Senate Standing Committee on Public Safety

Good morning. Like to call to order this meeting of the Senate Committee on Public Safety for Tuesday, June 24, 2025. We do not yet have a quorum, so we'll convene as a Subcommittee and then establish quorum when we get additional members. But we will begin with our Bill presentations.

Before we move to Bill presentations, I just want to summarize the consent calendar which will entertain a motion once we establish quorum. Consent consists of file item 2, AB223, Pacheco, file item 3, AB352 Pacheco, file item 6, AB535 Schiavo, file item 11, AB875 Muratsuchi, file item 16, AB1195 Quirk Silva.

And file item 17 AB 1387, Quirk Silva. Did I miss anything? Okay, so with that we'll proceed with our first item, which is Senate Joint Resolution 9. And I'd like to turn the floor over to Senator Durazo. I understand. Senator Caballero will be also jointly presenting this resolution. Good morning.

Okay, thank you, Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee and also co author here, Senator Caballero. On Wednesday, April 9, federal immigration officials were denied entry at two LA Unified elementary schools. At each grammar school, the agents were looking for two children from first grade to sixth grade.

Fortunately, the principal and the teacher refused to allow them onto the premises without a judicial order. The immigration officials lied. They said they had spoken to the children's caretakers.

Other reports show agents entering hospitals, car washes, immigration courts, targeting those with appointments to appear, several Home Depots and chasing down people working in the fields, picking strawberries, enjoying their evenings at nightclubs or attending their places of worship. The Trump Administration has made clear no place is safe from his cruel mass and illegal deportations.

He refuses to respect the sanctity of our safe spaces. These places are meant to be places of inspiration, protection, empathy and education. No one should have access to enforce immigration policy in these areas. SJR9 strongly denounces the mass immigration raids targeting workers and families in our state and reaffirms the protection of civil liberties and human dignity.

California is home to over 10 and a half million immigrants. 2.3 million are undocumented, but they are the heart of our diverse communities with invaluable contributions which make us the fourth largest economy in the world. They are vital to key sectors in agriculture, health care, hotels and restaurants, childcare and construction.

According to a UC Merced report, California stands to lose a staggering $275 billion in GDP if these deportations continue. Undocumented Californians pay over $23 billion annually in local, state and federal taxes. Without the undocumented workforce, we will lose billions. Mass deportations could cost tens of billions of dollars per year.

Instead, that money could be used to ease medical debt for millions of people. And with only $11 million, we could provide free lunch at schools to our children. We all have heard of the military style immigration raids and arrests. Since June 6, the Trump Administration has used despicable tactics to create widespread fear and instability.

The only crime of these Californians is to work hard doing the jobs that few would do. This is a specific attack on Latinos. The Federal Government is arresting and targeting men, women and children from neighborhoods and work sites that are predominantly, almost exclusively, Latino. We are seeing other groups being targeted, including our AAPI communities.

Clearly, this is racial profiling. We are witnessing lifelong residents torn from their communities, parents being taken away from their children, students afraid to go to school, US Citizens being lawfully detained, small businesses closing their doors out of fear, and once lively and bustling cultural landmarks empty.

They are children, parents, workers, many of whom are in my district, whom I have marched and prayed and stood alongside in peaceful protests. Every day I receive calls from workers, families and constituents who have to face the unimaginable. But we will not let them face it alone. These inhumane raids are eroding the trust in our Federal Government.

Hundreds of thousands of Californians have engaged in peaceful protest, only to be detained and physically assaulted, including a national labor leader, David Huerta, and United States Senator Alex Padilla. Imagine how others are treated. Even with dozens of witnesses and video documentations, these federal agents engage in violent and disrespectful treatment of Californians.

They flagrantly violate our constitutional rights to assemble, to protest, to speak out and live freely without fear. Now it is more important than ever for us to use every legal tool to protect our communities and work with civil rights organizations and advocates.

Members as the Federal Government intensifies its contempt for our freedoms, the world's eyes have turned to California. Let the nation see a state that proudly defends immigrants, defends all of its residents, and defends the Constitution because everyone, regardless of immigration status, deserves the right to to live their life with liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Thank you.

And up next, we will have Senator Caballero.

Thank you very much, Senator. And thank you to the chair and Members. I'm proud to join my good friend Senator Durazo in presenting SJR9. And I'm going to ask her add thank you to her for authoring this resolution that denounces the. The militarized immigration raids, flashbangs, military garb, and weapons by individuals that are wearing masks.

It's a scary scene. It's one that I've never seen on US Soil, quite frankly. And we're seeing these raids across California. I'd like to highlight the devastating impact these actions are having on the Central Valley.

In my district, in rural regions where agriculture is the backbone of our economy, these raids are tearing families apart, traumatizing communities, and threatening the food supply that the entire country relies on.

It's ironic that during the COVID crisis, farm workers were identified as essential workers and asked to show up and to work in dangerous situations dangerous to their health. And now they're placed in a situation where it's dangerous to show up to go to work. It is insupportable. And the raids that are happening are not isolated incidents.

ICE agents have been reported near farm labor housing, outside packing plants, and even at rural Health Clinics. Let's be clear. The raids are creating fear, not safety. They are dividing families, not protecting them. And frankly, if they came specifically for individuals that have criminal records, as has been articulated, the purpose is, that would be a different story.

But these are the raids that have occurred, have occurred in locations where people have been detained. They are identified based on their garb and how they look, and they're processed one by one without any regard to who these individuals are. It is a process that has been condemned in lawsuits in the past and found to be unconstitutional.

When you conduct a military style raid at a dairy, an orchard, or a produce shed, you're not targeting. You're not just targeting workers. You're tearing families apart and traumatizing the entire community. These individuals have deep roots in our communities. They are parents, children, neighbors, and Californians. They're raising the next generations of doctors, teachers, and leaders.

Their worth is not defined by the labor they provide, but by the lives they lead and the futures they are helping to build. These actions are not about public safety and they are about political fear mongering at the expense of working families who contribute every day to our economy and to our communities.

And I'm hearing from farmers on a regular basis who have perishable crops that they're struggling to find workers because people are afraid to show up and to work. Make no mistake, the raids are being concentrated in areas like the Central Valley with large Latino populations. It is targeted racial profiling, plain and simple.

As a state, we cannot turn to blind eye to this injustice. We have to stand up for the dignity of every California Californian. SJR9 provides us the opportunity to send a message that California will not cooperate with cruelty. We will protect our families, defend our values and continue to lead the nation with compassion.

And as a footnote to all of this, if we would just fix the immigration system, this would be resolved because that the workers that are being targeted have contributed significantly, have paid their taxes, have been law abiding citizens in our communities and are raising great families.

And what we're doing is separating, separating them from their families and scaring the entire community and ultimately will hurt our economy. Respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you, Senators.

Thank you, Senator. I want to introduce two witnesses. Bruno Huizar, Supervising Policy Manager for the California Immigrant Policy Center, and Jeanette Zanipatin at CHIRLA Coalition for Humane Immigration Rights.

Before we go to our witnesses, we do have a quorum, so if the community assistant could please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Good morning. My name is Jeanette Zanipatin and I'm the Director of Policy and Advocacy at the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights. I am here to testify in support of SJR9. I want to thank the Senators for their leadership on this really important resolution.

I want to give context to the warrantless raids and arrests that are occurring on the ground in Los Angeles. Again, simply put, these raids are militarized enforcement actions waged against all civilians in Los Angeles County by ATF, DHS, the FBI, DEA, HSI and CBP, all fortified by the National Guard and the Marines. Let that sink in.

This is day 19 of the assault in Los Angeles. Let's be clear, there are no checks and balances or any oversight of these activities. We have immigration judges dismissing cases by order of the President.

We have attorneys who are unable to see their clients or be informed where their clients are being taken to or the grounds for their arrests. I've spoken with some of these folks that have been detained. In particular a 64 year old woman from Mexico who has an asylum case before an immigration judge in Santa Ana.

The judge in her case refused to follow the orders by DHS and their attorneys to dismiss her case. The judge refused dismissing her case, gave her a future hearing date. Thinking that that would protect her.

She stepped out of the courtroom and two seconds out of the courtroom, she was confronted by an agent that was in military gear. When she asked him to identify himself, he refused as she pleaded to be released. She is currently living the same trauma that she fled Mexico from in detention.

She has been in detention since June 6. She has been actually in Adelanto since June 6, has been there and spent 10 days without being able to shower or have a change of clothes, and was Fed initially only every 14 hours. And she has asked again repeatedly about her court date.

And yet no one is telling her when her next court date is or what's going to happen with her case while in detention.

Similarly, I've spoken to an individual who was at the ambiance raid, which is one of the first raids that occurred in LA on June 6th where men and military guard blocked all entrances and detained individuals without judicial warrants and targeted predominantly Latino workers segregating them for arrest.

The individual I spoke to recounted the extremely violent and aggressive tactics used, even pointing guns and rifles as they violently shouted orders at the workers. He was not on any list nor presented with any warrant when he attempted to assert his rights by presenting a red card.

Those cards that allow you to say, I want to remain silent and not speak to you until I have my attorney present. The agent just threw the card and laughed at him, saying, you have no rights. In my almost 30 years of immigration practice as an attorney, I have never seen anything like this.

While this Administration wants to to distract and goad the American public about the violence taking place in LA, they are trampling on the rights of immigrants and their families. We will not stand by and allow this abuse of power from taking place.

Nor will we condone the unlawful and unconstitutional acts taken on the ground over the last 19 days. We call upon the Legislature to help us continue to shed a spotlight on on the illegal ways this Administration is operating without any oversight.

This resolution allows us to send a clear message to our immigrant community that we are centering you, we are centering your family and your safety and urge the Federal Administration from compromising all of our public safety and seek an end to the violence waged against all the residents of LA County and the State of California.

For all these reasons, we urge your aye vote today. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Hello Chair, Committee Members and staff, thank you for the opportunity to testify about the ongoing immigration raids and arrests throughout California. My name is Bruno Huizar with the California Immigrant Policy Center.

Since June 6, federal agents have been conducting indiscriminate raids and arrests at homes, work sites and public spaces in Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura and Santa Barbara counties. Over 330 people, including U.S. citizens have been arrested and detained, according to DHS.

While community organizations are reporting hundreds more have been taken since that number from DHS is as of June 11, the federal Administration has deployed thousands of California National Guard and hundreds of active duty Marines to Los Angeles. Media reports the National Guard and local law enforcement have been protecting federal agents while they conduct mass raids and arrests.

Californians are being snatched and abducted from our streets by masked armed federal agents in plain clothes and unmarked vehicles using racial profiling, intimidation and violence. No warrant, no questions, no regard for constitutional rights or public safety.

Farm workers, day laborers, street vendors, construction workers and warehouse workers contribute to the fourth largest economy in the world and are terrified of going to work in fear they won't come back home to their children and family. Immigration raids make California less safe.

They make our neighbors and families terrified of going to work, picking up their children, calling for help, seeking medical care and going to local businesses. Members of Congress were denied access to oversight visits in detention facilities despite their right under federal law.

On June 7th, 5 Members were finally able to enter the Adelanto Ayes facility and denounce the inhumane and unsafe conditions. Folks, people and detained have no access to phones to call families or lawyers. Rotten food, dirty water, unsanitary conditions no human should be in.

1200 people are now detained at the Adelanto ICE facility, a 400% increase since April. Everyone in California deserves safety, dignity and due process. And immigration raids and arrests undermine public safety, tear apart families, destabilize the workforce and economy, and terrorize our neighborhoods.

California must take immediate action to denounce the mass immigration raids and arrests and affirm our unwavering support for all immigrant families, workers and community. The military style raids and arrests are violating our values, civil rights and and fundamental principles of due process. For these reasons, I urge you to support SJR9. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Before I proceed to Me Too testimony in support of SJR9, I understand that there were Committee amendments that we had worked with the author's office to make and I could summarize what those amendments are adding four Whereas clauses and I'll read them.

Whereas Latino and Asian families make up some of the largest undocumented groups, with the majority coming from Mexico, Central America, Asia and South America.

And whereas deportations tear families apart by separating parents from their children, leaving lasting emotional scars by increasing psychological distress, physical health issues, social isolation, setbacks in their educational future and whereas US Immigration Customs Enforcement is targeted, Home Depot stores, car washes, business vendors, construction sites, garment factories in predominantly Latino neighborhoods.

And whereas US citizens based on their skin color and appearance have been unlawfully harassed, handcuffed, arrested and deported. In addition, corrects the number of people that have been arrested since June 6 from 330 to 400 and then making various typographical changes. So assuming you accept those amendments. Yes. Okay, thank you.

Just so everyone knows also what the Committee amendments that we are making today. So with that we'll take any Me Too testimony in support of SJR9. If you can please come forward to the microphone. State your name, organization and position on the Bill.

Anallely Martin with the California Immigrant Policy Center, Proud co sponsors in strong support.

Good morning. Glenn Backes for Prosecutors Alliance Action in support.

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

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

Ignacio Hernandez is just as a Member of the public in support.

Good morning. Shervin Aazami with Initiate Justice Action in strong support.

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

Elizabeth Kim for Initiate Justice in strong support.

Griselda Chavez with the Mesa Verde Group on behalf of Carezen in strong support.

Natasha Minsker, Smart Justice California in strong support.

Laura Ridolfi from the Haywood Burns Institute in strong support.

Eduardo Mundo, bioheights for my community in strong support.

Thank you so very much. Unless there are any other Members of public wishing to express support for SJR9, we'll take up to two principal witnesses in opposition to SJR9. Is there anyone wishing to testify in opposition to SJR9?

Okay. Seeing none. I'll bring it back to the committee for discussion. I'd like to kick things off and I'll go to the afterwards, the Chair of the Latino Caucus. But first, as the Chair of this committee, I take my responsibility to protect the safety of all communities seriously.

And what we are seeing happening in our state, not just in Los Angeles, but throughout our state, undermines public safety in many ways. One, we're jeopardizing the safety of legal and undocumented Californians who are being violently arrested and assaulted by masked people. We don't even know if they're federal agents or not.

We've heard allegations that these may be vigilantes. We know that their Minutemen patrol the border, threatening peoples due process, constitutional rights and safety. And what we're also seeing is the erosion of trust between law enforcement and immigrant communities, something we have worked for years to try to build.

That's why this resolution is so important, that we take a strong stand about what's happening in our state, the militarization and occupation of our state, and that we stand for the safety and human rights and dignity of all people.

I have to say I am almost to tears hearing what you described about the conditions that people have experienced in our detention facilities and at the hands of these immigration agents, border patrol vigilantes, we don't know. It's unacceptable, the lack of humanity for people and the lack of respecting due processing, constitutional rights.

But we will stand for that here.

The California State Senate and in the California Legislature just want to lift up a few points and, just to put this into perspective, we saw a viral video this past weekend of a landscape gardener who was gardening outside of an IHOP restaurant in Santa Ana and was approached by these masked goons who punched him, tackled him to the ground, and violently threw him into a van.

We don't know where he is. He's the father of three Marines and a tax paying citizen. And there are people that we know who are legal citizens of this country who've been racially profiled, who've been arrested. Put this in perspective, the impact that this is having our state economically.

According to a recent study, as Senator Durazo stands by, UC Merced and the Bayer Council Economic Institute, undocumented Californians pay 7,000 a year in taxes. Mass deportations could lead to a loss of $23 billion in tax revenue annually. Now keep in mind the impact of the tariffs have had on our state's economy.

This just compounds the economic uncertainty that we're facing in our state at a time when we're facing a structural budget deficit. Our undocumented Californians are the backbone of our state's economy. So, this is also about protecting our state's economic prosperity as well.

What we've also heard is that allegedly ICE has arrest quotas of 3,000 people a day, which is why we're seeing this mass escalation of arrests and enforcement happening in California. And also to put in perspective, 65% of the people who've been arrested had no previous convictions and 93% had no violent convictions.

So, we often hear that the reason we're doing this, we have to get the criminals, and the murderers and the people that are threatening the safety of California off the streets. The data does not support that assertion. So, I'm a proud co-author of this resolution.

I thank Senator Durazo and Senator Caballero and the co-authors to bring this forward. We have to take a stand. We have to stand up for the dignity and human rights of all people in our state. And I will be proudly supporting this resolution today. Senator Gonzalez.

Thank you. Super emotional because this is really hard. I thank both Senator Durazo and Caballero for bringing this forward because it's not easy. It's hard to be in Sacramento right now. I'll give you a picture. On Friday, southeast LA was under attack. That's the community that I represent.

There were masked men hanging out of jeeps with AR15s, literally colliding and crashing into other cars arbitrarily. Not asking for identification of the driver, but because she was brown, we're gonna just crash into her car. And she had children in the back, car seats in the back.

Another masked man in the City of Maywood decided to also be hanging out AR15s and decide to arbitrarily throw a flash bomb at a playground where Latino kids were playing. No one can defend this. You cannot defend this behavior. I don't care if you're Republican or Democrat, you cannot defend this behavior. Our communities are under attack.

Los Angeles is under attack. Latinos, black people are under attack. API people. We are under attack by this federal administration. And it is not right. It is immoral.

And so, when so many of us are pushing for just a resolution to be able to put out there what the atrocities are in our communities, I beg for my Republican colleagues to support. It doesn't matter who's in office. What is happening right now is atrocious. And again, identification oftentimes is not being asked for.

They're just looking at the color of your skin and picking you up and snatching you up off the street. My mother, who got her U.S. citizenship in 1987 after reform in Congress, thank God for reform back then because there is no reform now, to do things the right way, like people say. There's absolutely no reform.

She got her US Citizenship and guess what? Because the color of her skin, she decides to put her US passport in her purse every day. Now my mother and I can't.

And I also have a 10-year-old son who has been listening to my calls with immigration folks on the ground and talking and, you know, hearing me, who has been sleeping in my room for two weeks now because he's like, mom, they're picking up Mexican kids. And I can't say anything.

What do I say as a mother? What do I say as a mother? Not even just as a state Senator and is the Chair of the Latino Caucus. So, I'm throwing my heart out there because I want Sacramento to not do things like business as usual. There is literally families being separated. And yes, we've been here before.

History has shown us we have been here before. We are resilient. But it still doesn't dismiss what is happening right now. And so, I want to thank the witnesses for their work on the ground. I want to thank all the immigration groups that have been working.

I want to thank our Southeast L A elected leaders that are back home right now literally trying to find any, any way to save their communities.

Many of them are asking now that police officers have identification that require, are asking their police forces to require identification of these masked men because we don't know who the hell they are. We're asking, should we tell the community now, we just talked about it in Latino Caucus.

Should we tell the community that they should be calling 911 when they see these masked men coming through their communities harassing them with AR15s and their families? That's where we're at right now. So, Senators Durazo and Caballero, thank you very much for bringing this forward. And Senator Arreguin, we need to keep leveling this up.

And I will be damned if every day goes by in this building if I don't acknowledge this, because it is absolutely a tragedy. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Senator Gonzalez. Also, are there any other questions, comments? Senator Seyarto.

Thank you very much. You know, there's nobody in California that if these incidents are happening in the way that they're being described, especially here today, want those things to be happening. And there's a lot of emotion. There's, you know, a lot of stories. Some of them are substantive, some of them we don't know.

I'd be more than happy to go down wherever it is with you and watch this in person, because sometimes I don't believe what I'm hearing.

But SJR 9 does little to address the concerns with federal immigration policy, nor do the state's contributions to ensuring that the US Immigration laws are not enforced, thereby rendering any efforts to address immigration in a sensible, thoughtful way an exercise in futility. There's plenty of blame to go around for our current crisis.

And while we need to be advocating for an immigration policy that recognizes the value and necessity of our immigrant communities, especially in our workforce, we also need to address the issues of the criminal element that does come here that have arrived in this country with no intent of changing their lifestyles.

There are a myriad of other issues related to immigration that we need to talk about and address. However, we are not going to make any meaningful progress in addressing any of it if California is not going to work with the federal government to address them.

Throwing stones literally and engaging in writing does not create a positive working environment, nor is it the type of activity endearing to the majority of citizens who live in California. In fact, it has just the opposite effect.

It creates anger and a lack of motivation to address problems and in a meaningful way but instead leads people to accept by many of the current immigration, accept the current - I'm sorry, accept by many the current immigration laws being enforced in the manner that is being done, which we don't like.

That is federal government agencies simply perform the duties of enforcing the immigration policies we have, while California political factions resist and demonize them. We had an opportunity for some meaningful reform with SB 554, which would have allowed limited cooperation between local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities for individuals convicted of serious and violent crimes.

This Public Safety Committee blocked that bill, leaving federal agencies with few alternatives but to chase down individuals in the communities they reside, and which has led to ensnaring other citizens from other countries who arrived in the US Illegally. The job of federal immigration to arrest and detain people who arrive here in the US Illegally, that's their job.

But again, our administration and the majority party in the legislature refuse to acknowledge our role and creating the problem and tries to blame it all on the feds. But it's not the feds. It's us as well in this state. This will not lead to fixing the problems we face today.

Resolutions like SJR 9 do not change laws or public safety practices. If the legislature is serious about addressing immigration enforcement. It requires legislation, not symbolic measures offered up to fan the flames of an already volatile situation.

Now is the time to lower, not raise, the political temperature so that we can work with the Federal Government in creating immigration reform that benefits our citizens, keeps criminals out, and allows citizens from other countries to come here legally and work towards their dream of becoming U.S. citizens.

For those reasons, I will not be supporting this resolution today.

Thank you. Any other comments. Senator Caballero?

I appreciate your sentiments, Senator, on this particular issue, and just say that I - And I like you a lot. Okay. I have to say that I like you a lot. You and I see the world a little bit differently a lot of the time. But I've enjoyed your friendship. But I think.

And I know that your background is public safety, and I honor, and I appreciate that. But I think the issue here is that there are ways to enforce the current immigration laws, whether I disagree with them or not, there's ways to enforce it that doesn't terrorize, create constitutional issues, and disrupt communities and the economy.

There's ways to do it. We'd still disagree with it. I would still disagree with it. I think my colleagues would. But when people come into my neighborhood, they're masked, and they start - I mean, I had have the conversation with my family. If I disappear, somebody better look for me. And I mean that seriously.

I have never worried about my safety, ever as an elected official, and I've been doing this for years. And I'm not just worried because of immigration. I'm worried about the rhetoric that's out there that causes people to show up at somebody's house and shoot them dead, including their spouses.

I mean, what does a spouse have to do with anything? Right? I mean, it's just, it's appalling. It's created a level of distrust and anxiety, angst and hate. And that's what - that's why this is so important to me.

It's that if someone shows up in a ski mask and you're from California, I'm sorry, but you never needed a ski mask in California. And so, there's something going on that makes you wonder, why are you hiding your face? And if you're doing the lawful thing, why are you hiding your face?

What I've seen on videos, because I haven't been present physically, what I've seen on videos is unacceptable. And it is not within the strictures of the law, and it's not within the Constitution the way that we observe constitutional rights. And so, for that reason, this is critically important. And someone can say, well, it's just a resolution.

It doesn't stop things from happening. But what it does is it sends a message to our communities that we're standing up, that we see what's going on, that it is unacceptable, and that we are standing alongside our communities. And I think ultimately what we want is for them to leave. We want them to leave.

This is real simple. Just go away. And it as small of an effort or as small of a sign as it is, I feel very, very strongly about this. There is nothing that has devastated the community in a way that has ripped out people's feeling of safety.

And I served as a mayor for many years, and the one thing we wanted to get across is that if you're a victim of a crime or if you see something happening, we need you to come in and cooperate with the police department.

And this just turning in one fell swoop in one short period of time, that's changed people's attitudes toward public safety and the sense of community and cooperation and working together. And so, it's for that reason I was really proud to co-author this with you, Senator. And when the time is appropriate, Mr. Chair, I will make the motion.

Thank you. Before I go to the author, you know, I appreciate the respectful debate we've had on this resolution, but I do just want to respond briefly to a few of the comments that the Vice Chair made. Respectfully.

You can respond back, but I feel like I want to just clarify some facts. So there was a deal that was reached on sweeping immigration reform that was killed by the current President.

And so, I think we all agree, Democrats and Republicans, that we need to create a streamlined path for people to get citizenship status in this country. That is the goal. And I just hope we don't lose sight of that.

But there was a very active bipartisan effort to try to advance legislation to create a pathway, and unfortunately, that pathway was blocked. I just have to say that there is no justification for what's happening now.

Yes, ICE and Border Patrol can enforce our laws, but we've never seen what's happened happen ever in the history of the state where mass people are arresting people, violently assaulting people, you know, throwing people into cars. We don't know where they are.

The way that people are being treated in detention facilities, it evokes what we all remember happened during the first Trump presidency, where kids were being separated from their parents and being put in cages. Just the lack of humanity in terms of how we treat people is unacceptable. So, yes, we have laws, we have to enforce those laws.

But there's a way of how we enforce those laws that respect due process, that respect constitutional rights, respect the decency and humanity of people, because that's not being done. And just briefly, on SB 554, yes, we killed that bill. I was proud to vote against that bill.

It did nothing, did nothing to address the public safety issues in California. SB 54 already allows county and local law enforcement to work with ICE to honor ICE detainer requests in the case of serious and violent felons. That is the law of California. That has not changed.

And just once again, 65% of the people that have been arrested since enforcement has happened in California have had no previous convictions, and 93% have had no violent convictions. So, I'll just leave it there. And Mr. Vice Chair, if you'd like to respond, I'll give you the floor.

So, you'd have to do a deep dive into what's going on to understand every aspect of it. You'd have to, number one, the state needs to be working with the federal government, not suing the federal government at every turn, because that adversarial relationship creates barriers to conversations.

We should be having this conversation with the federal administration about what is acceptable and what's not acceptable, but we can't even do that. Not one person has been able to go and have that conversation. Why is that? Is that because of our, it's California, our attitude that we're just going to fight, fight, fight?

And when you talk about the immigration reform that was finally brought up, and you said it was killed by the President, just because a policy is brought up doesn't mean it's a good policy. It means if it's not supportable, then people need to work on it some more.

And, you know, there are certain aspects of it that some people just were not going to be comfortable with.

And so, you know, we have some work to do. But we're not going to do it if we're going to be in a, in a silo in California where the only thing we do to the federal government is throw rocks so that we don't have a way of communicating in a manner that is constructive, because we're not doing that and they're not doing that.

It's set up to be us versus them. And you know what? You're right. We don't know who is in those masked, masked hoods running around with the AR15s, usually they're supposed to have their ID around their neck. Those could be Cartel, who knows? That's not safe.

We should be discussing that with the federal government and being able to get answers. And we're not doing that. And that's what my point is, is California is not taking the lead and having meaningful dialogue with the federal government on how we work together to address this immigration issue. And it has devolved into what we're hearing today.

And that's sad. It's sad for me, it's sad for my family, because, yes, believe it or not, that's where they came from, Mexico. So, I am not without compassion and feeling. I am irritated because we just can't seem to get out of our political way to work with the federal government to fix this.

And I mean, fix this part of it, too. The part that how are they enforcing? We should be trying to fix that, but we're not having that conversation. We're just going to court. And that doesn't work. And certainly riots don't work because that invites people to come in, the National Guard.

The federal government gets to do that part of it. We created that, and we have to stop it. So that's all I'm going to say on the subject.

I'm more than happy to work with anybody who would like to work with the federal government to figure this out, stop the madness, and get this immigration issue addressed in a responsible way.

Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. Senator Durazo, I'll give you the opportunity to close.

I'm really speechless to hear your words, Senator. I'm speechless to hear you blame the people who are being victimized for what's going on. I'm speechless to hear you describe this as simply enforcement of our labor laws. I should have walked out, too. This cannot be happening in a country as great as ours.

This should not be happening in a country as great as ours. To think that all of the things that were described by people who are living it would be going on and people not be outraged is really sad.

I believe the overwhelming majority of Americans and Californians do not accept this, do not accept this kind of behavior, are opposed to this kind of behavior. I've talked to over the last few weeks, people from all walks of life, none of them agree that this is the way to do things.

This is not the way to enforce our immigration laws. It's inhumane, but mostly it's unconstitutional. It violates our American Constitution. And to use people of color, Latinos, API and others as the way, as the front for violating our Constitution is also unacceptable to everyone.

On the other hand, I am extremely proud of us who are standing up for our communities. I'm extremely proud of our organizations on the ground. I'm extremely proud of those who have been there at the doors just not giving up, waiting hours and hours and hours to be able to talk to someone coming back the next day.

Our members of Congress doing all that they can, reaching out. So, there's a lot to be proud of in California. And if this administration is going to pick on the state, thank God it's California because we're ready to defend our communities. We're not going to back off. And with that, Mr. Chair, I respectfully ask for your aye vote end with Dolores Huertas famous words Si se puedo. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator. Okay, we have a motion by Senator Caballero. If the committee assistant could please call the roll.

SJR 9 motion is be adopted with amendments to the floor. [Roll Call]

Okay, we'll keep that bill on call.

Thank you Senators. We're going to proceed to our next bill and file order which is filed in 4Ab358 by Assemblymember Alvarez. And good morning Assemblymember Alvarez. If there are any principal witnesses to testify on that bill, if you can please join us at the table here.

And just colleagues, the Committee staff are passing out Committee amendments that the authors agree to. Just want to summarize what those amendments principally do they one require law enforcement to get an after the fact warrant and to provide a remedy.

So these are the Committee amendments that I believe the Assemblymember is accepting and I'll turn it over to Assemblymember Alvarez to present.

Thank you. Thank you Mr. Chair. Thank you Mr. Chair. And yes we are accepting the amendments. And thank you to your staff and Committee consultants for helping us get to today. Again, thank you for the opportunity to present AB 358, the technology reform for Access to Crime Evidence or trace amendment.

I will again try to keep this brief because the amendments have been accepted. I appreciate the work that was done. This bill is about ensuring that survivors of stalking, domestic violence and harassment are not left defenseless when they discover that their privacy has been violated.

The bill makes a narrow victim centered exemption to the California Electronic Communications Privacy Act Cal ECPA by allowing law enforcement to access tracking and surveillance devices with the explicit consent of the person who finds it within their private space. The use of technology to stalk, monitor and harass is common.

Unfortunately more common and it's common in both trafficking and domestic violence cases. In the support letter that you have in your documents from the Survivor Leader Network of San Diego, victims share their stories of having GPS trackers sewn onto their clothing and recording devices hidden in their purses even after relocating to a safe house.

Right now, the way Cal ECBA is written, law enforcement cannot immediately inspect spy cameras or airtags that are placed in the victim's private space, even when the victim's explicit permission to do so.

That means that if a stalking or domestic violence survivor finds an unauthorized tracking device or recording device in their home or in their vehicle, law enforcement cannot immediately search the device without first obtaining a warrant. This delay gives perpetrators time to hide their tracks and continue potentially to accuse those victims and others.

The TRACE Amendment empowers survivors and strengthens protections for those facing threats from stalkers and ensures that law enforcement can help victims in real time rather than being restricted by unnecessary delays. AB358 does not allow warrantless searches beyond these very narrow victim center circumstances.

And the Bill does not undermine privacy rights, but rather ensures that victims can protect themselves when their privacy has already been violated. I'd like to turn it over to our testimony of our witnesses. This Deputy District Attorney Joel Madero with San Diego District Attorney's office, our bill sponsor. Thank you. Good morning.

You have two minutes to present the bill. Thank you.

Done. Okay, let's make sure it is red. Okay. Good morning to the chair and Members of this Committee. My name is Joel Madero and I'm here on behalf of the c who is proudly supporting AB358.

I've been a prosecutor for nearly 10 years and I'm currently the Director of Catch, which is a multi jurisdictional task force focused on crimes involving technology. In my current role, I am oftentimes having conversations with law enforcement and prosecutors about Cal ECPA and how it has changed the legal landscape of our community.

AV358 stemmed from a warrant that I had to review in a conversation. Multiple conversations I had that involved these spy cameras that I'm holding here in my hand. The case stemmed from a woman in her early 20s having these spy cameras put in the vents of her room and her bathroom.

Her sister, while cleaning, found these devices and contacted law enforcement. The victims, the sole people who had a right to be in the room, in the residence, were cooperative with law enforcement.

But the conversation that I had with my law enforcement partners and within my office was that we could not proceed with the consent that was given because Cal Ekpa essentially provided a veto right to the perpetrator in this case, that the person who had invaded these individuals, this young 20 year old's privacy, had more of a right over the device and the data that was illegally put in her room and her bathroom than the victims themselves.

AB358 is narrowly tailored with appropriate safeguards to address specific circumstances like this, where we have victims in their own homes, their own cars, or within their own private property being victimized by spy cameras, which are becoming cheaper and easier to set up.

Delays such as the necessity to get a warrant leaves perpetrators the chance to delete data and make it impossible to prosecute these crimes. In this particular case, we were unable to find video of the. Of the surveillance. I can't say for sure that had we been able to move faster that we would have.

But I can assure you that these kinds of delays do leave perpetrators who are on notice immediately when these devices are found. Gives them time to cover their tracks. California, as far as I know, is the only state that gives the perpetrator this veto right over a victim in their own home and within their own domain.

The Fourth Amendment certainly does not give the right to the perpetrator over the victims. I would urge and ask respectfully that each of you support this carefully crafted, narrow exception to Cal [unintelligible].

Thank you. Thank you very much. Are there any other members of the public wishing to testify in support of AB358, you can please approach the microphone. State your name, organization and position on the bill.

Dan Filizado, on behalf of the Crime Victims Alliance, in support, thank you.

Danny Kando Kaiser, on behalf of the Electronic Frontier Foundation and also by proxy on behalf of the ACLU and California News Publishers Association. Thank the author for the amendments taken in today's Committee. We are now neutral.

Thank you.

Good morning. Sam Haddad, Deputy District Attorney from San Joaquin County here for California District Attorneys Association in support.

Thank you very much. Are there any other Members of the public which should express support for AB358? Okay. Seeing no further witnesses, is there anyone wishing to Testify in opposition? AB358, please come forward. Okay. Seeing no one wishing to testify in opposition the bill, bring it back to the Committee for questions and comments.

Senator Caballero, thank you very much.

Mr. Chair, thank you for your testimony here today. You made it succinctly clear what the issue is here. It's just. It's become much more complicated with devices that are capable of invading people's privacy. And yet who has the right to the information that they obtain because of it?

And so with that, thank you for bringing this bill forward, for crafting it narrowly, and for understanding what it can be an issue. I mean, who wants to violate the right to get a warrant? But if you can craft it narrowly enough, it works. And I do appreciate your. Your comments.

So at the appropriate time, I'll make the motion. Mr.

Chair, thank you. Any other questions or comments on AB358? If not, I'll turn it back over to the author to close.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and again, thank you for the opportunity to present the Bill as stated. It was a work in progress over the course of committees that got us to where we are today.

We believe this is the right balance to ensure that the victims are certainly allowed to provide the authorization for these devices to be used in cases where they've been misused. I should state by. By the perpetrators and so appreciate the work of the Committee to tailor it this way.

And the opposition who worked with us as well and respectfully asked for your aye vote.

Thank you. Thank you very much. We have a motion by Senate Caballero, the Committee assistant. Please call the roll.

[Roll call]

Thank you. We'll keep that bill on call. Thank you very much. Okay, we are going to go to those authors that are present in file order, so we're going to go next to Assembly Member Mark Gonzalez and then I see Assembly Member Bonta here as well. Good morning, Assembly Member Gonzalez. Actually, before we do that, we're going to make a--we're going to entertain consent.

So once again, consent consists of File Item Two: AB 223, File Item Three: AB 352, File Item Six: AB 535, File Item 11: AB 875, File Item 16: AB 1195, and File Item 17: AB 1387. Is there a motion on consent? Moved by Senator Caballero. The committee assistant, please call the roll.

[Roll Call].

We'll keep that on call. Thank you.

And I'll now turn it over to Assembly Gonzalez to present.

Thank you, members. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for all of your work today. I want to thank you all and the committee staff for working collaboratively with my team on this very important measure. I'm pleased to accept the committee's amendments at this time.

AB 630 is sponsored by Mayor of Los Angeles, Ms. Karen Bass. With these amendments, AB 630 addresses the growing public safety environmental risk posed by inoperable and hazardous RVs on our streets. Specifically, this bill will raise the value cap for dismantling RVs, but only for those that are inoperable or declared public safety or environmental hazards.

This bill requires local jurisdictions to give registered owners 30 days to recover towed RVs, expanding existing notification requirements to include contact information so individuals know where their vehicle and belongings are being held and guarantees a minimum of 15 days to reclaim this period, requires agencies to post additional on-site notifications near the location where the RV has been removed, and it provides towing and storage fee relief for RVs that are wrongfully impounded.

This bill also mandates local reporting on the number of RVs towed, whether they were occupied at the time of removal, and whether they were operational. Abandoned inoperable RVs present serious, very serious health and safety challenges in cities and counties throughout California. Many of these vehicles are in severe disrepair, posing risks such as fire hazards, sewage leaks, and unsafe living conditions for the occupants inside.

Under current law, local governments can impound and dismantle those vehicles after notifying registered owners and providing only a ten-day reclaim period. If an RV remains unclaimed after 15 days, it can be dismantled only if the value is $500 or less.

Any RV valued over $500 must be auctioned, often allowing predatory buyers known as vanlords to purchase them as little as 50 bucks and having them back on the streets. These vanlords frequently return those RVs onto those streets without properly registering the vehicles, ensuring they are inoperable or making them unsafe and uninhabitable.

Then they rent these RVs at significant markups to vulnerable individuals, perpetuating cycles in unsafe housing and creating ongoing public health and safety risk. AB 630 aims to break this cycle, providing individuals living in hazardous RVs with pathways to secure safe shelter and long-term housing opportunities.

This bill is a product of thoughtful collaboration between the committee, stakeholders, my office, and we will continue to remain committed to continuing that dialogue as this bill continues to advance. And Mr. Chair and members, I'd like to allow some time to our primary witness in support, Mr. Frederick Quintana, Senior Director of State Affairs for Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass. Take it away.

Thank you very much. You have two minutes, sir.

Thank you. Good morning, chair and members. My name is Freddie Quintana, and I serve as the Senior Director of State Affairs to Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass. Mayor Bass has made the homeless crisis in Los Angeles her top priority since taking office.

On her very first day, she declared a state of emergency on homelessness and launched the Inside Safe Program. This initiative has moved thousands of individuals voluntarily indoors and connected them with housing and services. Unsheltered homelessness can take many forms, including people living in recreational vehicles.

While these RVs can provide shelter, they are often dilapidated, unsafe, and can pose harms to the environment, public health, and safety. Often, inoperable, dilapidated and/or hazardous RVs are illegally rented to individuals experiencing homelessness after predatory vanlords purchase them for as little as $100 from garages.

These vehicles often get towed again, cycling on and off the streets in Los Angeles. The bill addresses this issue by raising the evaluation threshold to dismantle to $4,000. With this change in law, inoperable, dilapidated, and hazardous vehicles, recreational vehicles, may be dismantled after being towed if they are valued at $4000 or under.

Over recent months, we have worked with the various stakeholders to address concerns to the bill and we have amended the bill to clarify the RVs subject to this increase must meet the definition of inoperable or present an environmental or public safety hazard.

We've also increased the window for the--for retrieving the RV up to 30 days at this point, and with today's committee amendments, we'll ensure that the RVs that are wrongfully towed do not create a financial burden for the interested party. Let me be clear: we are not changing existing authorities to tow. It does--it also doesn't guarantee an RV will be dismantled if it's under $4,000.

This bill specifically permits more RVs that meet the standard of inoperable, dilapidated, or hazardous to be dismantled if they are towed. For these reasons and on behalf of Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. Before we take #MeToo testimony, I just want to summarize the amendments. The committee amendments that we worked on with the author would do the following: after a removal, a removal agency must post specified notices within the geographical area of the removal if the vehicle cannot be--the vehicle owner cannot be identified, provides that if it is determined in a post-removal hearing that the removal is improper, the owner of the vehicle shall pay no fees for impoundment or storage and other technical and clarifying changes, and would also respectfully ask to be added as a co-author.

Yes.

And you accept those amendments?

Absolutely, Mr. Chair, and I did misspeak. We--part of those amendments we also spoke about was on the belongings piece that originally was 15 days, we raised it to a 30-day reclaim period on that one as well. I misspoke on my, my intro.

Thank you very much. So noted. Okay, we'll take #MeToo testimony in support of AB 630.

Mr. Chair and members, Amy Brown, on behalf of the Big City Mayors Coalition, in support.

Thank you.

Chair and members, Jonathan Feldman with the City of Riverside and the California Police Chiefs Association, in support as well.

Thank you.

Good morning. Dylan Elliott, on behalf of the City and County of San Francisco, in support. Thank you.

Ethan Nagler, on behalf of the cities of Vernon and Bakersfield, in support.

Julian Devores, on behalf of League of California Cities, in support.

Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to express support for AB 630? Okay. If not, we'll take up to two principal witnesses in opposition to AB 630. If you wish to testify in opposition, please join us at the table. I see we have a gentleman joining us. And whoever would like to start.

Thank you. My name is Sean Dennis Geary, this is my service animal, Rex, and we're fresh off of five years off of the streets. We speak to you today because we feel it's our collective responsibility to uplift those who need it most.

At the start of 2020, I was working two well-paying jobs in Downtown San Francisco and renting an RV because I couldn't afford an apartment. When Covid hit, my meds were stopped. I had to fight two years to be seen by a doctor because of the situation at the time and then it took me another six months to get an appointment.

Without medication or income, I quickly fell far behind in my rent. I lost my RV. My dog and I then spent 15 incessantly traumatizing months in a shelter, and I cannot stress how traumatizing that shelter was. The staff badly harassed the residents every day.

It was far worse than being in an RV, far worse. After I took exception to the harassment, I was escorted off the property with one-hour notice, two hours before sunset with no chance to collect my possessions. My dog and I slept on the ground that night. It was 40 degrees out, San Francisco wintertime.

We spent the next two months living in a tent on the sand. It was only with the help of local service providers that I was able to finally get through the disability process and get an apartment. Having to live one's private life on full display in public is distressing.

If you have the pressures of ticketing and towing from officers, the situation becomes really unbearable. Getting clean, finding warmth, finding solitude, some private space, drinking water, restrooms, meals, disposing of garbage. These only take a moment for you in your house. You walk into your kitchen, you grab a beer, you sit on your couch.

When you're homeless, you can't carry these things with you. Water is heavy. If you want to shower, you can spend about a month--you can spend a week's worth of food spending just to pay for the gym membership so you can get that shower.

When you take someone's RV and dismantle it, you're taking away their ability to store water, to cook and save food leftovers, their shelter from wind and rain, the night, and all that encompasses in the public.

You take away their agency, their autonomy, and you create more issues because it takes the same number of police officers to go out and move along those vagrants as it does to write up the tickets to dismantle an RV. So now you've got more people on the street. They're far more desperate.

This is what AB 630 is going to do. We need to mitigate these problems by realizing it's far easier to elevate people when we don't begin by knocking them down. Please vote down this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. You have two minutes.

Thank you. Good after--oh. Good afternoon, chair and members. I'm Keely O'Brien, representing Western Center on Law and Poverty, respectfully in opposition to AB 630. AB 630 will force people out of shelter and onto the streets by encouraging the widespread destruction of inhabited RVs across California.

This bill would allow cities to dismantle about 90% of RVs parked on city streets, which will put tens of thousands of people's safety at risk. In the wake of Grants Pass, most cities do not offer any shelter during sweeps.

Cities like Fresno, Fremont, and others are increasingly taking shelter from people who have no other options, and this bill would make it far easier for them to do so. Even in LA, programs like Inside Safe have a poor track record of placing people into permanent housing. Fifty-six percent return to the streets after being provided shelter through the program.

Many local jurisdictions already take advantage of vagueness in the Vehicle Code by destroying inhabited RVs that they claim are abandoned and by destroying RVs they claim are low value without providing any evidence. AB 630 would encourage localities to abuse state law and take away people's homes and vehicles, leaving them with no recourse.

AB 630--sorry--the drastic 700% change to the destruction threshold will result in extreme consequences, especially if applied all the way across the state. The language is extreme in other ways too. Having something as simple as a flat tire or a dead battery would make an RV inoperable and therefore eligible for destruction under the bill, and the notices and timelines are punishingly short for people who have just lost their only form of shelter, have no mailing address at which to receive notices, and who can't pay the excessive fees in order to get their RVs back.

RVs serve as the last line of shelter for tens of thousands of families, seniors, veterans, survivors of domestic violence, and people with disabilities. Taking that away exposes vulnerable people to violence, health risks, and premature death on the streets. The reality is the demand for RV housing exists because alternative housing options don't.

By destroying RV Homes, AB 630 would force people into riskier, more deadly conditions and increase public health risks for everyone. For these reasons, we respectfully ask you to oppose AB 630. Thank you.

Thank you. We'll take any #MeToo testimony in opposition to AB 630. Please state your name, organization, and position on the bill.

Danica Rodarmel, on behalf of Debt Free Justice California, La Defensa, and Felony Murder Elimination Project. Appreciate the work that's been done on the bill and the ongoing conversations with the Assembly Member's office and the sponsors, but remain in respectful opposition at this time. Thank you.

Margo George, on behalf of the California Public Defender's and the San Francisco Public Defender's Office. Appreciate the conversation with the author and the sponsors, but we remain in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Divya Shiv with Housing California, also speaking on behalf of the National Alliance to End Homelessness. We also similarly appreciate the conversations with the author's office and the sponsors, but we have continued concerns that we hope to address through conversation and remain opposed unless amended.

Good morning. Sharon Rapport with the Corporation for Supportive Housing. We have a respectful, oppose unless amended position. Thank you.

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

Okay, thank you. Unless there are any other members of the public wishing to testify, I'll bring it back to the committee for discussion, and Senator Caballero and I want to just make a few comments.

Well, first, let me thank you very much for being here. Appreciate your testimony, and thank you for sharing your story. I think we're all very, very sympathetic to the crisis that's been created because we haven't built enough housing, and this is not new. It's been going on for years, and it gets worse and worse.

And I appreciate Mayor Bass committing herself to working to end homelessness. That's, well, I guess, kind of the center of the universe for homeless issues, and tackling it head on is the only way you actually get anywhere. So here's the concern I have, and I appreciate you bringing this bill forward.

Part of the challenge for me is, having served in local government, I saw what happened when we made it possible to tow vehicles and to dismantle them, and part of the challenge is it became a--because it was tied to towing--it became a lucrative business to tow vehicles--and because we had made it illegal for undocumented workers to drive, we took away the right to have a license.

All of a sudden, you had a lot of people with vehicles that were kind of bomber vehicles, vehicles that they keep running to be able to get to work but that are not in very good condition, so they look bad, and we made it possible for the tow companies to make money by towing it and then exchanging it for metal. In other words, there was a bounty on it. And that's what I'm concerned about with this bill. So I'm really glad to hear that you're having conversation with the opposition.

I think there is a sweet spot here, and it may be the sweet spot is that if the vehicle is occupied--and visibly you can see it's occupied--that it moves into a second track because I do agree it's--as difficult as it is to have vehicles parked on the street overnight where they shouldn't be, until we can provide some kind of permanent housing, it becomes difficult to move people off of that and into nothing, right, and it's--and I think part of the reason that I'm concerned about it is that in rural California our issues are different.

People are taking those vehicles out in the country roads and in many ways it's better--they're safer out on these country roads than to be in a shelter in a city, so I'm going to support your bill today, but I hope that you'll continue to work with the opposition to figure out what is the sweet spot so that we're not taking away recreational vehicles from poor people who actually own them but haven't registered them, may have a flat tire, may not be able to operate them as we would like, but not to destroy their opportunity.

I knew a veteran that was living with his mother. His mother ended up in congregate care. He had been taking care of her because he couldn't afford the rent. He ended up taking his limited veterans resources, bought a rec v, and then the minute it broke down, he lost that rec v.

And so he went from living with his mother, taking care of her, to ending up in a shelter, and it was heartbreaking to see that. So as I said, I'm willing to support the bill today and hope that some of the opposition can come up with some solutions that will make sense.

Thank you, Senator, and since the inception of this bill, I've had many concerns with it as well because this is literally folks' lifeline and this is what they only have. I mean, I remember when I initially started this conversation about this bill, the very first question was, well how do you notify the owner that it's going to be taken away very simply, and they said, we'll we mail them a letter. Well where are you mailing the letter to? I mean that's a very simple step.

So we have been committed to working on very simple common senses approach on this since day one and we will continue to include that, especially for the rural communities. Thank you.

I want to thank the author for bringing this bill forward and the ongoing dialogue with the opposition. I have a similar bill that is now in the Assembly Public Safety Committee that we have been working with many of the groups that have been opposed to this bill on, sort of narrowing the scope of it, and I really want to thank you for being here, sir, for telling your story of your experience living on the street. It's unacceptable that you or any Californian does not have a permanent, stable, affordable home, and I think we can't lose sight of that goal.

What I will say, as a mayor of a city that has dealt with this issue and representing the City of Oakland where we have a major issue around abandoned vehicles, I want to distinguish between vehicles that people are using for shelter and vehicles that are completely abandoned, and there are legal standards that come into play when somebody is occupying an RV that do not allow people to just remove it. There's ADA considerations, other legal considerations.

This is around abandoned vehicles and what we are--and so if somebody moves into permanent housing and they have no place to put their vehicle, that vehicle is there unless they work with local government or a tow company to move that vehicle, but we're also seeing people who are buying vehicles and using them to engage in criminal activity, dumping stuff in them, prostitution, drug dealing, and that's impacting the safety of those communities as well.

And I just think about my district in East Oakland where there are whole blocks where people have just literally dumped vehicles, RVs and vehicles, and it is a major health and safety issue. It's a major public safety issue.

I think what we want to do here is very narrowly tailor this law to give local governments the ability to remove those vehicles on a more expedited basis but obviously take into consideration the need to protect people's shelter and protect people's possessions as well. So I know that the author will continue to work on that.

I will be supporting the bill today, as my recommendation is an aye on this bill as amended, and I'll ask, are there any other questions or comments from committee? Okay. If not, I'll turn over to the Assembly Member to close.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, sir, and both of you for sharing your story today. I know it's not easy having to relive those moments, especially during that time, but we are committed to working with that, and as the representative of Downtown Los Angeles and the surrounding communities, homelessness is, you know, more than a pandemic or an endemic.

It's something that we have to face every single day, and most of the time, these RVs are parked near schools. They are epicenters for human trafficking. They're epicenters for prostitution rings and headquarters for folks who sell drugs, and so for us, there are bad actors that are not utilizing these forms of shelters or these abandoned RVs for what they're intended to be.

Unfortunately, as someone who's done the homeless counts, who's gone to recycling places where the RV, once abandoned, gets towed and is under the $500 value then goes up for auction at the very same recycling agency, somebody could take metal, get 500 bucks, pay 50 bucks for the RV, and then pay the towing to get it out of the yard and then put it back on the street again.

Definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome. This helps to adjust that so that it makes the value of the $4,000 piece of it so that you can get those bad actors off our streets and protect our kids, protect our neighbors, and get folks into actual housing, and with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. Is there a motion? Moved by Senator Caballero as amended. The committee assistant call roll.

AB 630: the motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations. [Roll Call].

We'll keep that bill on call.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

So Chair Schultz is next and followed her, but I've asked him if it's okay if we go to Assemblymember Bonta. Then she has to chair the Senate Health- the Assembly Health Committee. So we're going to go out of order to file item 18, AB 1376.

Then we'll go back to file order, which I think next in line is Assemblymember Schultz with AB 690. And Assemblymember Bonta turn over to you.

Thank you, Chair Members, and thank you to my colleagues for allowing me to present this Bill. I'm pleased to present AB 1376, which seeks to put an end to endless probation for youth in California.

Under California law, under current law, there is no limit to how long a young person can remain on probation. The only certainty for when a young person will be off probation is when they age out of the system at 21. This Bill reflects our commitment to both accountability and opportunity for the young people in our justice system and the communities they call home.

AB 1376 does three main things towards this end. First, it establishes a presumption that youth probation ends at nine months with a review hearing to determine appropriateness, unless a court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the youth should remain on probation.

Second, it requires review hearings every six months thereafter if probation is extended, ensuring youth are progressing and held to fair individualized expectations and conditions of probation.

Finally, it mandates that all probation conditions be developmentally appropriate, tailored to the individual and reasonable.

I accepted Committee amendments in the Assembly to extend the initial review period from six to nine months. And I also crossed author's amendments to ensure the court considers both the youth's best interest and the public interest when deciding whether to extend probation.

To put this Bill in context, in 2023, more than 10,000 youth were placed on wardship probation in California. About 57% or 6,000 of those returned to their home or relative's home.

This is the type of probation where a youth has been adjudicated to be a ward of the court and is deemed safe to be placed on probation with or without supervision of a probation officer in their community. These are not youth who are on formal probation who can be in juvenile hall, camps, or secure youth facilities.

In fact, there is also an incredible disparity. Young people of color are disproportionately impacted, comprising 86% of California youth put on wardship probation. Research consistently shows that longer probation does not reduce recidivism, but it does increase the risk of technical violations like missing curfew or a meeting.

These minor missteps can trap youth in a system longer than they should be there, even when they are doing otherwise well. In California, adult probation terms are capped at one or two years, depending on the type of offense. Yet for youth who are still developing and more responsive to interventions, there is no cap at all.

Counties like San Diego already implement a six month probation review. Other counties including Butte, Eldorado, Riverside, Yolo, Amador, Lassen, Mariposa, Santa Clara, Solano, Tehama and Tulare have average probation durations of under 12 months.

AB 1376 takes proven local practices and applies them statewide, promoting consistency, fairness, and public safety. This Bill focuses on ensuring regular, timely court reviews to keep probation on track, developmentally appropriate expectations so youth aren't set up to fail, statewide consistency so justice does not depend on a youth zip code.

With me today to present on this Bill are Xochtil Larios from the Youth Justice Coordinator with Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice, or CURYJ, and Eduardo Mundo, a 30-year Los Angeles probation officer.

Hi, good morning. You'll have two minutes.

Mic check. Okay. Hi everyone. My name is Xochi Larios. I was born and raised in South Hayward, California. I've been in and out of the foster care system since I was seven and involved in the juvenile justice system starting at the age of 12 years old. Today, I'm actually a Youth Leadership Associates Manager with Courage.

And I'm here to voice my strong support for AB 1376. When I was first put on probation at the age of 12 years old, no one explained to me how long I would be on probation for or what was expected of me. No one ever asked my family what we needed.

My mother and I were homeless at the time. My dad wasn't around, and I stepped into a parental role, paying rent, driving my sisters to school and handling the household while my mom worked graveyard shifts. Let me be clear. Probation doesn't just monitor youth; it punishes families too. That's something that I didn't read in a report.

That's something that I've lived. I was often on probation from the age of 12 up to 17 years old. When I was on ankle monitor, my probation officer came to my school not to check on my well-being, but to see if I have tampered with my device.

Another time, she nearly violated me for walking into an empty parking lot and staying too long. My assigned officer assumed I was running, but I was simply trying to get clean clothes.

It took a long time because most of the clothes in my suitcase in the car, most of the clothes in my suitcase in the car were sticking to each other because of the heat in the cold of the night. I'll never forget one of the most important days of my life.

The day that I missed my high school graduation because I was in juvenile hall for violating my condition of probation. I was 17, homeless, attending continuation school and working. What was my violation? Sleeping in the car. I was sleeping in a car because staying with my mom was impossible.

The homeless shelter she stayed at had a curfew of 7pm and I worked until 9pm I was punished for trying to survive. Youth deserve a system that recognizes youth potential, not one that punishes their poverty. Endless probation didn't work for me, and it doesn't work for many other young people either.

What young people need is support, not surveillance. Probation in California lasts for years with no clear expectations. So, I ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Next speaker. You have two minutes.

My name is Eduardo Mundo. Good morning. I had the privilege of serving over 30 years as a probation officer supervising youth in Los Angeles County. I support AB 1376. Because I've seen how our current system keeps youth on probation far longer than necessary, often without clear purpose.

In my three decades, I've watched countless young people get stuck in what I call probation inertia. Once placed on probation, it becomes automatic to keep them on. Sometimes it's because we genuinely believe we're helping them. Sometimes it's because they haven't caused any trouble, so we just let their cases ride.

I guess I was really lucky because our probation departments were really rural California. They were really sensitive to the needs of the community and to the poverty in the community.

And sometimes, because no one is asking, does this young person still need to be on probation? Let me be clear. I know probation officers are good people. Many are my close friends. They want to make a positive impact. I'd like to think I was one of the good ones myself.

What I've come to recognize is that the structure and the institution itself can do harm even when operated by good people. Probation is not easy for kids. Even with the best officer, every probation meeting means a parent missing work, often without pay.

Probation check-ins can mean missing games, social events or family gatherings, the normal activities that help young people develop. AB 1376 creates a crucial mechanism. Regular check ins first at 9 months, then every 6 months. Think about it this way.

If you ask a young person to run a race but never show them where the finish line was, how motivated would they be? Probation without a visible end works the same way. When youth know there's potential in sight, that their efforts will be recognized and rewarded, they're more motivated to comply and to complete programming.

Most youth do not need years of probation. They need appropriate interventions, consistent expectations and the opportunity to demonstrate growth. AB 1376 ensures that kids don't stay on probation just because it is a path of least resistance. And importantly, it still gives judges full discretion to extend probation whenever necessary for public safety or victim needs.

After 30 years working in this system, I can tell you with the absolute certainty, AB 1376 will make juvenile probation more effective, not less. It will help focus our limited resources on youth who truly need supervision, while allowing others to move forward with their lives. I urge you to support. Thank you.

All right, at this time we'll take all the me toos. You come up to the mic. Your name, organization and your support for the Bill.

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

Good morning. Jaime Minor on behalf of Cal Casa, the California Court appointed Special Advocate Association. Thank you.

Natasha Minsker Smart Justice California Priority support.

Glenn Backes, Prosecutors Alliance Action in support.

Nicole Morales on behalf of Children Now. In support.

Capri Walker with Californians for Safety and Justice in support.

My name is Shamil Watson, strong support.

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

Margo George on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association and the San Francisco Public Defender's Office in strong support. Thank you.

Nedrick Miller All of Us or None - Sacramento, strong support.

Dixie Samaniego and Diego with The California Alliance of Child and Family Services in support.

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

Elizabeth Kim for Initiate Justice in strong support.

April Grayson on behalf of the Sister Freedom Coalition proud co sponsoring strong support.

[Unintelligible] Gonzalez on behalf of your California in strong support.

Good morning. Rashad Wilkinson Williams from Fresh Lifelines for Youth in strong support.

Ana Ramirez on behalf of the San Mateo Participatory Defense Hub in strong support. Thank you.

Cecilia Chavez on behalf of Silicon Valley Debug and the California Participatory Defense Network in strong support.

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

Rakim Naylor on behalf of Ellis Baker Center in strong support.

Morgan Zamora on behalf of Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in strong support.

Hi. Jasmine Delafosse on behalf of the California alliance for Youth and Community Justice, PROUD co sponsor CAYCJ. Also in strong support is the Youth Justice Education Clinic at Loyola Law School, strong support Anti Police Terror Project, Urban Peace Institute, Children's Defense Fund in California, the Mentoring Center, Human Rights Watch, Pillars, SF Public Defender's Office, Youth Law center, End Child Poverty in California, Vera Institute of Justice: Ending Girls Incarceration Initiative.

[Unintelligible] on behalf of Asian Americans Advancing Justice Southern California in strong support.

Hello, Good morning. Felipe Kelly on behalf of the Ella Baker center in strong support.

Shervin Aazami Initiate Justice Action in strong support.

Katie Jennings on behalf of The Children's Partnership in support.

[Unintelligible] on behalf of Drug Policy Alliance in support.

[Unintelligible] on behalf of Fresh Life Lines for Youth PROUD co sponsors in strong support.

Laura Ridolfi with the Haywood Burns Institute PROUD co sponsor in strong support.

Hello. Keely o' Brien with Western Center on Law and Poverty PROUD co sponsor and this bill is also a priority of the Building the California Dream Alliance. Thank you.

Mr. Chair and Senators, Adam Kagone on behalf of the Anti Recidivism Coalition in support.

Xavier Espana responding with Silicon Valley Debug and strong support.

Good morning. Jay Vasquez on behalf of Courage PROUD co sponsor. Also in support Community Works, Felony and Murder Elimination Project, California United for Responsible Budget, the Children's Partnership, Building Healthy Communities Monterey County, Freedom for Youth, Santa Barbara County, Youth Alliance, San Benito County, Black Parallel School Board, Alliance for Boys and Men of Color, and National Center for Youth Law. Thank you.

Excuse me. Ignacio Hernandez, on behalf of the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice Statewide Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. In support.

Jim Lindberg Friends Committee on Legislation of California. In support.

Anyone else wishing to testify in support of AB 1376? Okay. If not, we'll take up to two principal witnesses. They can move over there to that side of the table, so we have room for the opposition witnesses. We'll take two principal witnesses in opposition AB 1376. And you have two minutes to present whoever would like to start.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Alberto Torrico, on behalf of the State Coalition of Probation Officers, ranking top probation officers from throughout the state; let me first begin by thanking the author. We've had two or three different conversations about the bill and my client is aligned with many of the objectives. I also want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and your staff for the for the analysis and for the conversation that's about to ensue. Let me start by saying that SCOPO, my client, was one of the first, if not the only, law enforcement organizations to support the first iteration of realignment under Jerry Brown.

We supported the realignment of the youth system with the ultimate closure of all the state facilities. This has resulted in a different population and different issues that arise on the job, makes it more challenging. However, there is a lot to be said about trying to end the endless probation terms.

For sure, we've had legislation to deal with technical violations with merit. The only two issues that we take with this bill are as follows. One is the author - we still have a disagreement in terms of the process.

We think we have an agreement in terms of a requirement for there to be at least one hearing before a judge before the termination of the probation terms, which is currently in the bill at nine months. It doesn't seem entirely clear that that is a requirement. Now.

There is a requirement for a hearing to extend beyond the nine months. So that's, that's the first thing. We'll submit amendments to the author to try to clarify that issue. The second thing is more, more important is, as noted in the analysis, we really think that there should be different treatment for the 707, being the violent felonies.

We don't think that it's appropriate to have a nine-month mandatory probation period for those. And we think that we would remove our opposition if there was different treatment for the violent felonies. So, with that, Mr. Chairman, respectfully respect. We ask for no vote.

Okay, thank you very much. Yes, you may proceed.

Good morning, Chair and members. Daniel Sanchez, on behalf of the Chief Probation Officers of California in opposition to AB 1376 and do want to acknowledge our ongoing conversations with the author's office.

The probation chiefs, I think very importantly, I want to state do share the goal of moving youth and young adults successfully out of the youth system, keeping them from going into the adult system. Where we diverge on this particular issue is around making sure that there continues to be individualized approaches that are premised on rehabilitative and safety goals.

This bill does not set a review hearing from our perspective. It sets a mandatory presumption of discharge. Those are two very different things from our perspective.

We have engaged in conversations kind of since this bill was introduced and also in its previous version a number of years back, noting concerns on this specific approach of a universally applicable nine-month probation terms, a presumption of discharge at that time, and a new evidentiary standard for extension.

A few public safety concerns that we want to highlight that kind of resonate from this particular approach is that this bill applies to all wards of the court, including the 707 B offenses.

This includes both those adjudicated to serve on a term of community supervision, but also those who are committed to an SYTF juvenile hall once they are discharged to a period of probation supervision upon release. Those obviously are the highest end youth with the most serious and violent offenses of things. You know, murder, attempted murder, battery and firearms.

We want to make sure that we have the right amount of rehabilitative time and community safety approaches. This nine-month term and rebuttable presumption is also a shorter supervision term than what we often see with diversion or deferred entry of judgment. So, you have a higher level of offense and criminogenic need with a shorter period of time.

I do want to importantly clarify that while some counties as referenced this morning, do have established timelines for review, that is not what those counties and courts do not have a presumption of discharge or none that require there to be discharge at that hearing. It is a review hearing to check in on the progress.

And again, from our perspective, a review hearing is very different than what is in this bill setting the presumption of discharge. Courts currently have the necessary flexibility to make these determinations. Mechanisms exist for defense counsel and probation to petition the court for consideration of discharge.

And then lastly, we're concerned that because this bill applies to all wards, there is ambiguity in reference to the termination of probation supervision and termination of wardship, which we believe has significant implications depending on kind of what is being covered in this bill.

So again, we share the goal of wanting to ensure that youth can meet their rehabilitative goals, move out of the system, be successful in that. We want to assist them in that. But we believe this approach has public safety and rehabilitative considerations. And for those reasons we remain opposed.

Thank you very much. Any me-too testimony opposition AB 1376.

Mr. Chairman, members, Randy Perry on behalf of Porak we're opposed. Thank you.

Chair members, Jonathan Feldman, California Police Chiefs Association also in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, members, Matthew Sieverling on behalf of The Los Angeles Probation Officers Union Afscme Local 685 opposed unless amended. Thank you.

Mr. Chair and Members on behalf of the Sonoma County District Attorney's office. We oppose.

Mr. Chair and members [unintelligible] on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association and we oppose.

Good morning, Mr. Chair, members, Ryan Triman with the Riverside Sheriff Association also in opposition. Thank you.

Mr. Chair and members, Cliff Costa on behalf of the California Judges Association and the Juvenile Court Judges of California. Yesterday, I'm sort of in the middle here. We did not formally produce a letter but we did share a letter of concerns and opposed unless amended and raised a variety of concerns yesterday with the author and the sponsors.

We had a very productive conversation and we'll be giving them amendments here in the next couple days. We're hoping to clarify a variety of issues both as it relates to when termination begins, when it ends, who's in, who's out, scope. There's a variety of things that we think just has some further alignment and refinement.

But again we are going to be opposed unless amended unless we work out our amendments. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much. Any other members of public wish to express opposition to AB 1376? Okay. Seeing none. I'll bring it back to the committee for any questions or comments on AB 1376. Senator Caballero.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you so much for bringing this bill forward. Gives us the opportunity to have a conversation. You and I had a conversation, and I understand this is your heart's work.

This is really important to you, and I really appreciate that because I think what we all want is to see resiliency in our youth and the ability to be able to get back on your feet again from whatever it is that put you on probation.

And this is the area of the law that I did for 25 years. So, I'm very familiar with how the system works and, and how it should work.

And all the changes that we've made over the years to abolish our youth prisons, for lack of a better word, and to send low level adults back to the community and to send very, very serious youth cases back to the community that they came from because people do better when they live close to family and they can interact with people who know them and love them.

So, I have some issues that some of the issues that have been raised here about how this would operate. Not all courts are equal in terms of their resources to bring probation is back. I'm also concerned about some of the categories that would be included in this nine-month probationary period as well as the -

I'm really sensitive to the things that the witness said here in regard to clarity about why they were on probation, why she was on probation, what was expected of her and then the minor violations that seem unjust to me, quite frankly. And I'm very, very sensitive to that. And it depends on the probation department. I guess I was really lucky because our probation departments were really sensitive to the needs of the community and to the poverty in the community

And they tried to keep, to keep the violations away from the fact that people didn't have money to pay fines or pay restitution or to even have a place to live. So, in any case, the short story is that I'm not going to support the bill today, but I will support it to get it out of committee.

To have you've made the commitment to continue meeting with the opposition. I think that's a really good place to be and I hope that you can get there. And I think if you can, you'll satisfy the issues that I have. I'm a little bit concerned with the presumption that the automatic presumption in nine months.

But I might be able to get there if there were other parts of it that provide some, some better direction on how to be able to identify the violations of the law that would fit within the program. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Any other questions or comments from members of the committee? If not, I'll turn it back over to the author to close. Then I'm going to hand the gavel to the Vice Chair.

Thank you. Just to address some of the comments raised by the opposition. And thank you, Senator, for your commentary as well and your thoughtful interaction with me on this, on this legislation.

The first is there was a bill, AB 503, presented in 2022 by Stone that actually had a shorter presumption of six months for a period of initial court time or hearing and made it all the way to the Governor's desk. It was vetoed.

And the primary reason why it was vetoed in the message was around the need to be able to move forward with realignment. Well, we've moved forward with realignment. And just to kind of give a sense of this issue of the number of people who are would be captured in the 707 B.

In the 707 B category with wardship probation from 2012 to 2023, severe felony offenses, the ones that would be in the 707 category, less than 1% of those were homicides, less than 0.6% of those were rape. And there was a 21%, 21 times more likelihood that those adjudications would result in in placement in detention centers.

So, I think that part of the system has already indicated that through the prosecution process, through the court process, the people who are ending up in wardship probation, on wardship probation after realignment are largely those people who are safe to be in community. And that's the focus of this.

I recognize and understand fully that this is a paradigm shift for the way that we focus on probation, and we conduct probation and am certainly open to the continued conversations and potential amendments should this bill be able to move forward in this process right now. But we have to recognize that this system is broken.

Ms. Larios comments really exemplify what we are doing wrong with probation right now and how we need to do better as adults and public servants intending to ensure community safety while we are also ensuring that youth have the ability to reduce the level of engagement that they have with the legal system so that they can go on rehabilitate and ensure that they have an opportunity to be able to continue to be contributing members to our community.

So, I also just want to clarify that the intention of this bill is to focus on very explicitly review hearings. So, we are happy to accommodate those amendments that would allow that to be made very clear. I want to thank you all for joining me in this conversation and this policy.

As you can see, there's a broad coalition of youth advocates, it's legal experts, county leaders who are seeking to ensure that our youth justice system is aligned and that probation really serves the purpose that it should and that it should be no more certainly than what is already established within the adult legal system.

And also, quite frankly to align with the evidence-based practices that we know have emerged in the last several years around what really probation should look like. With that, I respectfully request your aye vote.

All right, thank you very much. We'll bring that back to the dais for a motion. I move the bill. Motion is moved by Arreguin and go ahead and call.

The AB 1376 motion is do pass to Appropriations. [Roll Call].

Bill will be on call.

Okay, thank you. We'll proceed now to AB 690 by Assembly Member Chair Schultz and then we'll go after that to file item nine. 8785 sharp calls. Good morning, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Committee Members. I am pleased to present Assembly Bill 690 today, which I would submit is probably one of the most significant and ambitious proposals to not only strengthen but really standardize public defense services in the State of California.

I would submit that the current system of public defense, especially indigent public defense, is severely underfunded and creates an uneven patchwork of legal representation across the State of California. It often disincentivizes effective representation and it denies far too many low income Californians equal access to justice.

Now, many of California's counties, 24 in fact, do not have a public defender office and instead rely on contracted attorneys to provide all public defense representation. In addition, nearly every California county relies on contracted attorneys when the public defender's office cannot take the case.

However, California does not currently provide any guidance related to these contracts leading to wide variation in the quality of legal representation afforded. And AB 690 seeks to set in place standards to ensure adequate and consistent representation across the state.

More specifically, AB 690 would ban flat fee and per case contracts for indigent defense services, thereby ensuring that attorneys are fairly compensated based on the actual work rendered and performed.

Because many California counties pay contracted public defense attorneys a flat fee, attorneys are often forced to either take on excessive caseloads or compromise the quality of their client's representation. This arrangement fundamentally hurts clients and it hurts the State of California. Flat fee lawyering causes poor legal outcomes, including more mistakes and higher levels of incarceration.

And I'll just say that that is not a statement that I make lightly. The data speaks for itself. Eight of the 10 California counties with the highest levels of incarceration use a flat fee basis exclusively. In all, five of the top counties in California with the highest levels of incarceration use the flat fee model.

So clearly the data supports the fact that this is an antiquated approach that we need to do away with. Now, I understand that some California counties have and will continue to have concerns with the cost of providing indigent defense and that rural counties face difficulties in hiring attorneys to do this work.

I remain committed to working with CSAC, RCRC, and the Urban Counties Coalition to continue to perfect the bill and attempt to remedy some of these concerns. I will note that recent amendments removed the opposition of the California District Attorneys Association, the Riverside County District Attorney, and the Riverside County Sheriff's Office.

And I'll close with noting that AB 690 is sponsored by Silicon Valley Debug, the California Public Defenders Association, and California Attorneys for Criminal Justice. Speaking today in support of AB690 is Rudy Castillo with Silicon Valley Debug and Natasha Minsker for Smart Justice California.

Thank you very much. Welcome to our witnesses. You have two minutes to present on AB6.90.

Dear Senate Public Safety Committee, My name is Rudy Castillo. I'm a former [unintelligible]. I was incarcerated in 2008 in Madera County and represented by two different court appointed defense attorneys. My experience with both of my attorneys and their representation was unsatisfactory.

Recently I learned about how the State of California relies on contracted attorneys where there is in a public defender office, Madera County being one of them. Knowing this opened up a new understanding as to why my attorneys lacked a will to fight for my case.

The first attorney that I was appointed to excused themselves from my case because I would not agree to take a plea deal and it was apparent that he didn't want to waste his time trying to defend me. The second attorney who took my case to trial was by far unprepared and lacked any motivation to argue my case.

This attorney never hired an investigator. He never submitted any motions to protect my constitutional rights and challenged the Miranda violations of my case or hired any experts to challenge the DA's arguments.

Attorneys like mine who rely on flat fee contracts are discouraged from hiring anybody that can contribute to someone's defense because it is disincentivized by the structure that they work under. Here I am going to court for serious charges and I have no adequate defense. Even after I filed for ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal.

He told my wife at the time that he wouldn't admit to his mistakes because that was his career on the line. Ultimately, my direct appeal became a he said versus he said situation where his word was more credible than mine. Fortunately, resentencing laws have been passed which granted me an opportunity to seek justice once again.

I was resentenced under SB 1437 and have been a free man since July of 2021, I urge your a votes today because as I was once represented by a flat fee contract attorney in rural California and many of the men I met inside who are also from Central Valley, which is an indication that my story is not unique, many other people also dealt with inadequate representation which ultimately led to extended prison sentences.

Thank you. Thank you very much.

Natasha Minskir, Smart Justice California. I think we all recognize there's two systems of justice in this country. One for the wealthy and one for the rest of us. That's why Smart Justice California has prioritized improving public defense. We believe that where you live and the size of your wallet should not depend on the justice that you receive.

AB690 is a critical bill in advancing the quality of public defense in California because it addresses the worst part of our system, the flat fee contract. I want to emphasize two points. One, this bill does not require counties to use an hourly rate.

There are county systems in place right now that meet the requirements under this bill that do not use an hourly rate. Two, we agree with the counties that the state needs to pay more for public defense. There are four states in this country where the state government does not provide ongoing funding for public defense.

And it's a shame that California is one of those states. I am proud to say that the first woman lawyer in California, Clara Sheltridge Folt, is the person who invented the idea of the public defender. Los Angeles County created the first public defender in the nation.

In California, we need to get back to basics and fulfill the promise of equal justice for all.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. We'll take any Me Too testimony in support of AB690 and state your name, organization and position on the bill.

[Unintelligible] Initiate Justice Action in strong support.

Margo George. Proud co-sponsor California Public Defenders Association and also in support, the San Francisco Public Defenders Office. Thank you.

Danica Rodarmel, proud to support on behalf of the LA Public Defenders Union Local 148 and La Difensa.

Ignacio Hernandez on behalf of the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice. Proud co-sponsor.

Cecilia Chavez on behalf of Silicon Valley Debug, proud co-sponsor and also California Participatory Defense Network.

Xavier Espano, Silicon Valley Debug. Strong support.

Claudia Gonzalez on behalf of Viera California in strong support. Support.

Elizabeth Kim for Initiate Justice in strong support.

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

[Unintelligible] on behalf of ACLU California Action in support.

Thank you. Ana Ramirez also from the San Mateo Participatory Defense Hub and Silicon Valley Debug in strong support.

Capri Walker with Californians for Safety and Justice in support.

Rainer Apostol with Drug Policy Alliance in support.

Rakim Naylor, on behalf of Ella Baker Center in support.

Felipe Kelly, on behalf of the Ella Baker Center in full support.

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

Morgan Zamora, Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in strong support.

Any other witnesses in support of AB 690? Okay. If not, we'll take up to two principal witnesses in opposition to AB 690. If there are any, please come forward. You'll have two minutes.

All right, well, thank you, Chair, Committee and staff, Ryan Morimune with the California State Association of Counties. Also, on behalf of the Urban counties of California, we appreciate the author's office and sponsors as well for the meetings. But unfortunately, counties remain opposed to this measure as it would create additional mandates for the provision of indigent defense services.

Without accompanying resources, funding and support, counties are constitutionally required to provide effective assistance of legal counsel and equal protection through due process for all criminal defense defendants, as was noted. And in California, counties have the authority and flexibility to design systems that best meet local needs.

However, a critical aspect in the context of both the constitutional requirements and the changes the bill provides proposes is that California is only one of five states does not provide full or even partial funding to counties to fulfill this duty, and it falls squarely on counties, as was noted by the author and sponsors, which we appreciate.

So this measure does three main things. So first, it requires counties to adhere to recently published standards drafted by the Office of the State Public Defender. Second establishes a number of expansive new requirements counties must incorporate into any contractual agreement with private firms and Non County attorneys.

And then, perhaps most critical, this measure would establish a blanket prohibition on the utilization of flat fee or per case compensation models when contracting out.

So as it relates to the compliance compliance with the new OSPD standards, we have worked with that office on sharing tools and guidance and holding webinars so counties can develop unique strategies to better serve their clients and improve local systems.

In our view, the intent was for the state to provide support and technical assistance to meet these standards rather than codify specific rules on how every county must administer indigent defense services. And so the standards impose vast changes around leadership, organizational structure, classification of attorneys, defense panel procedures, program oversight, just to name a few.

Simply put, all counties are not equipped without the resources to meet the stringent and comprehensive standards.

Absent further state support as it relates to the changes to the county contracts, it includes, but not limited access to funding ancillary services on top of general attorney compensation, which includes investigators, social workers, immigration counsel, as well as payment for paralegals, case support services and mitigation specialists.

So, in light of the shrinking general funds, ongoing federal uncertainty, and expanded and higher levels of service demanded of counties, such requirements may be unachievable in many counties without new sources of funding for local investments.

And lastly, with regards to the blanket prohibition on the use of flat fees, this change would have an immediate direct impact, particularly in the hardest to serve areas of our state where it is increasingly difficult to find experienced criminal defense counsel the unintended consequence may be further barriers to securing attorneys that are both experienced in high quality representation that they provide.

And so overall the combined provisions and AB690 reduces county authority and eliminates county by county flexibility. And most notably the Bill proposes to do so without identifying practical and alternative models that would meet the fiscal restrictions of any gowny nor does it demonstrate that an alternative model will inevitably be yield better results.

And so thank you for the consideration.

Appreciate it. Thank you very much. Are there any other Members of the public wishing to testify in opposition to AB690?

Sarah Dekette on behalf of the Rural County Representatives of California in regretful opposition.

Clifton Wilson on behalf of the County Board of Supervisors of Shasta, Kings and Fresno, all in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to testify in opposition? AB690 okay. Seeing no further testimony, I'll bring it back to the Committee for any questions or comments. Senator Caballero.

Apologize for always jumping in first. I appreciate the statistics that you gave us. Here's my problem is that and I it's important that we have access to justice. It just is important.

And what the statistics seem to say is that with a ban on a flat or a flat fee or a contract per case standard is that you get inferior quality because people end up incarcerated more. I'm always hesitant to draw direct correlations unless somebody has done some finer study.

But the challenge I think that you put me in at this point is that my counties are all rural.

And it's really, I mean when I, when I started practicing and we had our office in Monterey County and a satellite office in San Benito county, we were the only female attorneys in the county and we were the only Spanish speaking Latino attorneys in the county.

So without us there, it was a not very diverse bar and there really were no services for Spanish speaking people. And that county struggles mightily with they do have a public defender's office, but I did more work than they did on the conflicts side.

So the challenge is while I probably could have gone for the ban on the fee and per case standard, adding more obligations to them at the same time becomes a really difficult thing to do because they just don't have the money.

As a matter of fact, they don't have the money to even keep their services going at a level that other counties do because of that. So in terms of the urban counties, this may not be that difficult a thing to do. But for the rural counties it's very, very difficult.

So I have a hard time supporting the bill I think you're going in the right direction, but it's just that the added obligations made it financially very difficult for the courts.

And I really feel like the state ought to be stepping up and coming up with some of the resources to be able to make sure that the courts are properly financed and we haven't increased their budgets in a really long time. So I'll let you address that issue.

But I appreciate what you're trying to do because access to justice is really important to me, not at the expense of a system. I don't want to see us continue to not have the resources for attorneys for indigent clients.

I'll give you an opportunity to respond.

Yeah, I would just say, Senator, I really appreciate your comments and I understand that the challenges that rural counties will face will be different than those perhaps faced by urban counties.

What I would respectfully submit, as sort of in contrast to what we've heard from the opposition who I really respect the engagement with our office, by the way, I don't believe that this is. I think it's a false choice to suggest that it's one or the other.

I agree with all the sentiments shared today that the state does need to do more. We are one of four states that doesn't really provide direct funding for public defense services. And that's a shame, especially when we're the world's fourth largest economy and we have the highest population in the country. We have to do better.

But I would also say, and your point about the statistics are well taken, but I can just tell you from the counties that I have practiced in, from Ventura to San San Bernardino to San Diego, Inland Empire, the reality is that the data does suggest, and I've seen it myself with the attorneys that I've gone against, we have a system where, where you live and how much money is in your wallet does impact your outcome in the justice system.

And we have to do better. The Sixth Amendment, as you well know, does guarantee everyone a right to counsel, but that doesn't mean someone to just hold your hand through the court system to jail. We need to do a better job of having adequate and competent representation.

So should this bill get out of Committee today, I understand that, that the opposition will remain in place. We believe strongly that the flat fees are the most problematic component and really need to be done away with. If there are. I know the opposition has alluded to alternative models.

If there are alternatives that they would like us to consider, we're happy to engage in those conversations and see if we can find common ground.

But I'll just respectfully submit that we can't continue to do what we're doing because we're seeing high levels of incarceration because people simply, yes, access to justice is important, but so is access to competent and quality justice and representation.

Thank you. I appreciate the dialogue we've had on this bill. I do recognize that not every county is an urban county, has the same level of resources, but this is also really around access to justice. I respect the diversity of opinion on this issue. I will be supporting the bill today.

And given that there are just two of us here, we'll probably entertain a motion when we have more Members come back. But I'll turn over you, Mr. Chair, to close.

I'd just say really appreciate the comments. And again, should the bill make it out of Committee, we look forward to continuing to engage everyone on the matter. But I can't emphasize enough this bill is important because it's a signal, it's a recognition of the fact that public defense services are not where they should be.

And we would hate to see the forward momentum that we've gained to this point stop here. We think that this is too important a conversation to end today. We have to continue it moving forward. And I'll just close with saying we absolutely have to do both.

We do need to have more resources for counties and we do have to set standards because the quality of the representation that you get on the north coast should not be different from what you get in Los Angeles.

You should know that the attorney representing you will have a vigorous and robust defense of your claim and not simply hold your hand straight to jail. And we see far too much of that in California. With that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

So on AB 690, is there a motion.

I'll move the bill.

Okay, thank you. We have a motion by Senator Caballero. If the Committee assists to complete call the roll.

[Roll call]

Thank you. We'll keep that bill on call. Thank you very much. Thank you all very much. Okay, we're going to go next to Assemblymember Sharpe-Collins and then Soria and then I see we have Assemblymember Petrie-Norris here as well. And I think that will be probably the.

All the bills are going to get to before we have to break at noon. So Assemblymember, I'll turn over you to present.

Thank you. All right. Good morning, Chair and Members. Today I'm here to present Assembly Bill 785 on behalf of the Black Caucus as a part of the Road to Repair 2025 Package. Assembly Bill 785 will establish the Community Violence...the Interdiction Grant program.

This program, which would be administered by the California Health and Human Service Agency, would ensure funding for the community-driven solutions to decrease violence in our schools and neighborhoods as opposed to the continuation of incarceration. These funds, they would be secured savings projected from any future prison closure within the state.

We are continually told that there is no money for programs known to decrease violence and reduce incarceration. Programs like school-based health, behavioral health and youth diversion gain reduction strategies and the increased recreational opportunities.

And I want to thank the Chair and the Committee staff for their work on this and I plan to continue to find ways to further strengthen this Bill as we continue to move forward.

By using funds for these preventative programs, we reduce incarceration even further and focus on finding solutions to crime beyond the incarceration of most of our vulnerable and underserved populations.

Assembly Bill 785 allows for true rehabilitation through putting an emphasis on the community and victims impacted, gives them voices and reduces monetary expenditures accrued on imprisonment which has not been shown to reduce recidivism.