to sex trafficking.

Amidst the grandstanding around safety for survivors, I have heard very little decision maker understanding of the reality of survivor criminalization and deportation. as the US Military brutalizes civilians in LA, why are Democrats seeking to pass policy that will be leveraged by Trump?

379, which is likely a violation of Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures, will oil the mass deportation machine to make easy the human trafficking of migrants into slave trades around the world, including youth survivors. If you care about survivors and public safety, I beg of you to vote no on AB 379. Thank you.

Hi, I am Ashley Madness with Decrim Sex Work California, Sex Workers Outreach Project Los Angeles and Artist Revolt. AB 379 would make it a deportable criminal offense to smoke a cigarette outside of a strip club.

It would make it a deportable crime to circle the blocks too many times if there was a BDSM party going nearby. AB 379 would make it a deportable crime to walk to work as a porn producer, or to wave out your window at somebody that you thought looked cute.

AB 379 is built for abuse and our data on the recently-repealed law that criminalized the more specific conduct of loitering for purposes of committing prostitution provided by the ACLU showed that the overwhelming majority of men charged with that previous offense were Hispanic or Black and that the conduct required for such charges to be upheld often was as minimal as circling your block in your neighborhood.

While AB 379 has been sold by law enforcement and morality crusaders as protecting victims of sexual violence, it makes everyone involved in the sex trade more vulnerable to violence and will directly result in more sexual violence, including sex trafficking, which sex worker survivors like myself know.

That's why we advocate for decrim. AB 379 would explicitly make it a crime to associate with sex workers. That puts a target on our back as sex workers and as anybody who's trying to help out sex workers.

It will give abusers, pimps, rapists, and traffickers more leverage over their victims and potential victims as clients have to rush negotiations because there's new penalty associated with being associated with a sex worker...

...while also letting law enforcement and local politicians permission to take credit for arresting people for consensual stuff instead of going after actual human traffickers.

By saying that they are very, very expensively funding services that are not going to organizations that like Swap LA or other organizations that value sex workers, include sex worker survivors in our definition of who we serve.

AB 379 is counterproductive to real solutions like adequately funding the basic housing and support services that people vulnerable to violence across the state, including youth, including trans people, including people of color, including immigrants desperately need and cannot get.

Please fund community based and sex worker led solutions like the Housing as Healthcare pilot grant program proposed by Decrim Sex Work California. And please do not make it a deportable offense to circle the block while in California. Please find the courage to vote no against AB379. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. We're going to now take any me-too testimony in opposition to AB 379. If you are in opposition AB 379 and wish to express your position, you can please line up at the microphone. State your name, organization and position on the Bill.

Natasha Minsker, Smart Justice California, opposed unless amended.

Liz Blum-Gutierrez on behalf of the Debt Free Justice Coalition, Los Angeles County Public Defenders Union Local 148 and Law Defense in respectful opposition.

Good morning. Margo George, on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association. Opposed unless amended.

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

Good morning. Glenn Backes, I was asked by the Coalition to Abolish Slavery and Trafficking, the United States largest anti trafficking and service provider to sex workers and survivors and in the United States in opposition.

George Parampathu on behalf of ACLU California Action, Justice at Last, Swap Behind Bars, Woodhull Freedom foundation, Center on Reproductive Rights and Justice at UC Berkeley Law, Harvey Milk LGBTQ Democratic Club, Equality New York, California Coalition for Women and Prisoners, Choose your Health Foundation, Dionysus Llc SWAP LA, Artist Revolt, Black Women for Wellness Action Project, Decrim Sex Work California, and Californians United for a Responsible Budget. In respectful opposition.

Thank you.

Somalia Rogers, on behalf of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in respectful opposition.

Ignacio Hernandez, on behalf of the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, Statewide Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. In opposition, Respectfully, of course.

Okay, thank you. Any other Members of public wish to express opposition to AB 379, please approach the microphone. Opposed.

Okay. Okay. Seeing no additional testimony, that completes testimony on the Bill, the Committee will now discuss the Bill and will entertain motions after Committee discussion. If there's a question directed to a particular witness, we'll take that witness testimony. Otherwise, it's now in order for the Committee to discuss the Bill. Who would like to begin discussion? Senator Wiener?

Yeah. First of all, just a question. I want to just clarify because of all the discussion for many years on these issues, I'd love to have a yes or no answer. Is loitering. Will this loitering crime be deportable? Will it trigger immigration consequences? I don't know if the author can answer that.

Maybe the District Attorney can answer that. I did. That's not an aspect that I had focused on yet because when I authored the loitering law repeal four years ago, we did not have a fascist in the White House trying to create a police state. And so I'm.

So maybe I don't put you on the spot if you don't know, but I. And I trust you, but I just want to see if that's. If we have agreement on that, that it is a deportable offense.

Through the Chair. I would like to defer to our technical expert, our District Attorney.

Bill author, I want to direct it to you.

What I would ask to do is when we have issues in regards to immigration consequences, what I do as a prosecutor is I contact my colleagues that specialize in immigration law because I don't want to either say yes or no in any way mislead the Committee. I can find that.

I get. Sorry. I understand that. But we're being asked to vote on this Bill today and you're here in support. I understand the solicitation piece is probably, I assume, is the primary reason you're here, I'm guessing.

But we have this other piece of junk that's in the Bill, the loitering, creation of the loitering law. That's always been ancillary. It's never been part of the real public discussion.

The solicitation of minor peace has always been the focus of this Bill and it was a focus and it was the focus of the Assembly other than the Assemblymembers who said the loiter in peace needs to come out of the Bill. But it's still in there and now we're hearing it might have, that has deportation consequences.

And I would like to know the answer to that because I'm going to be honest with you and I have broader remarks to make that I understand the solicitation piece, especially with the changes that were made.

I'm going to talk about the history of how, of the really gross history of how this issue over the last year and a half has moved through the Legislature. But the loitering piece, you know, it's a very different thing.

And so I, you know, if no one knows the answer to that other than our opposition witnesses who I trust what you're saying and yeah, if you want to elaborate.

So we are engaged in a four year research project with York University out of Canada and we are tracking everything that's happening in Los Angeles, specifically on the Figueroa corridor ahead of the Olympics. And what we have found is that young women of color are being charged as co conspirators and they themselves are victims and survivors.

So we are aspiring especially concerned about survivor criminalization and survivor deportation. And I just learned recently that the United States is only able, only has the capacity to process 10,000 of these survivor trafficking visas.

And we have upwards of 300,000 per year that go unprocessed at a time when ICE is waiting outside of federal buildings, hopping out of bushes like they did in my city, in Los Angeles and kidnapping people who are trying to go through the process.

So for a survivor who has been criminalized to go through that process and know that there's no pathway through that visa, we are absolutely going to see deportations as a result of this loitering being one of those, but also criminalization of youth survivors.

Okay, Senator Wiener, back to you.

Okay, so if no one.

What I would say. I'm actually getting my staff to check on the answer for you, Senator. But from my experience in the courtroom, generally speaking, deportable offenses fall into one of two categories.

So Bill. Well author, you don't know?

They're either aggravated felonies, most of the things that you would probably imagine, murder, mayhem, kidnapping, things of that nature, or what is categorized broadly as crimes of moral turpentine.

I think the question would be, and we're checking the federal regs right now, is whether loitering, not the provision related to 16 and 17-year-olds, but whether the loitering provision would fall into that category of a crime of moral turpitude. So give me a few minutes, I'll try to get an answer for you.

Yeah, I think it probably does.

But it was the case with 357 that repealed a loitering for purposes of committing prostitution, which is a little bit differently worded than purchasing commercial sex. But that was a crime involving moral turpitude and potentially deportable. And I worked on some follow-up legislation, hopefully help those record clearings.

But that was the case there. So unclear how it, you know, you have to put it in front of a judge to test it this time. But the last one with similar language was definitely deportable.

And I would agree with that statement. I think it's to be determined. But yes, as it relates to the prior statute, I recall that as well. Thank you.

What I would say as well is in my experience in dealing with immigration consequences for post conviction cases, because I did run that unit at one time is it usually involves aggravated crimes of violence and moral turpitude. And so the issue will be on the moral turpitude nature of the crime itself and usually that comes with dishonesty as an example of moral turpitude.

The definition of that when we are in court, whether a judge lets a particular piece of prior conviction come in or not, it's, does it go to moral turpitude, a willingness to do evil and goes to the credibility of the individual whether they lie or not.

So a lot of times the immigration consequences relate to untruthfulness, unwillingness to do evil in the sense of an aggravated felony. So that's what is going to eventually fall on. But that's been my experience in post conviction cases.

Okay, I'll turn it back over to Senator Wiener.

Thank you Mr. Chairman. And I want to start all of this by acknowledging that the author and the Chair and that everyone has been placed in a very difficult position about this Bill with respect to the loitering piece of it, in my view should have been removed in the Assembly.

It wasn't. Should be removed in the Senate and it's not being removed. I'm not being critical of the Chair or the author. I think sometimes you take what's coming your way. And I know the author had to step in after this Bill created a meltdown in the Assembly because of the original approach to the Bill.

And I know that the author tried as Assembly Public Safety Chair to fix this Bill and after everything unraveled, that work was undone. So I'm not criticizing you and Mr. Chairman, I know you're a real champion for so many progressive criminal justice issues and I appreciate that.

I wanted to start by saying sometimes this, in this Bill and other bills, it becomes this like framed as this debate, like, do you think human trafficking should be harshly punished or do you not think it should be harshly punished?

Everyone, I don't say everyone, but I think everyone in this room thinks that human trafficking should be harshly punished. Human traffickers are psychopaths who need to be harshly punished.

And I think in the debate on this Bill I almost felt like when you would look at what's on social media, even in the media, it was almost portrayed or implying that California had somehow like forgotten to ban trafficking of a minor, that we, that the state had accidentally left that out of the penal code and that it was legal and we need to ban it.

Of course, trafficking, anyone, including a minor, has always been a felony for as long as I, you know, maybe not forever, but probably for a very long time. And two years ago initiating in this Committee, we passed, we passed a law making trafficking of a minor, any minor, a strike. As in the three strikes law.

It was the first new strike this Legislature had created in decades. And so human trafficking, it is a stain on our society and a stain on the world. And I am so grateful for you coming forward and being able to talk about it. I can only imagine how painful that is.

And for all the survivors out there who have, you know, been involved with basically modern day form of slavery and having their agency taken away from them. It is, it is. We have brought all the support in the world and those traffickers need to be harshly held accountable.

And it's unfortunate that in these debates anyone who has, you know, is taking any other perspective on a particular bill is somehow torrid as like you're protecting traffickers, you're pro pedophile, whatever the case may be. When this issue, I'm going to focusing on the solicitation, first came to this Committee a year and a half ago, almost, SB1414.

The original version of this Bill, it said that any solicitation of a minor would be automatically a state prison felony, automatic sex offender registry, and removing the requirement that you knew or should have known that the person was a minor. It was over the top.

How that Bill was drafted. We tried to reach an agreement with the author. We were unable to. And so we passed the Bill out in modified form.

The final Bill that passed included all minors, but for 16 and 17-year-olds, there had to be evidence of trafficking because we know that in these situations it can involve trafficking, absolutely, but not every situation.

And because there was no age gap in that original Bill, you could have situations with two high school seniors and then the person is now being automatically labeled a trafficker, even if it was not a trafficking situation.

And this is part of the challenge in this whole space is that because of just the political atmosphere and the social media atmosphere and the way the pressure sometimes treats these issues, they make it impossible to have any kind of thoughtful, intelligent discussion because everything just gets tarred as completely black and white, with understanding that when we write the penal code, we're writing it for 40 million people with a massive array of behaviors, ranging from the most horrific kind of behaviors to behaviors that most people would say that person should not be going to state prison.

And yet because of that political toxic political environment around this issue, there's this constant push to treat everything as if everyone is, you know, a psychopath. And that has significant consequences.

People who end up having their lives destroyed, who most people would not want that to happen when after we resolved that last year, the original lead author of this Bill reintroduced this Bill to basically undo the resolution of the Bill last year.

And now here we are today, the solicitation piece of the Bill with the three-year gap in it. You know, I understand that approach. The loitering piece is much harder.

And you know, I appreciate the Chair saying that the opportunity to deal with this, but honestly, the way to deal with this would be to remove it from the Bill. And I'm frustrated that it's still in the Bill. I've expressed that to the Chair directly.

I'm very frustrated that it's still in this Bill and now would be or on the floor of the Senate or in Appropriations would be the time to remove it, not to have to do a new Bill. And so I don't know if the Chair has further thoughts on that.

I don't want to put you on the spot, but that's just my perspective on how we should or the author on how we should be handling this. Loitering has a very bad history in terms of who gets targeted.

The analysis did a good job of describing very innocent behaviors that could trigger this loitering law, having nothing to do with purchasing sex. And we know historically who gets targeted for loitering laws. And it's, you know, queer people. It's people who, you know, gay men who are in a park.

We know how it gets used, and it should not be in this Bill. And if Ms. Krell wants to introduce a standalone loitering Bill next year, she has every right to do that.

And that discussion can happen, but it should not be on this Bill sort of piggybacking on the soliciting issue, which is a very real issue that people are trying to solve. So I will stop there. And I just want to express my extreme frustration that the loitering piece is still in this Bill.

Thank you, Senator Wiener. And you know, we've had, I think, several conversations about this Bill and particularly that aspect of the Bill. And you know, I reiterate my commitment that I expressed at the beginning of the hearing to continue to work with you on this. I don't know if Assemblymember Schultz has anything he wants to add.

I've already spent years repealing the loitering law. I'm not going to be introducing the Bill and having to go through that again and have all the death threats and calling me a pedophile.

And Assemblymembers got to see a little taste of what I and others have dealt with for years when, when ads were run against them, basically calling them pro pedophile for putting that three years in and doing what you did in the Assembly. And so I'm not going to be one to do it.

This isn't a situation where the Legislature creates a mess and then I'm not going to come in and be the one to do that. I think the Legislature as a whole needs to fix this mess, and the best way to fix it is to remove it from the Bill. I'm sorry, repeating myself. And I'll stop.

Thank you, Senator Schultz. Through the Chair, do you want, anything you want to add?

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to thank the Senator for his comments. Your points are well taken.

You saw my head nodding in agreement, particularly when we saw the what I would categorize as blatant misrepresentations of existing law, even being peddled by pretty reputable establishments in our media institutions.

It's very unfortunate how the entire saga played out and how much misinformation was put out into the public space as opposed to the nuanced, thoughtful policy approach that we need to have. What I would say is that with the loitering piece your concerns are well taken.

I would say that from my experience in the courtroom, oftentimes there's a dichotomy between well-intentioned law and the application of the law by law enforcement or even as it's applied in the courtroom.

I had hoped to present the Bill actually on a different day so that we had more time to have some of these conversations before our hearing today. But I also understand the urgency and the need to send a strong message and that we do stand with and for the survivors of sex trafficking.

What my commitment would be to the chair and to you, Senator, is that I can't promise that there will be agreement at the end of the day.

But what I can promise is a commitment to having a robust conversation in the weeks ahead to see if we can find common ground to clarify or improve that portion of the Bill.

And is this going to Appropriations? Yes, okay. Okay. So I am, because I do think the solicitation piece should move forward. I'm going to support moving it forward today and I this, but this, the loitering piece needs to come out before it comes to the floor and I think that's really important.

And so I appreciate your commitment to that conversation between now and the next steps. Thank you.

Thank you Senator. Vice Chair Seyarto.

Thank you very much and for everybody's edification. Yeah, I was there also at the meeting where hostile amendments were applied to 1414 and took 16 and 17-year-olds out of the equation. And that's the biggest piece of this, is putting 16 and 17-year-olds recognizing that they are indeed minors.

And if they're being solicited, if A is paying B so he can have sex with C and C is a minor, then we need to do something because C is going down the wrong path and we need to help C get back on the right path.

And we're not going to be able to do that if we have this hands-off approach. And the hands-off approach is we're not going to reduce the demand out there by holding people who create demand accountable.

We're just going to let them keep the demand up, which means people have to work behind the scenes a little harder so that they can make sure that the 16 and 17-year-old minor aren't as noticeable to law enforcement when they get used.

But the bottom line is if you're out there and you're going to pay somebody to have sex, well, you damn well better make sure they're not 16 and 17 years old because those are minors. We need to protect our kids.

If they turn 18 and they want to turn it around and you know, join the trade, well, you know, there's other things that are out there that you know, can help us deal with that. But you know, they're, once they're 18, that's, that's their.

But when they're 16 and 17-year-old, I don't care what they've been through. A lot of us have had hard childhoods. You're 16, 17. You're kids. It's our job to protect them.

And it's our job if we, if we have a problem where we are selling 16 and 17-year-olds, then we've got to give them something else to do besides sell their souls and their bodies for sex. That's what this is really about.

So, you know, I understand the consternation about, you know, how are we going to discern whether the person that's driving around the block a few times and pulling over and having a chat and trying to price things out, whether that is truly a John or not.

Yeah, you know, there's always going to be discretion with our law enforcement, but they need to be able to do something to stop that part of it or at least make it a little more risky on the side of the person that's out there trying to solicit.

And if they're really, if their goal is to solicit a minor for sex, you know what, they need to go to jail. I'm sorry. So for me, you know, this is a little more watered down than when it started.

I think what happened to 1414 a year and a half ago was abhorrent and this is what they're doing to correct this. A Democrat brought this up. A Democrat was working on this. And there was still some blow up about it because somehow we just don't want to include those 16 and 17-year-olds.

It's not fair to them. Right. Because we want them out there being able to sell themselves to make a living. No, that's the time when we need to include them more so that we can help save them. So anyway, I think it's rather clear where I stand on this Bill. I will support it.

I think there's enough in here to be able to make sure that the Johns, you know, by the PD when they. All the police I know and I've worked in areas, believe me. Imperial Highway. Do I need to say anything, anything more?

I worked in areas the police are pretty darn good about figuring out who's who out there. They are. Is there abuse sometimes? Is there a mistake? Sometimes? Yep. But I'd rather make a mistake and rectify that mistake than to continue to just have this hands-off approach.

Let it go wild and just pretend it's okay, because it's not.

So as we proceed with the discussion, I really appreciate everyone being here today. Ask that there be no applause or interruptions as the Committee deliberates on the Bill so we can have an orderly discussion. Senator Caballero is next, and then I'll come back to Senator Wiener.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. There's so much emotion around all of this, and I really appreciate you all being here today because this is a difficult place subject to take on.

I have not been the author of these bills for which the historical reference was given, but I was a co-author, as a co-author on 1414 and I was a co-author originally on this Bill as well.

And I was a co-author because I feel exactly the same as my colleague in regards to the trafficking of minors. Human trafficking is abhorrent no matter what, but minors are particularly vulnerable. So I want to thank you all for sharing your stories.

I don't think any of us want to hand a ticket to the Federal Government to do immigration enforcement against people that have had their dignity taken away from them and have involuntarily entered the sex trade.

And so I also feel particularly bad because my colleague from San Francisco has really been demonized for doing the right thing in attempting to protect the LGBTQ community and to make it very clear that the penalties have disproportionately fallen on people who least deserve it. Least deserve it.

And so let me just say that to me, the issue with this Bill, and I want to thank the author for picking up the gauntlet in the Assembly because it's not an easy Bill to pick up and then say, I'm going to run it, but. But the whole issue between loitering and sex trafficking is concerning.

I will support the Bill today, but the Bill comes to Approaps next or at some point, and at the current time I Chair that Committee, I'd like to think we can have conversations and we can rectify what I think are going to be some difficult issues.

And again, I do want to say that I did criminal defense work for 25 years. So how you write the law becomes very, very important and how its application gets interpreted is just as important. And the issue, the immigration issue, I think is something we've got to understand a little bit better.

My analysis was exactly the same analysis that was given here, which is crime of moral turpitude becomes interpretable. And this is not a good federal system to have interpreting that particular issue right now. And so, and again that goes to the loitering issue, not necessarily the other, the other issue.

So I'm going to, I'm going to vote for it today because I think it needs to move. But I think there are further conversations that need to be had and I look forward to having those conversations. I think there are. This Legislature is trying to get it right and we don't always get everything right.

But I think the, I think that this is too important not to get right. So thank you very much for the opportunity to vote on this because I do think it's an important Bill.

Thank you, Senator, Senator Wiener and then Cortese.

Just very briefly, thank you for those comments, Senator Caballero. And you've always been a great ally and partner on so many of these, of these issues over time and you've taken some very hard votes over the years.

I do just want to, in terms of Senator Seyarto's comments, which I appreciate, 16 and 17-year-olds should be protected. The solicitation piece addresses that very specifically. I wanted to just to clarify, the loitering part of the Bill is not limited to minors. It's, that's right, it's everyone.

And just, just you know, to make sure that everyone is, is clear. And I also just want to really again thank the author for, you know, trying to address this in Assembly Public Safety and getting a little blown up for it.

And now you're still here, you're being a leader and trying to navigate this and I know we'll have continuing conversations. So thank you.

Thank you, Senator Cortese.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I had to catch up a little bit on the agenda today on relatively short notice being doing extra duty here today. But I want to associate my comments and so that's not to repeat with Senator Caballero. And I appreciate what Senator Wiener is talking about.

Most of my experience around the victimization issue is what I would call it has been in local government where we had, you know, to deal with trafficking from a law enforcement standpoint, sometimes around major events.

For example, Super Bowl 50 comes to mind in Santa Clara County, and the issue really, that gets blurred is all too often the victim is the one that gets arrested as opposed to otherwise. So I am sensitive to the issues that have been raised, but I believe to get it right.

All the more reason to move it along here because we have, as a couple of my colleagues have said, we have an opportunity in at least one Committee and perhaps on the fourth, you know, to continue to work with the author, work with each other, to land in the right place. That's all I have to say today. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Senator Cortese, any additional comments or questions? If not, I'll turn it back over to the Bill author Assemblymember, Chairman Schultz, my colleague in the State Assembly, to close on the Bill and then we're entering a motion afterwards.

Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I'll be brief in my remarks. I just want to thank the Committee for all of your comments, your work on the matter, and look forward to continuing in good faith and earnestness those conversations around the loitering piece.

With regards to Senator Seyarto's comments, I did want to just comment on a couple quick things, not in direct response to your comments, sir, but because there is so much misinformation out there, I did feel it appropriate to set AB 379 in the context of accurate information to the public.

There's been a lot of discussion around human trafficking, and I do just want to note, to the credit of the Senator from Bakersfield, human trafficking was included in Senate Bill 1414. Victims of trafficking have been protected under the statutory framework of SB 1414 from last year.

This Bill really focuses at least the solicitation piece on individuals who are not necessarily victims of human trafficking, but who are underage and engaged in the commercial sex industry and protecting those children.

It might seem like a finer point, but it is important because as our colleague from San Francisco mentioned, there's been so many implications and suggestions out in the media that our children are unprotected, and that's not true.

The second thing I would note is that with regards to the protection of children, you've heard me say it in the Assembly and I'll say it here, I would encourage everyone to look at penal code Section 288.3.

If you contact a minor of any age in the State of California for oral copulation or any sort of sexual activity, that is a crime punishable as a felony.

And I would also encourage everyone to look at the data from the Department of Justice. This code section that we're dealing with in this Bill, which was also dealt with in SB 1414, was used less than 10 times in 2023 to conduct an arrest in the State of California, whereas penal code Section 288.3 has been used hundreds of times.

I bring up that point to say that any suggestion by any party to state that absent this Bill, there's no protection for children in California, nothing could be further from the truth and that sort of disinformation needs to be called out.

And lastly, I would just mention that with respect to my colleague, I view AB 379, the current version is a much stronger, more comprehensive Bill than the version of 379.

I wouldn't categorize it as watered down because what 379 now does that the original version didn't do was ensure that businesses that are quite frankly looking the other way and fueling this industry and providing a mechanism for these people to be trafficked, now they have some skin in the game and they have to be held to account.

And we have an enforcement structure to provide for that. We also have enhanced financial support for survivors and the Vertical Prosecution Grant Program will do incredible work for district attorneys across the state to combat this phenomenon. So with that, I appreciate all of the comments and the work of you, Mr. Chair, and respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you very much. Assemblymember Schultz. We just need a motion on AB 379. Okay. Moved by Cortese. The motion is do pass to the Senate Committee on Appropriations. If the Committee Assistant will call for roll.

AB 379 Schultz. [Roll Call]

Okay, we'll keep that Bill on call for Senator Perez. And thank you. We have one more Bill from you, Senator Schultz, and that is file item two, AB 321. No problem. We'll keep the bills on call. Let's take a few minute break while we transition.

Okay, colleagues, we're gonna proceed with the rest of our business. I'll entertain a motion on the consent calendar, and let me just summarize once again the items on consent. Consent includes file item 4, AB 354, file item 6, AB 584, file item 7, AB 741, file item 8, AB 799, file item 9, AB 879, file item 12, AB 1213. All those items are on the consent calendar. Entertain a motion on the consent calendar. Moved by Senator Caballero to approve consent. If we can please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay, we'll keep the consent calendar on call to record votes of absent Members. Okay, Assembly Member Schultz, whenever you're ready. We're going to go to item two, AB 321. Okay. We'll now proceed to file item two, AB 321 by Assembly Member Chairman Schultz. If there are any principal witnesses, if you can please join us at the table here. And I'll turn it over to the Chair, whenever you're ready to present.

Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I am pleased to present Assembly Bill 321, more appropriately named the Better Informed Decisions Act, which I'll note is sponsored by the San Francisco County Public Defender's Office and Californians for Safety and Justice. When making decisions that impact the trajectory of a criminal case, we believe that judges should be able to review and weigh relevant information required to make sound, informed decisions.

AB 321 is a streamlined amendment to existing law that would allow judges to classify wobbler cases as felonies or misdemeanors when they have sufficient information to make that decision before trial. AB 321 would also require subsequent re-requests to reclassify wobblers to be based on changed circumstances.

That's an important addition to the since we first brought it through Assembly Public Safety to balance the interest of ensuring that the courts could review the evidence and determine whether a prosecutor appropriately charged the case as a felony or not, with the other interest of ensuring that the system works and is not bogged down by repeated or frivolous requests.

Right now, I'll note that Superior Court judges can only make this determination at the very beginning of the case, and quite frankly, when not all of the evidence is often available. This can lead to overcharging and in some cases, mischarging of cases, resulting in court costs that do not align with the actual severity of the case.

Under AB 321, criminal charges will more accurately match alleged conduct and thereby reduce unjust outcomes. This bill will make the court system more efficient and save public money by ensuring that the resources spent on cases match their seriousness and complexity. With me today, we have Judge Brett Alldredge, who will be testifying in support. We also have Seth Meisels. Did I say that correctly? Perfect. Seth Meisels with the San Francisco Public Defender's Office, who's on hand to answer any technical questions. With that, we respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Okay, thank you very much. Good morning, your honor. You get two minutes to address the Committee.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and the honorable Members of this Committee. My name is Brett Alldredge, and I am a recently retired California Superior Court Judge, having served the fine folks of Tulare County and the San Joaquin Valley for 30 years. My assignment for most of the last decade was pretrial felony.

And because of how we designated our calendars, I'm confident that I heard as many preliminary hearings during that period as any judge in the state. The optimal evidence based pretrial practices and protocols that we developed have been used as models in counties throughout the entire state.

And it is from that experience that I voice strong support for AB 321. The bill under your consideration is not controversial. It's not political, neither so called soft or tough on crime, pro prosecution or defense. It's barely about crime at all. It's simply a just and necessary procedural fix to one of several anachronisms that remain in the penal code, reflecting a divided court system of municipal and superior courts that haven't existed for over 25 years.

This Legislature has for decades recognized that there is a category of crimes as opposed to so called straight felonies or misdemeanors that, quote, wobble, that is they merit a judge's informed discretion based on the individual facts relating to both the charged offense and the accused as whether or not it should proceed through the system as either a misdemeanor or a felony.

But because of the previous bilevel structure of our courts, the anachronistic statute cuts off a judge's discretion after the preliminary hearing, and it is not restored until or unless a defendant is convicted after a full jury trial and thereafter appears before the judge for sentencing.

And that's because, prior to 1990, the nature of a preliminary hearing to determine whether there was sufficient evidence to hold an individual to answer for a jury trial required the attendance of actual known as percipient witnesses to testify in open court subject to cross examination.

A judge had access to great amounts of information necessary to exercise that discretion timely, deliberately, and thoughtfully. But after the passage of Prop 115, almost none of this essential information is now presented to a judge at a prelim. The prosecution rarely offers a real sentence, the real witness to testify.

In fact, a great many prelims consist of calling just one qualified law enforcement officer who offers hearsay evidence, essentially reading from his or her police report written months if not years earlier. The defense rarely offers any evidence of any kind at a prelim.

The undeniable fact is that neither the prosecutor, the defense, or the judge is in possession of the bulk of the investigation, discoverable information, and admissible evidence, including victim and witness testimony, until they focus on preparing for a trial. Expending tremendous amounts of court resources to summon a jurors for a felony trial that obviously should clearly be wobbled down to a misdemeanor is extraordinarily wasteful to all.

But most importantly, eliminating an archaic, artificial time limitation within which to exercise informed judicial discretion and decision making will result in fairer outcomes for all, not just for an accused, but for victims and for the community as well. I am happy to answer any questions that the Members of this Committee may have. But for all these reasons and more, I strongly urge an aye on AB 321. Thank you.

Thank you very much. I understand you're here for sort of technical assistance? Thank you very much. Okay, so we'll now take me too testimony in support of Assembly Bill 321. You can please state your name, organization, and position on the bill.

Natasha Minsker, Smart Justice California, in strong support.

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

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

Anthony DiMartino, proud co-sponsor of California for, with Californians for Safety and Justice.

Dan Seeman on behalf of the Re-Entry Providers Association of California and the Anti Recidivism Coalition in support. Thank you.

Danica Rodarmel on behalf of the LA Public Defenders Union Local 148, Vera California, and La Defensa in strong support.

George Parampathu on behalf of ACLU California Action in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Glenn Backes for Drug Policy Alliance in support.

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

Matty Hyatt, California Civil Liberties Advocacy, in strong support.

Bernice Singh with Legal Services for Prisoners with Children in support.

Junius Winters in strong support.

Elizabeth Kim for Initiate Justice in strong support.

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

Cleo Petty on behalf of Initiate Justice Action and the San Francisco Public Defender's Office, co-sponsor of this bill in support.

Thank you very much. Okay. Unless there any other witnesses in support, we'll take up to two principal witnesses in opposition to AB 321, and you'll have two minutes to address the Committee. Thank you.

Chair and Members. Michelle Hennessy on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association in respectful opposition to AB 321. Our main concern is that, as drafted, AB 321 allows forum shopping and decision making by a judicial officer who has less than optimal information about the decision that needs to be made.

Existing law allows the preliminary hearing judge who's heard a full recitation of the evidence and live witnesses to make a determination that there's sufficient cause to proceed as a felony. And I respectfully disagree with the esteemed bench officer who's present that most preliminary hearings include 115 testimony.

Some of the wobblers in question that would be affected are crimes like vehicular manslaughter, criminal threats, and spousal battery, where it would be very rare for a prosecutor to rely on 115 testimony. They would absolutely require live witnesses. AB 321 would allow a determination made by the judge who heard live testimony from witnesses and made a determination as to the credibility of those witnesses.

It would allow that determination that there was probable cause to proceed as a felony to be undercut by a second judicial officer acting in almost an appellate capacity who didn't hear that testimony to second guess the decision of their judicial colleagues. Which is almost acting like an appellate judge to their esteemed colleagues, which is not an appropriate role for a judicial bench officer to be taking. And for that reason, we respectfully oppose this, this portion of that legislation. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We'll take any me too testimony in opposition to AB 321. If there's anyone who wishes to express opposition, please approach the microphone. State your name, organization, and position on the bill. Okay. Seeing no one, we'll bring it back to the Committee for any questions or comments or a motion. Senator Caballero, then Senator Cortese.

So let me just say that I was practicing when the law changed and it no longer required actual witnesses. It was hearsay. And my experience was very different than esteemed representative from the District Attorney's Office. You ended up with hearsay testimony in murder trials because it's just too hard to get people into the court.

So I wonder if, I'll address the question to the author. Is it your experience or is it... I mean, people are always forum shopping, right? You hope you get the judge that likes you and that will listen to you. And I think both in the criminal defense, both the defense and the prosecution look for that. But, but you're not, it's going to be difficult. Or maybe there's a way to ensure that you're...

That in this situation, under the legislation, of the legislation that's proposed, that there is a record created upon which both parties can remain or be assured that if there's an appeal on an, on a dismissal or a reduction, that there's a process to be able to get it reviewed by an appellate court. But my experience was that you really go into trial with very little information having been presented. And so I wonder if you could address some of the issue that was raised by the opposition.

Absolutely, Senator. And I also, after I'm done speaking, if either of our witnesses on hand would like to add anything, certainly trust the experience of our judicial officer. This might seem like an odd bill coming from a prosecutor, but first of all, I would agree with your comments, Senator.

The facts are there is forum shopping in the system as is. Prosecution and defense paper judges all the time. So, I mean, that is a reality. But I do want to thank the opposition because, though they remain opposed, we did hear your concerns as we navigated the Assembly, and we do feel that we have strengthened the bill.

From my experience in the courtroom, most defense attorneys will wait until the preliminary hearing to raise their Penal Code section 17B motion to reduce it to a misdemeanor. They want to hear the evidence that is presented and then make their case. A critical change in AB 321 since it was first introduced is that once that ruling has been made, assume for a moment a judge says, we believe the prosecutor got it right. It should be a felony. We find that it is.

They deny that motion to reduce. It could not be raised again after preliminary hearing unless there's a change in circumstances. That really derives from my experience. A lot of cases that I handled at the Department of Justice included voluminous digital information and evidence that was being processed.

And despite our best efforts, it wasn't uncommon for more evidence to become available to the defense even after a preliminary hearing as we prepared for trial. This legislation really captures that narrow circumstance where perhaps there is something new discovered after the preliminary hearing that does truly change the view of the case. This at least allows the court the flexibility to look and make a determination of whether or not it really changes their determination that it should be a felony or a misdemeanor. With that, did either witness have anything to add?

I do. Senator, thank you for your inquiry. A couple of things are true. One is, as pointed out by Assembly Member Schultz, once that decision is made, it can't be changed unless there's a showing of changed circumstances. So you just don't get a second bite at the apple and forum shop hoping that a judge on his or her own is going to simply give some other decision than the one that was made at the preliminary hearing. So there has to be an evidentiary showing of why that decision should be looked at.

The other reality is that many, and I don't have access to these facts. Many, if not most of courts that I'm familiar with in the San Joaquin Valley and almost all of the smaller courts in the top of the state have direct calendaring. So a criminal judge gets the case from nose to tail. And so this is part of the anachronism with a two level court system. So the same judge who hears the prelim then binds the defendant over back to his or her court again, he's the same or she's the same judge.

And so there may be jurisdictions where there's a concern that may be happening, but in most of the jurisdictions that I'm very familiar with, including all of the smaller counties, those cases are directly calendared. It's the same human being, as opposed to in the past where you had an inferior municipal court judge then sending the case on up to the Superior Court.

Thank you very much. Appreciate that. Thank you.

Senator Cortese, do you have any questions or comments?

Yeah. I don't know if my experiences doing six years of private criminal defense back in the day is still the way things, the way things run now. But my experience was always that at the preliminary hearing, prosecution wasn't really interested in making that deal, if you will, at that time for a variety of reasons.

And so basically, and I'm talking about reduced, especially reducing the charge. So ultimately, you know, that would have to be put off later. I think this bill helps facilitate that, and so I'm happy to support it and I certainly welcome any pushback from Senator Caballero or anybody else who, or the witnesses.

That's probably more appropriate. If you think things have changed significantly since, you know, back in the day when I was practicing full time. But again, my experience was it was unfortunate that we'd lock into a preliminary decision really with very little presented and really have a very difficult time after that, you know, going forward, you know, absent real cooperation, entering a plea.

And you always felt like if we're going to get real cooperation entering a plea and it's not happening now, you know, what's that going to feel like a couple weeks from now or a month from now or two months from now when we're, you know, on the defense side, you know, in a disadvantageous position, obviously. So, you know, those things are negotiations. I hate to use the word deal, but those are negotiations that occur. But I think it's an unlevel playing field now without this bill, so I'll be supporting it.

Any additional questions or comments from the Committee? Now I'll turn over to Assembly Member Schultz to close.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Okay, thank you. I'll entertain a motion on AB 321. Senator Caballero. The motion is do pass to the Senate Floor, and if the Committee Assistant could please call the roll.

AB 321. [Roll Call]

Okay, thank you. We'll keep that bill on call. Thank you, Assembly Member Schultz. All right. Assembly Member Bryan's been waiting patiently for about an hour now, so we're going to go next to file item 3, AB 248 by Assembly Member Bryan. If there are any principal witnesses in support, if you could please join us at the table here. And I'll turn it over to Assembly Member Bryan.

Thank you Mr. Chair and colleagues. I'm here to present AB 248, a pretty simple, straightforward measure. A little over a decade ago, the state arbitrarily put a maximum wage limit that counties could pay incarcerated people for their labor. That maximum wage limit is 25 cents per hour.

I believe that there's no reason that the state should have set that maximum and that there's no reason to take that authority away from local jurisdictions.

Every county should for themselves have the authority to set an appropriate wage limit based on however they set their budget priorities and whatever they value the labor of all people, including incarcerated people. Because this Bill simply removes an arbitrary wage limit in state law it has no fiscal cost.

And so, I'm sorry, Madam Appropriations Chair, it will not come to you should it leave this Committee. It places no fiscal burden on the state and really just restores local control back to our County Boards of Supervisors to decide what's in the best interest of for them as they have oversight over their jails.

With me to testify is Junius June Winters who has lived experience working in Sacramento County Jail and Rachel Wallace who's a technical witness. If we have any questions.

And Assemblymember, I believe there are Committee amendments.

And I happily accept the Committee amendments and want to thank the [inaudible] for their fantastic work.

Thank you very much Assemblymember. Okay, thank you for waiting patiently for joining us today. You'll have two minutes to address the Committee and we look forward to your testimony.

Thank you. My name is Junius Winters. Good morning Chair and Senators. Thank you for being here today. I want to discuss an important issue that impacts many lives and calls for your urgent attention - the labor practices within our county jail system.

I personally worked in the county jail and I can tell you that I did hard work for no pay whatsoever. I had to wake up every morning at 3am to serve breakfast, serve lunch at 10:30, dinner at 3:30, maybe 4.

After that I would have to sweep and mop, scrub the showers, clean the phones, wipe the tables and repeat the same cleaning process at about 12am every day after all the programs shut down and I didn't receive one penny for it.

In many cases, individuals in the county jail are required to work, often for minimal wages or sometimes without pay at all.

These individuals contribute to various industries and services such as cooking, cleaning, filing, paperwork, plumbing, and in some facilities, people have to work outside in 100 plus degree weather all day and yet the compensation they receive does not reflect the value of their labor. This situation raises serious concerns about fairness, dignity, and human rights.

The labor performed by incarcerated individuals often mirrors that of free citizens, yet without the same rights and protections. This disparity can lead to feelings of exploitation and injustice. It is essential that we advocate for fair wages and humane working conditions for all workers, regardless of the circumstances.

Reforming these practices is not just about economic fairness. It is about upholding the values of justice and humanity. We must advocate for reforms that ensure fair compensation and protection of the rights of those who contribute their labor regardless of their situation.

AB 248 put forth to the Committee today by Assemblymember Bryan, will remove the $2 maximum wage per eight hour shift that is currently in state law via penal code 4019.3, allowing counties to set their own wages for incarcerated workers. This is a crucial first step in the fight for justice.

Though this legislation does not set higher wages, it does lift an arbitrary ceiling that leaves incarcerated workers forced to accept at most 25 cents per hour for their labor, no matter the job or service being provided. It's understood that even if AB 248 were made law, some counties will not raise their incarcerated workers laboring in their county jails.

But this will at least take away the state's ability to cap wages at $2 and give other counties the opportunity to explore what paying incarcerated workers closer to a living and equitable wage would look like. How might this benefit not only incarcerated individual rehabilitation, but their children, spouses, and loved ones?

Together, In conclusion, together we can work towards a system that respects the dignity and worth of every individual and gives communities more tools to identify solutions to the issues of incarceration and economic instability. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Hi, I'm just here for technical questions if needed.

Okay, thank you very much. So we'll now take me to testimony in support of AB248. You can please approach your microphone. State your name, organization and position on the Bill.

Natasha Minsker, Smart Justice California, in support.

Bernice Singh with Legal Services for Prisoners with Children. In support.

Nedrick Miller, all of us in non-Sacramento. Strong support.

Margo George, California Public Defenders Association, in support. Thank you.

John Skoglund with the County of Los Angeles in support.

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

Cleo Petty with the San Francisco Public Defender's Office in support.

Matty Hyde, California Civil Liberties Advocacy and strong support.

Glenn Bacchus, Drug Policy Alliance and Prosecutors Alliance Action. In support.

Danica Rodarmel on behalf of the LA Public Defenders Union Local 148, Vera California, Debt Free Justice California, and Initiate Justice. In support.

Elizabeth Kim on behalf of Initiate Justice and strong support.

Dan Seaman on behalf of Californians for Safety and Justice. And strong support.

Okay, thank you. Any other Members of the public wish to express support for AB 248? One more.

Esteban Nunez with the Anti-Recidivism Coalition. Strong support. Thank you.

Any other MeToo testimony in support of AB2 48? Okay, thank you. We'll take any, up to two principal witnesses in opposition to AB 248. Yes.

Sorry, one more support. Liz Blum-Gutierrez on behalf of La Defensa and support.

I think there was only one organization registered opposition this Bill. Is there anyone wishing to testify in opposition to AB 248? Okay, seeing none. We'll bring it back to the Committee for discussion. And just really want to thank you, Assemblymember for bringing forward this simple but important Bill. I agree. I think it's very straightforward.

This is just giving county governments the ability to adjust wages to make sure that individuals who are performing work in our county prisons are paid some modicum of fairness. And I just want to lift up the important work that you've done over the years in trying to address the issue of involuntary servitude in California.

I was a very strong supporter of Proposition 6. It's really unfortunate that the voters of California didn't, didn't pass that measure. And I hope we'll try again. And I look forward to working with you to support that effort. And this really is about justice and fairness for incarcerated individuals in our county criminal justice system.

And I will be strongly supporting the Bill today. Any other questions or comments? Senator Caballero?

It's always dangerous to start off a Bill by saying this is a very simple Bill because that's when it's like the antennas go up. But you're absolutely right. It is very, very simple. The language is concise and I like that. I also want to want to thank you.

And it's interesting because I had some thoughts about, you know, part of the challenge with ending up in jail and not having any money is that then you're dependent on other people and you're required to do work for other people that you may not want to do. And so I think this is going to be.

It's going to make a big difference for individuals that have no choice but to be there and to figure out how they're going to get their expenses paid. It's really important. One of the thoughts I had was part of what gets people back into jail is restitution, right? You got to pay the victim.

And if you're, if you've been in jail for a while and then you get out and you can't find a job, then paying the victim becomes impossible. And restitution always ends up being kind of like the way they get you back. Right. It's a violation of probation. You got to go back.

And so what might thought for the future is to allow the incarcerated individual the opportunity to put money into a fund that would go to pay the restitution if it's ordered by the court. In other words, it doesn't get taken by the court. It would create. It's almost like a savings account, right.

So that people don't end up going back to jail because they haven't paid restitution. Because when you get out, you got a lot of expenses. And frankly, if you get a check when you get out, it's going to be used for those expenses as opposed to paying the victim.

And then you're right back where you are, where you were before. And the number of times that I had clients that had to go back to jail because they didn't pay restitution, despite the fact that we'd go and make a plea about, you know, they're working, but they got two kids and they're trying to pay back child support, whatever it is.

Sometimes you end up going to jail because you're poor. And so what you want to do is create the opportunity not to end up in that situation. So I thank you for bringing this Bill forward as supported today.

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

So what kind of wages are you thinking or is fair wages for a person that is incarcerated?

Yeah. No, I think that every county jurisdiction should have the right to decide that for themselves. And part of why LA County is doing that I think at the state we're having different conversations about the wages we control, particularly for incarcerated firefighters, who I believe should earn at least minimum wage when on the fire lines.

But I think we can only control what we control at the state level. I think every county has to have that budget conversation. I don't know the types of labor that's performed in every single county jail. I think that decision belongs to the Board of Supervisors and the voters of each county.

I think some would argue that if. If we're going to pay wages that you would get outside of prison, then you also get to absorb some of the costs that you get outside of prison. And some of those costs are paying for electricity and gas and food and housing and all of those things.

And it just seems like a cycle of, okay, if we're going to do that, then we'll charge for these other things because somewhere in a public safety. budget we have to get to the part where we can still afford to have to operate.

And I think you raise an excellent point. And I'd point out that some of those costs are already put on incarcerated people. Your toothpaste, your deodorant.

In fact, if you want to buy a two ounce tube of toothpaste and a bag of Hot Cheetos and you're paid the 25 cents per hour, the maximum the state will allow you, it would take you five days to buy that two ounce tube of toothpaste and a bag of hot Cheetos...

You really appreciate that bag of Cheetos.

...in LA County Jail.

So, you know, I think there are already costs that are on incarcerated people that, as the Senator mentioned, come from their family members. And this, as was mentioned before, also hurts the ability to pay restitution.

I think lifting this cap and allowing counties to go through a process of having this conversation, I think is important. And many of those components combined is why this Bill received some bipartisan support in the other house.

One bipartisan support.

Fantastic legislation.

Awesome. All right, thanks. Okay, thank you. Is there any additional discussion on the Bill? Not I'll make, I'll turn it back over you to close.

No, I think. I just want to be very clear. I mean, I think slavery in California is wrong. And we don't need a ballot measure to tell us that it's wrong. We can do better. We should do better.

We definitely shouldn't have an arbitrary wage cap in state law that prohibits counties from paying incarcerated people more than 25 cents per hour for labor, any type of labor. This is an opportunity to remove that wage cap without adding any new costs to the state budget.

I think we have a responsibility, a moral responsibility to pass this Bill. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much Assemblymember. I'll entertain a motion on the Bill. Moved by Senator Caballero. The motion is do pass as amended to the Senate Floor. Committee assistant, please call the roll.

[ROLL CALL]

Okay, we'll keep that Bill on call. Thank you so much, Assemblymember.

Thank you Mr. Chair.

And I do see our next two Bill authors here. And so we'll go next to file item 10, AB 25, 952 by Assemblymember Elhawary. And good morning. And do you have any witnesses?

If you are here to testify on AB 958, you can please come forward and join us here at the table. And I'll turn it over to you Assemblymember to present.

Thank you. Good morning to Mr. Chair and Members. I'm Sade Elhawary and I'm here to present AB952, which would make the Youth Offender Fire Camp pilot program permanent and allow for the expansion of the program. Fire Camp programs have been repeatedly shown to foster positive rehabilitation and to significantly lower recidivism rates.

In addition, it's especially helpful for people who spend one year or longer in the program. According to recent data from CDCR, recidivism rates for Fire Camp participants are as much as 14 and a half percentage points lower than for the General incarcerated population.

By making the Youth Offender Camp program initiative permanent, it provides a sustainable pathway for young people to participate in the successful program. The State of California must do significantly more to promote rehabilitation efforts. And making this program permanent is a strong step in the right direction.

Here with me today is Julian Gonzalez, who participated in the program and recently came home from incarceration.

Thank you. Good still morning. You have two minutes to present on the bill and turn over to you to present.

Okay, cool. Good morning Chair Members. My name is Joni Gonzalez and I was formerly incarcerated, recently paroled from Pine Grove Pilot Program. And I'm proud to say that I successfully participated in that program because for a long time I wasn't in the greatest space, you know.

And finally when I was at VSP, the fire camp did a tour and I was instantly motivated to be something else. I had this moral conversation with myself to do better. And I didn't understand what that was at the time.

But that fire camp tour and their message that they delivered, it gave me like direction, you know, and I applied for that. And even through that, it's not like we just get sent off, you have to work and you get screened for it.

And went through my counselors and I eventually got approved to go to fire camp as a yop. And that experience was amazing. There we learned great work ethic and that was huge for me. And majority of us there under 25, this was our first job.

9 to 9 to 4 o' clock Monday through Friday when we're not on active fires. Like we're learning hard work and grit through our peers, teamwork. We're usually about 15 man crew and we're doing vigorous work. So all of us playing our part was just, it was huge.

These are lifelong lessons that we're going to carry for the rest of our lives. And even during community work on the roadsides and county roads, just seeing like the fruit of our work, people honking, saying thank you and just, it felt like meaningful and I had a purpose. I was doing something good for myself.

And that was amazing. It was a great feeling. And on top of that, we have arc, the Anti Recidivism Coalition staff on board at the campgrounds.

So if firefighting wasn't for everybody and they decided to go a different route, there were staff there that were able to help and redirect you to a different career path or even just as like mental health or personal issues that you want to talk about, you had support there.

And I know there's programs and resources at other prisons, but at a camp we're on a smaller space so we really get that individualized attention and that went a long way.

Like this village serves a huge impact because as I said earlier, for me, I wasn't sure what doing good looked like or even how to go about it, but it gave me direction and a blueprint for a new life and just a new opportunity to become the best version of myself.

And as long as camps stay open, they will keep producing young men ready to be the greatest version of themselves and rewrite their story. So AB952 is not just a bill for me, but it was hope at a new life. And today I didn't go the firefighting route, being around ARC and all them at the.

At the camp. I decided to help out in that way. So I'm a full Member of ARC now, and I'm seeking to continue the mission of reform and not just youth, but everybody.

But ultimately, anything that I accomplish afterwards would be a product of Assembly Bill 952 for giving me that chance to express myself through there and explore the ways that I could be the best version of myself. So I urge you to vote yes on second chances for our youth. And I'd like to thank you guys for your time.

Thank you so very much. Okay, well, take me to testimony in support of AB952. Please state your name, organization and position on the bill.

Natasha Minsk, Smart Justice California in strong support.

Danica Radarme on behalf of Vera California in strong support.

Espon Nunez, on behalf of the Anti Recidivism Coalition, a proud co-sponsor and Initiate Justice Action. Also proud co-sponsor in support. Thank you.

Dan Seaman on behalf of Amity Foundation. The Reentry Providers Association of California and Californians for Safety and Justice in strong support. Thank you.

And Maddie Hyatt, California Civil Liberties Advocacy in strong support.

Margo George, California Public Defenders Association in strong support. Thank you.

Samelia Rogers, Ella Baker Center for Human Rights. Strong support.

George Parampathu on behalf of ACLU California Action in support.

Thank you. Glenn Backes, Prosecutors Alliance Action in support.

Elizabeth Kim for Initiate Justice in strong support.

Liz Blum-Gutierrez on behalf of Law Defense and the Group Training Institute in strong support.

Good morning. Chris Rosa, on behalf of Cal Forest. The California Forestry Association as well as here to express support for the Forestry and Fire recruitment program. In support. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Are there any other Members of the public wishing to express support for AB952? Okay. Is there any opposition to AB952? There was no registered opposition to the bill. Okay. See no further testimony. I'll bring it back to Committee for any questions or comments moved by Senator Cortese. Thank you. Any additional questions or comments?

Now I'll turn It back over to the author to close.

I respectfully ask for your aye vote. And thank Julian for his testimony today.

And thank you so much for being here today and for your really amazing inspirational story. And I think it just demonstrates why this bill is so important and why the, the. The. The existing fire crew programs that we have are so important in changing lives. So the motion is to pass to the Committee on appropriations.

If the Committee assistant can call the roll.

[Roll call]

Thank you, Assemblymember. We have one more bill that's not on the consent calendar and that is file item 11, AB 1178 by Assemblymember Pacheco. Good morning. And if you have any principal witnesses, if they can, please join us. Thank you. And I'll turn over to you, Assemblymember, if you're ready to present.

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

AB 1178 simply ensures that courts give appropriate consideration for redaction of undercover peace officers personal information, their name, image, likeness from public records requests. When an undercover officer's identity is exposed that exposure compromises ongoing investigations and the safety of our communities.

It also puts the officer at personal risk, potentially endangering their life and the safety of their family. This bill maintains full disclosure of all records related to sustained misconduct while protecting the safety of officers while working in sensitive undercover operations that are vital to community security and public safety.

With me today to testify in support is Matt Sieverling with the Association of Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs, and I will hand it over to him.

Before we go to you, I just want to summarize what the committee amendments do. The amendments correct a drafting error. They clarify the that courts do not perform record redactions themselves, but rather it allows for the determination of the appropriateness of the redactions. I just want the committee members to know what the committee amendments would do.

I'll turn over to you, sir.

Thank you. Mr. Chair and members. Matthew Sieverling on behalf of the Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs. Again, without being Tto repetitive here, AB 1178 seeks to ensure the safety of peace officers and their families who are currently or recently engaged in a potentially dangerous undercover assignment.

Again, the measure does not undermine or deviate from current disclosure and transparency laws related to peace officers which make public the records related to sustained misconduct by a peace officer. Current law provides the public with all investigative documents, audio and video available related to these incidents and will continue to do so.

The officers that we seek to protect through AB 1178 are not the direct subject of the records requests or the individuals who personally committed the sustained misconduct that triggers a record's release.

The fact that an undercover officer may be merely adjacent, nearby or present during a qualifying incident should not compromise their investigation or position by revealing their identity as a peace officer in a subsequent public records release.

AB 1178 provides a careful solution to address an unanticipated collateral impact on the safety of undercover officers and their families by underscoring existing redaction laws to ensure that appropriate consideration for officer safety and those who are working undercover. This is not a proposed blanket exemption for a broad category of officers.

It maintains a case by case evaluation of each request to redact or disclose. Peace officers are already shouldering immense risk by accepting these often dangerous assignments and investigations. Special consideration of their personal safety as well as the safety of their loved ones is warranted and justified. We respectfully request your aye vote for this bill. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Are there any members of public wishing to express support for AB 1178? You can please approach the microphone and state your name, organization and position on the bill.

Michelle Hennessy, on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association in support.

Thank you very much. Any other MeToo testimony on AB 1178?

Sorry, Mr. Chair. Real quick, one more. California Police Chiefs Association in support. Jonathan Feldman.

Thank you. Are there any other members of the public wish to express support for AB 1178? Okay. If not, we'll take two lead witnesses in opposition. If there are any in opposition to AB 1178? Yes. If you can, please come forward. Thank you. You have two minutes to address the committee.

Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Brittney Barsotti, and I am here in respectful opposition to AB 1178 on behalf of the California News Publishers Association. We appreciate the Committee amendments, but that still is not enough to remove our opposition.

We recognize that undercover operations are critical to those officers and must be protected, but existing law is already clear. CNPA represents over 600 publications in the State of California and was a proud co-sponsor of SB 1421 by Senator Skinner in 2018. This landmark legislation was hard fought victory peeling back years of secrecy on police records.

As the Committee analysis stated, 1421 shined a necessary light on police misconduct records that have been blocked from the public view for numerous years and left California with some of the most secretive records laws in the country. In California, we often pride ourselves on leading the country, but in the public records sphere this is a place where we fall short. Additionally, follow up test or follow up legislation was required to be able to close certain loopholes that have been manipulated to avoid disclosing records.

Also note that CNPA's members were frequently seen just a template letter denying their public records ask request listing every single possible exemption that could apply, instead of providing additional information on how they might be able to amend that quest request. And to close out, we appreciate the Committee amendments, and as my colleague Shaila will note, the amendments not fully address our concerns and I respectfully urge your no vote today. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Good morning, Chair and Members. My name is Shaila Nathu, and I'm a staff attorney at the ACLU of Northern California and a public records litigator. We appreciate the Committee's hard work on this bill, but because it is unnecessary and will cause confusion, we remain opposed. This bill will cause confusion for both judges and litigators.

It is well established that the agency has the burden to justify nondisclosure. While the current proposal appears to mimic existing standards in case law, it, intentionally or not, goes further than that. It imposes a new statutory duty on courts to consider undercover status even where the agency has failed to raise it as a justification for withholding.

This effectively forces a court to abandon its station as a neutral arbiter and assist the agency in justifying withholding misconduct records. This improperly tips the scale in favor of the agency over the public, flying in the face of the public's right of access guaranteed by our Constitution and laws like SB 1421. There are other questions left open by the proposal. Case law requires that the agency demonstrate that such status or duties relate to the specific, articulable, and particularized threat of significant danger to the officer's safety.

Yet AB 1178 seems to state that undercover status without any specific justification is all an agency has to show to keep the public in the dark about an officer's misconduct. The language also requires a court to consider the status and duties of a particular peace officer, but it is not clear whether that officer must be the one facing the threat if information is made public. The reality is that SB 1421's careful balancing is working.

Courts require the agency to demonstrate a particularized threat before redacting misconduct files and agencies are free to offer evidence of undercover status or any other factors that would support a particularized threat of safety. And they do. The proponents have failed to explain how this process isn't enough. Simply put, AB 1178 is unnecessary. This bill would only introduce confusion and undermine this state's hard fought transparency laws. We urge this Committee to vote no and not seek to fix what is not broken. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We'll take any me too testimony in opposition to Assembly Bill 1178. Please state your name, organization, position on the bill.

Savannah Jorgensen with the League of Women Voters of California in respectful opposition.

Good afternoon. Dani Kando-Kaiser on behalf of the First Amendment Coalition. And also in opposition from the Society of Professional Journalists of Northern California, American Community Media, Freedom of the Press Foundation, Media Alliance, Orange County Press Club, National Press Photographers Association, Radio Television Digital News Association, Industrial Workers of the World Freelance Journalists Union, and the Pacific Media Workers Guild. Thank you.

Thank you.

Cleo Petty on behalf of the San Francisco Public Defender's Office and Initiate Justice Action in opposition.

Liz Blum-Gutierrez on behalf of La Defensa in opposition.

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

Elizabeth Kim on behalf of Initiate Justice in respectful opposition.

Thank you very much. Okay. Seeing no additional testimony, I'll bring it back to the Committee for any questions or comments. Vice Chair Seyarto.

Thank you very much. Thank you for your bill, also. When you look at the job of an undercover officer, you have to understand what they're doing. And in some cases, the ability to stay undercover and not have their identity revealed by a newspaper keeps them and their families alive.

Because some of the people are doing undercover operations, you know, about are not people who just dismiss the fact that, oh wait, you know, we're not going to do anything anymore because we think we're being watched. These are people that will go out and kill them just for the fact that now they know, and they wind up dead or their family winds up dead. There's a reason undercover cops need to be undercover, and there is not an endless supply of people to go be undercover.

We can't just keep hiring people and retiring people because now they've been discovered or put them in another position. So the supply is limited. It is of utmost importance that they remain in their undercover capacity. And yet we have people arguing that they should be disclosed if there is an issue.

If there's an issue, they can deal with the administration and go through that process. There are ways of dealing with police misconduct, and that includes undercover police officers. But they have to have that. If they don't have that, their safety is at risk.

And it's not just their safety, it's their family's safety, because sometimes that's what bad guys think is a better way to get at somebody. So I'm supporting your bill today. It's a good bill. I think there's plenty of protections in case there's misconduct. We have lots and lots of ways of dealing with that nowadays. And so therefore, I'll be supporting the bill. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Any additional comments or questions? Okay, now I'll turn back over the bill author to close on the bill.

Again, thank you all for allowing me to present this bill. This bill is a bill to protect our undercover police officers who perform difficult jobs. And so I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. Moved by Vice Chair Seyarto. The motion is do pass as amended to the Senate Committee on Appropriations. If the Committee Assistant can call the roll.

AB 1178, Pacheco. [Roll Call]

Okay, we'll keep that bell on call. Thank you very much, Assembly Member. Okay, I understand that Vice Chair needs to record a vote on the consent calendar. Let me summarize the bills on consent. Consent consists of AB 354, Michelle Rodriguez, AB 584, Hadwick. AB 741, Ransom. AB 799, Celeste Rodriguez. AB 879, Patterson, and AB 1213, Stephanie. We will open the roll on the consent calendar.

[Roll Call]

Okay, we'll keep that on call as well. I think the Vice Chair has voted on every Bill, correct? Yes. So we need to recess briefly in order. Is there a Bill that Senator Caballero needs to vote on? She has not. We can lift the call that.

[Roll Call]

Okay, thank you. And so we need a recess because there are. I think there's a press event happening that some Members are at. But we also need to adjourn by around 11:50. So we're going to recess for a few minutes to try to get these Members back so we can lift calls.

But if you vote on everything, you are free to go. But we're going to go to recess for about five minutes or more and reconvene when we can lift calls.

Okay, so we are back in session and we'll lift calls on bills. And I'd like to ask the Committee assistant to go through from the top.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Thank you, Senator Wiener.

We'll recess again for five more minutes while we wait for Members to come so we can lift the calls. Thank you. Okay, the Committee is back in session and we're going to lift calls on bills. If we can start from the top, why don't we start with the consent calendar? Which consent calendar consists of? File item 4.

AB 354. Michelle Rodriguez. File item 6. AB 584. Hadwick. File item 7. AB. 7 for 1, Ransom. File item 8. AB 799. Celestia Rodriguez. File item 9. AB 879. Patterson. File item 12. AB 1213. Stephanie. We can start with the consent calendar.

[Roll Call]

Okay, and we'll. So those bills are out on a vote of six to zero. We'll start from the top.

[Roll Call]

Okay. AB370 is out on a vote of 6 to 0.

[Roll Call]

Okay. AB321 is out by a vote of five to one.

[Roll Call]

Okay. AB 248 is out on a vote of 5 to 0.

[Roll Call]

Okay. AB952 is out in a vote of 60.

[Roll Call]

Okay, so AB 1178 is out on a vote of 5 to 0. That completes our agenda for today. With that, the Senate Committee on Public Safety is now in adjurned. Thank you.