Senate Standing Committee on Public Safety

Good morning. Like to call to order this meeting of the Senate Committee on Public Safety for Tuesday, July 1st, 2025. We do not yet have a quorum, so we will meet as a Subcommittee and begin our Bill presentations. We do take bills in file order, but I do not see the first author present.

So, we'll go to file item 2, AB 237, by Assemblymember Patel at this time. Good morning.

Good morning.

If you could present from the podium and if you have any principal witnesses, if they can, please come forward and join us at the table here.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for guiding me.

No problem.

My first time presenting in Senate.

I have to go present at Assembly Public Safety probably in an hour or so. It's kind of a different setup, so.

I'll tell them to be kind to you.

Okay. So, now turn over to you to presenting your Bill.

Yes. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Before I begin, I would like to thank the Chair and the Committee for their work on this Bill and I will be accepting all of the Committee's amendments. AB 237 closes a problematic loophole in Code 422 that makes the prosecution and conviction of people who threaten sensitive places unnecessarily difficult.

Under current law, the language around threats made on locations is vague. For example, a person can threaten to commit a shooting at a specific clinic, but if no individuals are specifically named, then prosecution of that threat is significantly hampered. That's not okay, fundamentally.

And the result is that people can live in fear with little assurance that our court system will bring about justice. Airports, voting centers, places of worship, daycares, hospitals, even schools are targets of people who not only threaten to commit violent crimes, but they actually do commit them at those locations. Such instances have affected my community directly.

The Powee Synagogue Shooting was one example of a horrible tragedy that still lives in the minds of my constituents. Unfortunately, threats of violent acts still take place and can pretend acts happening. In late 2023, a man in our community sent hundreds of emails claiming he was going to commit a mass shooting at Shoal Creek Elementary School.

And just for context, I was the school board trustee that represented this elementary school district at the time. This horrified parents who pulled their kids out of school and contacted local officials and demanded justice. The prosecution in this case is still ongoing, because the threat was not specific enough or direct enough where a person was specifically named the criminal conviction under PC 422 has not been forthcoming.

True and credible threats must be addressed by law enforcement, even when centered around locations. Unfortunately, this is not the only instance of this problem throughout California. Some simple examples are in Orange County in 2021 Mission Hospital bomb threat. It was a hampered prosecution.

Yolo County 2021, there was a mosque threat, no prosecution. Louisiana County 2022, a movie theater bomb threat. Warrants were issued, but no prosecution. UC Berkeley 2022, emailed threats, no charges. San Francisco Airport 2022 bomb threat, Penal Code 422, there was no prosecution. Fresno County 2023, there was a college threat. The charges were dismissed.

San Bernardino County in just 2024, there was a high school shooting threat and prosecutors attempted prosecution under Penal Code 422, and it has not gone anywhere. So, you could see just in the last few ongoing. This loophole must be closed. I'm simply trying to just get this loophole closed. The Bill does not increase punishment.

It doesn't put people who need diversion services into jail. However, it does give prosecutors and judges appropriate tools to deal with crimes that are becoming increasingly more common. As the Committee amendments show, I am committed to diversion programs and remediation for minors. My goal is to truly prevent the issue in my community and our state at large.

We're not casting a wider net, we are just drawing a clear line.

AB 237 ensures that when serious threats are made against these sensitive locations that law enforcement and DAs can act quickly and precisely. Here to testify are Pat Espinosa from the San Diego County District Attorney's Office and Jonathan Feldman, Lead Lobbyist for the California Police Chiefs Association.

And today, I respectfully ask for your aye vote when the appropriate time comes.

Thank you very much. To summarize, the amendments provide that a minor should be referred to diversion if eligible. If ineligible, the offense shall be punished as a misdemeanor. So, thank you for accepting that amendment which is consistent with another Bill that we have moved this Committee. I'm going to keep you to two minutes.

So, when you're at two minutes, I'm going to cut you off respectfully because we have a number of bills you have to get to. So, I'll turn over to you to begin your presentation.

Thank you. Good morning, Members of the Committee and Chair. My name is Pat Espinoza. I'm a Chief Deputy in the San Diego DA's Office, also here on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association. And the issue is we need additional tools. And the response is 422 is already on the books. But there is a problem with 422.

And in the letters that we presented to the Committee, we highlight a number of specific examples where 422 proved to be inadequate. And the inadequacy is this, is that the way 422 is written is it requires a specific victim.

And if you look at the jury instruction, what happens is, as you know, the Legislature writes the statute, but when we're trying to prosecute a case before a jury, the judge reads the jury instruction, and the jury instruction lays out six elements for the crime before 22.

And in five of those six elements, you have to insert the name of the specific victim, and that individual has to be consistent through those five of those six elements. So, that is, that's the difficulty when you have a vague threat, when someone says, I'm going to blow up Shoal Creek Elementary School or something vague like that.

Because then the idea is, who is the victim? Who do you put in that jury instruction so that you give concrete specificity to the fact finder, the jury, to determine whether or not a 422 violation occurred?

So, what this does, AB 237, is it recognizes that issue and says, let's close that loophole so that the language is person or personed—persons—so that it doesn't have to be the same individual who is the target of the threat and the same individual who is in reasonable fear from the threat.

Because you can imagine a scenario where someone posts a unanimous statement maybe on social media and says, I'm going to blow up the school, doesn't name someone specifically. And the question is, well, who is sufficient to be in sustained fear?

Now, I read the Committee analysis and they point out a case called Inray AG, that's a published opinion by the appellate court. In that case, there was arguably not a named victim. However, in that case,

Can you please finish your thought?

Okay, so in this way there's—we need some changes, and AB 2—237—is that change. So, we urge an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Feldman.

Yeah, I'll be quick and just kind of piggyback after off of my colleague's comments there. That court case is an outlier. It is not the rule.

And we want to make sure that, you know, that is not just specific to one incident, but that is kind of the rule that's applied generally on these instances because they do create significant fear and damage to the communities and the schools and the places where these threats occur.

And not only that, I mean, the response from law enforcement, I mean, it's mandatory that we show up to make sure that there are no threats. It's mandatory that we're thorough on those responses. And that costs a lot of resources and expenditure from the agencies themselves. It's got to be accounted for.

We want to make sure, finally, that, you know, there's a clear line here, that these are real threats. They do create real victims. The fear in the communities is palpable. We've got examples and examples.

We don't need to go back over any more of them, where this is happening across the state, and we want to hopefully finally address this issue.

Ask for your aye vote.

Okay, thank you very much. We'll now take any testimony for anyone in favor of Assembly Bill 237. Please state your name, organization, and position on the Bill.

Mr. Chairman, Members, Randy Perry, on behalf of PORAC, in support.

Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Committee Members. Zach Sepla with the League of California Cities, in support. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members. Kobe Pizzati on behalf of the City of Bakersfield, Cities of Carlsbad, Merced, Rancho Cucamonga, and Santa Rosa, all in support. Thank you.

Thank you so very much. Any other members of the public wishing to express support for AB 237? Okay, thank you. We'll now take up to two principal witnesses in opposition and each will have two minutes to address the Committee. And I will keep you to the two minutes, respectfully, just to ensure we can move through our agenda this morning.

You're not on yet. Press the button.

Good morning, Chair and Members. George Parampathu, Legislative Attorney with ACLU California Action, rising in opposition to AB 237. I'd like to start off by saying that the sponsors have mentioned the case of Mr. Lee Lohr, who emailed several threats to about a school in San Diego.

While the initial case was dismissed, let us be clear that the prosecutors quickly refiled the case and addressed the judge's concerns. Mr. Lohr currently awaits trial under Penal Code 422. Current law is working. More generally, the Bill is motivated by a claim that current law cannot be used against people who make general threats. This is not true.

As recounted in the analysis, Penal Code 422 applies to general threats. For example, one girl posted on Twitter about her plan to bring a gun to school, generally targeting the entire class. She was prosecuted under current law.

Another student posted a picture of a replica gun on a Snapchat stating he was going to bring the gun to school. The post did not mention a school name or an individual's name. He was prosecuted under current law. There is no need for AB 237's redundant language. Nationally, 3 million students are in schools with police, but no nurse.

6 million are in schools with police, but no school psychologists. 10 million are in schools with police, but no social workers. To make our schools safer, we must invest in supporting our students, not criminalizing them. We already know that our current threat statute is over applied in our schools.

Children have been prosecuted for schoolyard disagreements, social media speech, and artistic expression. Because AB 237 doubles down on the school to prison pipeline, I urge a no vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Good morning.

Good morning. My name is Alice Michael and I'm here on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association, in opposition of this Bill. I want to join in, my colleague's comments. These threats can already be prosecuted and are already prosecuted under current law. This Bill does not change the current law.

But the fact that we have the prosecution supporting this Bill raises the fear that they see this Bill as an opportunity to broaden prosecutions that will target two groups of people, two vulnerable groups of people.

Children under the age of 18, who are online making age-appropriate comments about their frustrations with their school, and people who suffer from severe mental illness who make comments on social media that, in their mind, makes sense, that they have no intention of following through on but are a symptom of their mental illness.

I appreciate the author and thank the author for being willing to reduce to a misdemeanor if it involves a child under 18. However, a misdemeanor is still punishable by 180 days of incarceration. And this is not a fake threat. This is a real threat.

There was a student who was prosecuted for a poem they wrote in school and they were convicted and it took being appealed all the way to the Supreme Court before that conviction was overturned. In the meantime, that child sat in detention for 100 days.

You can please complete your thought.

Okay. The other party that's going to be affected is mentally ill people because those are going to be the people who are going to, as a symptom of their mental illness, express paranoia delusions online. This Bill will target those people.

Thank you very much. Okay, we'll now take any testimony for anyone in opposition to AB 237.

Good morning. Glenn Baccus for Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, in respectful opposition.

Good morning. Sally Ching with the Alliance for Boys and Men of Color, also speaking for the Black Organizing Project and Collective for Liberatory Lawyering, in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Elizabeth Kim for Initiate Justice and La Defensa, in opposition.

Ignacio Hernandez on behalf of the California Attorney for Criminal Justice, in opposition.

Anyone else who wishes to express opposition to AB 237. If you can, please come forward to the microphone and state your name, organization, and position on the Bill. Okay, seeing none, I'll bring it back to the Committee for questions and comments. Vice Chair Seyarto.

Thank you. Thank you for your Bill. I can understand why you're trying to get the—get this addressed—and probably through your witness, I'd like to have kind of an answer to their assertion that this is already covered in law and therefore there's no need for this to be put in what is and what's not covered in law, that this Bill helps close a loophole, if there is one.

I think that claim relies upon a case called Inray AG, Inray Ag. The facts of Inray AG were, the threat was communicated via Snapchat, but the threat was communicated to a classmate by the name of DJ, so they were able to identify a specific person. So, when the prosecutor prosecuted the case, they identified the named person, DJ.

She received the gun threat, she got concerned, she went, notified her teacher, and subsequently, there was investigation and a prosecution.

So, in that case, you know, it stands for the Proposition from some that say you don't have to name the threat, didn't name someone specifically, but it was directed to her because she was in the closed friend group in that Snapchat. So, she received it, she knew it was a classmate or former classmate and went forward.

So, in that way there was an identifiable person to whom the threat was communicated directly. So, that way it's different. That case was distinguished by a—in appellate courts, People v. Lane.

In the Lane appellate court, they reversed a jury court, a jury decision, of conviction for 422 because a judge received a threat via Facebook, but the threat was not communicated directly to the judge.

And because they could not prove that the judge used Facebook and saw the threat at Facebook, but was communicated as a result of investigation in that case, it was determined that because there was no specific intent to communicate it directly to the victim, they didn't know that she would receive that, the female judge, and ultimately the, the appellate court reversed that conviction.

So, that just goes to show there is this gap in the law with respect to naming a specific person doesn't have to be necessarily in the threat itself, but there has to be proof that a specific, identifiable victim was the subject of a threat, received the threat, and was in reasonable fear.

Thank you.

And your assertion is that somehow that this law will envelop all kinds of people that shouldn't be enveloped in the system? I mean, because if you're making a threat, you've already lost your way. And whatever it is that's causing you to make the threat, they'll figure it out.

But somehow, we need to make sure that whatever safety net we have to make sure that people are safe on the other end of that threat. I think it's really important for us to have that net pretty tight.

And if this makes it a little tighter, then I don't see why there would be an issue on your side with this having overlap, if you want to call it that. Because, as far as I'm concerned, as much lap as we can have, I want no lap. I want it tight.

Because this is becoming a growing problem, especially with online and those things. If somebody is mentally ill, they'll figure it out, but we just can't let people go. So, why is it that you think that this particular thing?

So, I appreciate your concern. Let me tell...

Just briefly.

First of all, this Bill requires that somebody actually hear that threat and be scared by it, which is what 422 requires. The case that the prosecution talked about was a case where they couldn't prove that the person who was threatened ever heard the threat.

Both 422 and this Bill requires an actual person to be scared. If an actual person is scared, that can be prosecuted under 422.

The concern in this Bill is it sounds like a desire of the prosecution to address threats where nobody even heard it, where there is nobody who's affected by it, that it's somebody crazy, persons ranting online and that that person's going to be prosecuted even if nobody ever saw the threat.

I hear what you're saying, but here's the thing. I don't care if the person being threatened heard it or not. If somebody is ranting online like that, somebody needs to intervene. And that's—I think this Bill is aimed at is intervening, in whatever manner needs to be intervention, the intervention requires.

So, anyway, I'm glad we clarified that a little bit. Thank you. Your Bill is a good Bill, and I'll appreciate supporting it.

Thank you very much. You know, I do share the concerns that were expressed in the Committee analysis about young people, individuals with mental health issues, who may face criminal punishment by statements that they're making that they may not be aware that they're making or may not intend for them to be threatening.

But the reality is that we've seen things escalate in the state. And you cited a very tragic shooting incident that happened in your district of a synagogue several years ago.

And oftentimes, these things escalate to people who follow through on those threats to commit violence, but also the impact of the threat in of itself is extremely, you know, difficult for kids or for anyone who has received the threat of any sort of physical harm.

Somebody who's personally been threatened on a number of occasions, including most recently for the work that I do as a policymaker. It's a real concern and the escalation of political violence and against elected officials and just individuals. Just saw what happened in Minnesota a few weeks ago where a State Legislator was assassinated. This is a real concern.

And so, I think this strengthens the existing law and specifically, focuses it on institutions such as churches, schools, where there should be some specific focus to protect those individuals who are going to school or going to church or going to these institutions from threats of harm. So, I will be supporting your Bill today.

Thank you very much for the amendments, which I think ensure that if there's a young person who's making threatening statements, the judge, in their discretion, can refer that person to diversion or somebody who is in a psychotic episode who may be making statements based on the facts of the case, the judge can, using their discretion, refer somebody to diversion of services, as opposed to having them face any sort of incarceration.

I think that's a reasonable exception. I appreciate you making that and I'll turn over you to close.

Yes. Thank you, Chair, for your thoughtful input on this Bill. The amendments were great. We accept them fully and we hope that we can close this loophole and respectfully ask for your aye vote today.

Okay. Thank you very much. We do not have a quorum yet, so we'll entertain a motion when we do establish a quorum. But thank you so very much.

Thank you.

Assemblymember Alanis was here first, so we're going to go to him and then, we'll get to you, Assemblymember Wilson. He was here before I was, actually, so you get, you get brownie points.

Okay, so we're now going to go out of file order to file item 5, AB 528 by Assemblymember Alanis and I'll turn over you Assemblymember to present.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members, I appreciate you allowing me to present AB 528 before you today. I want to begin by saying that I accept the committee's amendments to remove the federal reference to the term victim to ensure the law is applied properly under California statute. Thank you.

AB 528 aligns California State law with the existing federal protections regarding the handling of child sexual abuse material, also known as CSAM, in criminal proceedings. Specifically, this bill would prohibit the duplication removal and distribution of such evidence outside secure law enforcement prosecute, prosecutor, prosecut - oh my gosh.

Prosecutorial or court-controlled locations while ensuring that the material is available and accessible to the defendant or their representatives.

While federal law prohibits the duplication removal of CSAMs from secure locations, state law still permits a judge to order copies of images and videos of children being sexually abused be released to parties outside the control of law enforcement and the courts.

In February of this year, Solano County Sheriff's Office deputies seized over 120 terabytes of child pornography from one residence. For comparisons 120 terabytes of standard quality video consists of 10 to 50,000 hours of material.

While this is an extreme case and the full composition of the contents seized is unknown, the sheer size of it is proof of how easy it is for one individual to acquire.

If through the use of electronic devices and online access, a single individual has the ability to acquire and potentially trade in tens of thousands of hours of CSAM, then the state arguably has responsibility to ensure that every bit of that content is kept secure upon discovery.

The argument isn't solely whether either party has ill intent or will make errors in the collection or viewing of the evidence. It's whether the images of an abused child should be duplicated and removed from a secure location.

AB 528 addresses critical gaps in California's criminal procedures by prohibiting the reproduction and removal of CSAMs, thereby further mitigating the risk of unauthorized distribution, and protects child victims from continued trauma. And with me today I have Detective Casey Cooper with the Stanislaus County Sheriff's Office, and he'll be giving a testimony.

Great, thank you. Good morning. You have two minutes to present on the bill.

Thank you very much. Thank you for having me here. My name is Casey Cooper. Thank you. I'm a detective with the Stanislaus County Sheriff's Department, currently assigned to human trafficking and Internet crimes against children.

In that capacity, I work with a lot of victims of child sexual abuse material in which at times, sometimes they self-produce over the internet with individuals that are communicating with them over social media.

When we take these people into custody and we sit down and we talk to the victim, we hear what they go through, what they went through, producing it, and upon collecting it, we try to ensure that it's not being spread out anymore.

We use programs like Take It Down or child recognition identification software to make sure it doesn't get spread anymore. We secure it in an area that no one has access to unless they come to us. And we can then try to get it to where they can view it in a safe viewing area.

We try to ensure the parents of these kids that we're going to treat this material the best we possibly can, and we ensure that it doesn't get out any further than what it has already gotten out.

It's heartbreaking to see what it does to families, not just the children themselves, but the parents and everyone that has to move forward going through this process. And all we're asking for is just to pretty much keep it secure. Give people ample opportunity to defend themselves in court, yes, but we want it secured.

Technology is constantly moving forward, constantly advancing. And all we're asking for is to keep pace with that and protect our children in the same manner. So, thank you. I appreciate your time.

Thank you so very much. We now take anyone in support of AB 528, if you're in support of this bill, please come forward and state your name, organization and position on the bill. If you wish.

Ali Tres, on behalf of Crime Victims Alliance, in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Ella Baker Center for Human Rights and support.

Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members. Cory Salzillo, on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association, in support.

Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to express support for AB 528? Okay. If not, we'll take up to two principal witnesses in opposition to the bill, if there are any. And you'll have two minutes to address the committee on the bill. Thank you.

Shall I begin?

Yes.

Alice Michael, on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association. And let me state first and foremost that everyone recognizes what a horrible thing child sexual abuse material is. That's not what we're here to talk about, whether or not it's horrible and damaging, because of course it is. The law already requires protections.

The DA can only provide an attorney the information after the court orders good cause. There are protective orders to keep—that we are subject to when we receive this material, and we return the material to the District Attorney's office when the case is done.

As a public defender of 27 years, I can tell you that this Bill would be completely unworkable for us to do what we are required to do, which is to review all evidence in a case. The federal public defender situation is very different. And honestly, their caseloads are much less onerous.

The reality of being a public defender is that you are in court every day, almost all day. This information would only be accessible during work hours. When you have time to review evidence, it's maybe from 11:30 when you're out of court to 1:30 when you're back in court.

And this Bill would require attorneys to have to travel in places like Los Angeles, 30, 40, miles to go access the information. It would be—make our jobs pretty much impossible in these cases. The law also requires that our clients be able to review evidence. This would require—these clients are inevitably going to be incarcerated.

This would require sheriff's departments to have to transport clients to DA's offices, courts, and police departments at a great expense to the sheriff's department. Public defenders.

If you can complete your testimony.

Okay. My final point is that this will not keep it safer because in order to make it readily available, staff at either the court, the public defender, the DA's office, or the sheriff's department is going to have access to that material in order to provide access to the attorneys.

So, there's inevitably going to have people that have access. The author has acknowledged that there's never been a case of an attorney releasing this information—it becoming disseminated. I urge you to oppose this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Ignacio Hernandez, on behalf of the California Attorneys, excuse me, for Criminal Justice Statewide Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. And we are opposed to the Bill. The federal law was adopted in 2006 under the Adam Walsh Act, during a little bit different time. It's outdated.

There have been multiple published decisions that have described that the language of the federal statute is out of step with the constitutional protections of defense and allowing access to evidence and the Bill as drafted does not take into consideration and does not incorporate all of the court decisions that have come out and said the language of the federal statute is too limiting.

The court decisions that come out said that judges should retain the ability to share the information or allow for the sharing of information with the defense and the defense team. This Bill on its face does not do that and is in violation of those.

So, the Bill needs to be up—the federal statute is outdated. This current Bill, as drafted, follows that outdated language and will cause all the problems that was already mentioned by the prior witness. Let me just say one last thing, if possible. The ability to prepare a defense is absolute.

The ability to defend oneself is absolute and cannot be weakened. And it cannot be weakened simply because the DA's office is closed on the weekend. For those reasons, we oppose.

Thank you very much. We now take any testimony from opposition. AB 528.

With apologies, Ella Baker Center is neutral on this Bill, sir.

Okay, thank you.

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

Elizabeth Kim, on behalf of Initiate Justice and La Defensa, in opposition.

Okay, thank you very much. Anyone else who wishing to testify in opposition to AB 528? If not, I'll bring it back to the Committee for any questions, comments, or motion. Question, Senator Seyarto.

Thank you. So, my question is just clarifying. All this Bill does is it prevents the duplication—you can still, the defense attorney still get to look at it and make their case.

It just makes sure it just doesn't allow you to make multiple copies which when you do that increases the opportunity through accident or otherwise for that to get spread as a way of limiting the already done damage to these kids? Okay, thanks. That's all I needed.

Okay, thank you very much. We are discussing AB 528. Also, any other questions or comments from Members of the Committee? Okay. If not, I'll turn it back over to close.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to bring up some of the, some of the points that the opposition brought up as far as the sheriff's department having to do the traveling and everything. As you saw, they're here supporting this Bill. So, they've already thought about that and that's already been factored in.

I used to work at the sheriff's office in Stanislaus County and I used to be a forensic interviewerist to be a Crimes Against Children's Detective. And my sole duty when I was interviewing them as a forensic interviewer was so that they didn't get interviewed a second time, a third time, a fourth time.

We did it all at once so that we didn't victimize them or have them relive what they had to go through over and over again. So, those are steps that we know that we want to do to ensure that we made sure our victims were safe, secure, and even for the families, especially as brought up earlier.

So, I don't see them having any issues with it. I know for a fact that the witness I brought here today has actually gone out of his way to make sure that it's outside of business hours, which were also brought up. You'll find that detectives and law enforcement care about our victims.

And we will do what we can to assure that their safety and security is taken care of. And if that means meeting them on the weekends, if that means meeting them after hours, I don't really know any detective that would not be willing to do that.

And as far as multiple cases being published, if something's wrong with the federal law as it is, then it hasn't been taken care of. So, I also—I don't bind to that on the opposition, but back to closing. Very passionate about this, as it used to be my old assignment, actually.

I'm very, very pleased that one of the detectives that took over after I had left the Department had brought this up. And this is something I thought maybe I should have thought of at the first place, but was brought up to me about revictimizing our victims. And it's something that we fight really hard to do.

It's something we fight, fight to make sure that the public knows that we're here and making sure that that transparency knows that, hey, we're gonna do what we can to step up to fight for the children.

So with that, I submit, and I know you guys don't have a quorum yet, but when you do, please respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Okay. Thank you very much.

Oh, we do not have a quorum. So, at the appropriate time, I entertain a motion. And thank you very much, Assemblymember. Thank you for coming today, for your time. Okay, thank you. We'll now proceed to, back to file order to file item 3, AB 394, by Assemblymember Wilson.

If you have any principal witnesses, if they can, please come forward the table.

I do. I do.

And then afterwards, we'll go back to AB 82 by Assemblymember Ward. Okay. And I'll turn over to the Assemblymember to present on the Bill.

Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chair and senators. I am pleased to present AB 394; a bill focused on protecting frontline transit workers and the riders they serve. I want to thank the Chair and staff for the robust conversation around this bill. As you're aware, California's transit safety - sorry.

California's transit workers are essential personnel who help millions of people reach their destinations safely every single day. Unfortunately, they and our system riders are increasingly targeted by assault and harassment while simply doing their jobs or riding these systems.

This rise in violence not only endangers the safety of our transit workforce and our riders and but also undermines the public confidence, disrupts service and increases operating costs for transit agencies statewide. Now, AB 394 takes several key steps to address this.

It clarifies that existing enhanced penalties for battery covers all transit employees, not just the operators; think transit ambassadors, ticket agents, mechanics and more.

AB 394 also clarifies that existing law allowing employers and labor representatives to petition for temporary restraining orders, also known as TROs, on behalf of employees who face harassment, violence or credible threats while on the job, applies specifically within the public transit context.

And finally, AB 394 ensures that existing TROs apply system wide across all vehicles, stations and facilities to fully protect workers and prevent repeat offenses. Now, public transit is both a shared and a functional space. If someone endangers others, they should not have access to this system, this shared space.

And so, I'd now like to introduce two of my witnesses, Matt Broad from the California Conference of the ATU and the California Teamsters, as well as Bill Churchill from County Connection.

Thank you very much. Whoever would like to start, you have two minutes.

Thank you. Good morning, Chair and members, appreciate the time. Again, my name is Bill Churchill. I'm the General Manager of County Connection. We're a medium sized transit public transit operator and we serve 10 cities in the areas of Central Contra Costa County.

You know, as a general rule, our operators and supervisors do a fantastic job of mitigating conflicts and disruptions with and or between our writing public. However, there is an extremely small group of individuals that are violent not just with our employees, but also with their fellow riders that require more significant intervention.

Under current state law, Civil Code 527.8, employers may seek a temporary restraining order or trojan on behalf of their employees. Over the past five years, County Connection has sought and received TROs against seven individuals for repeated violent behavior while riding on our system.

This equates to just under 1/100th of a percent of our writing public, but it represents over 80% of the serious disruptions to our service and 99% of those disruptions resulting from a violent action. Obtaining temporary restraining orders against a few individuals has had a profound impact in protecting our employees and our passengers.

It's important to recognize TROs are temporary, and the length and the time that they are in place is commensurate with the danger an individual poses as determined by a court.

A transit agency's ability to seek a TRO against individuals engaging in violent behavior is an absolutely imperative tool for protecting our employees, the writing public, and the foundational reliability of our transit systems. As such, we are pleased to join our partners in labor in supporting AB 394 and respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you very much, Mr. Broad.

Mr. Chair, members; Matt Brod here on behalf of the California Conference Board of the ATU and California Teamsters, who are proud to co-sponsor this bill with the California Transit Association. This bill is all about centering transit worker safety and rider safety as well.

And I want to underscore that this is a modest but important bill, and it's a labor management bill. So, as we discussed, the bill does two things. It broadens existing penal code statute on operator assaults, and it also clarifies the applicability of workplace violence TROs within the transit context. I just want to clarify.

I know our author said that it applies system wide. It's very important to clarify that it doesn't reflexively apply system wide. The judge has discretion to craft a temporary restraining order as they see fit.

But the whole reason we need this bill is that transit isn't a traditional workplace, like the legislature or like any office that someone might come into. And so oftentimes, our employers don't know how to properly apply the temporary restraining order authority if they're using at all.

That portion of the bill is super important to the union because as an example, we had a driver, Zach RT here in Sacramento, who was assaulted on the job, hit by an umbrella that had been modified with some sort of metal apparatus.

He filed a police report a couple weeks ago, and the next day the same passenger was back on his bus. And so, in any other workplace, I think we would all agree that would be an intolerable working condition. And so, we think that the TRO authority is appropriate here.

It's again, existing law, but it's essential to clear up how we use it in that context. And we think that AB 394 does this. I'd just add, you know, we've talked a lot this year in the legislature about being in a transit; "death spiral", I think, was the term used.

And part of the equation of creating confidence in transit is making it a safe place for people to work and for riders to use. And with that, I would urge your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Okay, we'll take anyone in support of AB 394, please state your name, organization and position on the bill.

Mr. Chair. Brendan Repicky, California Transit Association, representing 85 public transit agencies across our state. Proud co-sponsor and support. Thank you.

Clifton Wilson, on behalf of the City and County of San Francisco, as well as the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, and the City of Monica, Santa Monica, all in support. Thank you

Mr. Chair, members: Sarah Flocks, the California Federation of Labor Unions in support. Thank you.

Hannah Hunter at Seaside Advocacy on behalf of San Bernardino County Transportation Authority and Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, both in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Sophia Quach, on behalf of the Bay Area Council in support. Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair. Matt Robinson with Shaw Yoder Antwih Schmelzer & Lange. I actually have a bit of a list here, so please bear with me.

I was asked to convey quite a bit of support on behalf of the Santa Cruz County Metropolitan Transit District, Caltrain, the San Mateo Transit District, Sunline, Soltrans, San Francisco Bay Ferry, Monterey-Salinas Transit, San Joaquin Regional Transit District, Metrolink and LA Metro, all in support. Thank you for your patience.

Charles Watson, on behalf of BART, the Bay Area Rapid Transit District, in support. Thank you.

Katie Jennings on behalf of the Orange County Board of Supervisors in support. Thank you.

Mr. Chair, members: Louie Costa with Smart Transportation Division, proud to co-sponsor and support.

Mr. Chair and members. Beverly Yu, on behalf of AAA Mountain West Group and strong support. Thank you.

Good morning. Steve Wallach, on behalf of the Alameda Contra Costa Transit District and the California Association for Coordinated Transportation, in support.

Good morning. Kristin Schlessel, on behalf of the California District Attorney Association, in support.

Cory Salzillo on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association in support.

Randy Perry, on behalf of PORAC, in support.

Jonathan Feldman on behalf of the California Police Chiefs Association. Support.

Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to express support for AB 394? Okay. Seeing no further members of public wishing to testify. Will now take up to two principal witnesses in opposition. Is anyone wishing to testify in opposition to the bill? Yes, sir. You have two minutes.

Good morning, Chair and Members. George Parampathu, legislative attorney with ACLU California Action rising in opposition to AB 394. While the safety of transit workers is vitally important, AB 394 takes a problematic approach. First, current law provides several criminal punishments for battery ranging from six months to seven years of incarceration.

AB 394 proposes increasing the base penalties for batteries against transit workers. This is an approach we know does not work. Even the Federal Department of Justice has said that increasing punishments does little to deter crime. Second, the current restraining order system is sufficient.

As Mr. Churchill just testified, through the current system they have addressed 99% of the violent disruptions at the agency. 99%. Despite this, AB 394 seeks to allow courts to impose system wide transit bans so a person causing trouble in Antioch may be banned from getting on the BART 65 miles away in San Jose.

And while the sponsors have presented about temporary restraining orders, the portion of the code they are amending would allow courts to impose transit bans for up to six years. For millions of Californians who do not own a car, public transit is their lifeline. It is how they get to school. It is how they get to work.

It is how they get their groceries. Authorizing six-year bans on people's only mode of transportation will only lead vulnerable Californians deeper into poverty. Because AB 394's increased criminal penalties will not deter crime and because its six-year system wide transit bans will only exacerbate the root causes of crime, I urge a no vote. Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much. We'll now take anyone wishing to express opposition to AB 394, please come forward to state your name, organization and position on the bill.

Linda Nguy with Western Center on Law and Poverty in opposition.

Thank you. Anyone else wishing to express opposition to AB 394? If so, please come forward. Okay. Seeing no one else wishing to testify, I'll bring it back to the committee for discussion. And I'd like to open the discussion and just say: one, I support the bill. I will be voting for the bill today.

But in my conversations with the bill sponsor, I have expressed concern around the provision of the bill that would prohibit somebody from being able to access any bus or train within the entire transit system. I think about Bay Area Rapid Transit and the San Francisco Bay Area which touches five counties.

And for people who may be homeless or indigent or who may be low income who have no other means of transportation, it could be a significant impact on their ability to work or access medical services or go about their daily business. That being said, they shouldn't assault a transit worker. That's not acceptable either.

So, I know this bill's going to go to the Judiciary Committee. I serve on the Judiciary Committee. I hope that the author and sponsors will consider some language.

I know we've been in discussion about some language, but considering the proportionality, and as you note, the judge has the discretion to apply it to the entire system or have it be narrowly tailored, I think that discretion is important.

But just ask that the author consider some language around proportionality, considering the impact that may have on an individual's ability to actually be able to go about their daily business or daily life if they have no other means of transportation.

That being said, if somebody enters a bus, that bus driver may be assigned to another bus or train, and that individual may come in contact with somebody who may have assaulted them, somebody who has been the subject of a civil restraining order.

I know that, you know, sometimes you don't know where you're going to encounter somebody who threatened you and is the subject of that order. So, I support the bill. I think it's absolutely critical that we protect our essential transit workers. And I appreciate the consideration about this particular issue, and I will be supporting the bill today.

Any other comments from committee members? Assemblymember Gonzalez.

Can you hear me okay? Okay. Sometimes I can hear myself. Well, I just want to thank the chair for his comments and clarifying his stance and want to thank the author. I know when we were both Chair of Transportation some time ago, when I was there, this had come up significantly.

I remember, in meetings about our budget and capital and operation expenses and what to do with our transit systems and ensuring that they felt that we as a state were supporting them.

Yes, the operating operations of, you know, how just a general day would work in the eyes of a transit operator and a transit, you know, bus driver or what have you. But oftentimes the conversation was completely consumed with the fact that they were being assaulted on a daily basis.

And especially for folks in LA Metro, it's been really tough. You know, it's, I think about a year ago, it was like almost every single day there was some form of assault being reported on the LA Times against our workforce in the transit space.

So, I appreciate you bringing this bill forward, and I know you'll continue to work with the Chair and the Judiciary Committee on what that might look like for the entire system, because I do understand that opposition as well.

But this is a real issue that needs to be tackled, and I look forward to working with you on it, too. Thank you.

Thank you. I appreciate that.

Assemblymember Seyarto.

Thank you. Assemblymember Wilson, you have a good bill. Thank you, you talk to anybody who used to ride transit and why they don't anymore. If they have a choice to walk, drive or ride a bike, they'll do that rather than take transit.

And that has caused us as a state to have to invest a tremendous amount of money just trying to keep transit afloat. The number one issue that they talk about is public safety and whether you are riding a train.

If you're somebody who is dependent on that type of transportation to get yourself around. And I kind of liken it too, if your mode of transportation you're dependent on is a car, and then you go out and destroy your car, well, who the heck's fault is that? That's their fault for doing that. It's nobody else's fault.

If you go on a transit or get on a train or commuter or a bus or anything like that and you start assaulting people, well, yeah, you shouldn't be on there because whether you're assaulting them in the Bay Area or you decide, "Hey, this isn't working out for me, I've assaulted too many people here, I'm going to go down to LA."

You're gonna assault people there, too? Probably. So, yeah. You're just not safe to be on a train with other people. That's their choice. That is not our choice as riders. That's their choice.

And the people who we employ to try to combat the problem, you know, when they talk about the ambassadors and things like that, they're trying to do a level, a lower level of trying to keep the train, you know, perceived to be safe, or the commuter, you know, the bus.

And if, you know, they're not, they're short of police officers. They're not police officers. What do they have to defend themselves with? They don't have anything. So, I would think if that was my only mode of transportation, it would be a deterrent. I don't care what kind of studies are out there.

If you, if you, if you have a mind and you're getting on a train and you beat people up and, you know, "Oh, they're gonna not let me ride the train anymore." They're not - they're probably not gonna do that. And if they do good, let's get them off the train for good.

So, I don't care whether it's three years or six years, they've lost their opportunity and they're the ones who caused it. And if that's what they depend on, then they better figure out another thing to get them to where they want to go. So, I'll be supporting your bill today.

I think it's great and I think it's much needed and we have to do something.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you. See no additional questions or comments. I'll turn it back over to Assemblymember to close.

Thank you. First of all, I thank the those sponsors of the bill and those who've testified today and the robust discussion and all the millions, or hundreds of thousands, I think, of transit workers across our state. Here's the deal: we know that there can be a hearing as it relates to these TROs.

And so, there's an opportunity for those that are impacted by this law to be able to make their case, to talk about how it impacts them, and the judge can use their discretion.

And it's something this legislature has approved over and over again and supported and affirmed is an ability for a judge to use discretion and doling out punishment. However, to the Chair's concerns about proportionality, we're definitely considering that language.

We couldn't figure it out to get to here because one thing we don't want to do is erode the existing law because we are piggybacking on an existing law and so figuring out how to make it work for transit.

And I just want to bring up one thing that was noted in testimony from the opposition, although I respect their testimony, noted that it could be six years, it's really up to three years, and then you get a renewal. So, there are multiple entry points before you ever get to six years.

And if, if you're renewing, that means there is an issue with this person on transit. I had an opportunity to use transit. We didn't have very good car reliability as a kid growing up in the Central Valley in Fresno.

And so, I regularly rose transit for hours at a time crisscrossing this large vast of a city. As a legislator here, my regular mode of transportation is the Capitol Corridor. I love it.

And when I'm in the city, like you, I use BART, and BART has policing authority, so they have a bit more ability to do these types of things that we are asking for other transit authorities to do.

And the focus has been centered around the most vulnerable and preventing the most vulnerable who have done some type of violent act from being able to access again to get to their medical appointments or get to education centers or get to the things that they need because this is their only form of transportation.

But I would like to lift up the most vulnerable who haven't committed any type of crime, who absolutely rely on public transportation and their only form of public transportation to do those same things.

So it's important that we protect our transit safety, but we protect those people who have done nothing wrong but absolutely have to use transit to get to those same places and that we prioritize their needs, their safety, their ability to have a high quality life over those who through their own choices have found them an ability where their ability to use that public shared space that is functional.

It's not just the public town square where you're sitting out and enjoying the atmosphere. This is a public space that is functional, that you need to get to where you go, that they've threatened that and that we prioritize the others.

So, with that, when it's appropriate and you have a quorum, I respectfully ask for a motion and I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Great. Thank you so very much, Assemblymember. Thank you to all the witnesses. When we do have a quorum, we'll make a motion and with that we'll go next to Assemblymember Ward: file item 1, AB 82.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and senators. Here to present with a raspy voice AB 82 which would protect the privacy of individuals health and data and protect the public safety and well-being of patients, their families and health professionals accessing and providing legal health services here in California.

Now you know there's been a growing attack on LGBTQ individuals and people, and particularly transgender community members, with almost 600 anti-LGBTQ bills introduced across state legislatures this year. And among these attacks on individuals' rights include the right for people to access legal health services such as reproductive and gender affirming health care.

Now, reports not only highlight some hostile entities using our data systems to target those who are accessing these legal health services, but also illuminate a rise in harassment and violence directed towards those who work in healthcare settings.

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

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

Further, there's a national effort to place mifepristone on the controlled substances list for purposes of tracking. Louisiana is now using PDMP data to track mifepristone prescriptions, as the state has passed a law to reclassify misoprostol and mifepristone as controlled substances, similarly, allowing for the tracking and sharing of individuals health data across state lines.

So, AB 82 would provide some of the following protections. First, it would prohibit the reporting of testosterone and mifepristone to cures. Second, it expands the state's safe at home program to include health professionals who provide gender affirming care.

Third, it expands existing protections to mitigate the criminalization of families who are simply ensuring that their loved ones access the most necessary health care. And fourth, it expands the FACE Act existing protections against doxing of healthcare professionals and patients to include those who are providing access for gender affirming care services.

We believe it's imperative to support the privacy and safety of patients and their families whose basic obligation is to ensure that their utmost health for themselves and their loved ones, as well as the safety of our healthcare professionals whose basic obligation is to provide the necessary care for their patients.

With me to speak on support of AB 82 on behalf of our co-sponsors are Renee Bayardo, a parent and Board Member of the Alliance for Trans Youth Rights, and Craig Pulsipher, the Legislative Director for Equality California.

Good morning. You each have two minutes to present on the Bill.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. My name is Renee Bayardo. I'm here today as a Board Member for the Alliance for TransYouth Rights and a parent. The alliance is a proud co-sponsor of AB 82, which would help protect the privacy of California families like my own.

As a parent of a transgender teenager, I'm very concerned about the growing national hostility towards LGBTQ people, particularly transgender youth. I'm here today to urge you to support AB 82 in order to continue making California a safe place for my son and other youth like him.

This bill would help protect families like mine by making sure information about personal health care is protected, which is a concept I think can resonate across the political spectrum. No parent, child or doctor, should be punished for providing the care that people need.

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

Good morning, Chair and members. Craig Pulsipher, on behalf of Equality California, a proud co-sponsor of AB 82. As many of you know, we're currently witnessing a nationwide coordinated attack on the safety and dignity of trans people, including the right to obtain evidence based medically necessary care.

Across the country, over two dozen states have passed laws banning some form of care for transgender youth. And now, under the Trump Administration, these attacks have escalated even further, with executive orders attempting to strip federal funding for hospitals and clinics that provide this care and even criminalize healthcare providers simply for doing their jobs.

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

According to recent data from The Williams Institute, 1 in 4 gender affirming care providers has been personally threatened online and nearly 1 in 3 report that their workplace has received threats.

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

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

AB 82 is an important step to build on existing protections for reproductive health care to protect trans patients, their families, and those who care for them.

The bill expands existing protections against doxing to include both patients and providers of gender affirming care and expands California's Safe at Home Program so that patients and providers can protect themselves from harassment and intimidation. It also protects sensitive prescription data for both abortion and gender affirming care from being accessed by hostile out of state actors.

AB 82 sends a clear message that California will do everything it can to safeguard access to essential health care and I respectfully urge your aye vote.

Thank you very much. We're now taking any testimony from anyone in support of AB82. Please state your name, organization and position on the bill.

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

Good morning, Mr. Chair, committee members. Jonathan Clay here as a proud co-sponsor on behalf of Trans Family Support Services in support, thank you.

Good morning. Linda Nguy with Western Center on Law and Poverty, in support.

Good morning, Chair and members. Tyler Rinde on behalf of the California Psychological Association, in support. Thank you.

Elizabeth Kim in support, on behalf of La Defensa.

Josh Gallagher, on behalf of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, in support.

Katie Jennings, on behalf of the Children's Partnership, in support. Thank you.

Brittany Stonesifer from Kaiser Advocacy; on behalf of the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Oakland Privacy, in support. Thank you.

Symphoni Barbee on behalf of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California; proud co-sponsors in support. Thank you.

Elise Borth, on behalf of the California Community Foundation, in strong support.

Kevin Guzman with the California Medical Association, in support.

Thank you very much. Okay. And is there anyone else wishing to express support for AB 82? If not, we'll take up to two principal witnesses in opposition to AB 82. And you'll have two minutes to address the Committee on the bill.

Whoever would like to start.

Good morning. I'm Nicole Young and a member of CAUSE: Californians United for Sex-Based Evidence in Policy and Law. AB 82 hides testosterone prescription for girls and women from California CURES database, our system for monitoring the abuse of controlled substances. Testosterone is a Schedule III controlled substance grouped with ketamine, codeine-based painkillers, and some barbiturates.

It's tracked for a reason. It can be abused. It can cause permanent harm. This bill specifically shields testosterone prescribed to females in doses high enough to masculinize their bodies. At those levels, testosterone causes vaginal atrophy, thin vaginal walls, dryness, tearing, bleeding, and pain during exams or intercourse.

Over time, it causes pelvic and uterine atrophy which can necessitate a hysterectomy. A 2024 study found young women on testosterone suffered pelvic dysfunction usually seen in postmenopausal women, urinary sexual and bowel problems beginning as early as 18, average onset age: 28. We are fast-tracking young women into early menopause.

A 2025 study found testosterone use in females triggered kidney inflammation in just three months. The science is not settled. We are learning more every day, none of it good. Why on earth would we legislate a carve-out for an anabolic steroid? Let's remember East Germany. In 1966, they launched a doping program using anabolic steroids on young women.

The damage was catastrophic: organ damage, infertility, lifelong suffering. The full scope wasn't revealed until after the Berlin Wall fell. We are now repeating history. This is East Germany 2.0. CURES exist to protect patients. AB 82 exists to protect prescribers. If you vote yes on this bill, you are voting to cover up a public health scandal. Vote no on AB 82. Don't let California become the next East Germany.

You have two minutes to present on the bill.

Good morning, Senators. I am Meg Madden of CAUSE: Californians United for Sex-Based Evidence in Policy and Law. Giving puberty blockers, opposite sex hormones, and surgeries to make people look more like the opposite sex has been revealed to be a sickening medical malpractice scandal.

Many countries, states, and our federal government have made systematic review of the evidence which shows these treatments have no reliable basis, cause iatrogenic harm, and should be halted at least for children, who cannot possibly consent, but with levels of hubris that would give Icarus pause, California rejects all warnings on its flight into the burning sun of gender ideology-driven medicine and is even trying to bring children from other states along for the inevitable crash into the sea.

AB 82 allows anyone involved in the gender medicalization industry--prescribers, parents, even volunteers--to vanish from public accountability. The state will even provide a fake address for the asking so providers and parents may hide themselves and even a child from another parent who does not want their child harmed. One written request silences four years--for four years--journalists and citizens who are trying to expose the truth.

This is state censorship in service of hiding harm these providers are causing to their own patients. Why is California so interested in protecting the gender identity industry from scrutiny while it harms the minds and bodies of children and vulnerable adults? Proponents of these treatments minimize the harms. They lie about efficacy and benefit.

They even lie about the purpose of the treatments. No other area of medicine relies so heavily on euphemism and deceit. Please vote no on AB 82 and help put an end to this unfolding medical malpractice tragedy. Thank you.

Okay, we'll take anyone who wishes to express opposition to AB 82. If you would like to express opposition, please come forward and state your name, organization, and position.

Hi. My name is David Bolog, representing Moms for Liberty, San Fernando Valley Alliance, the Serving Family Values Alliance, the Truth Exchange, Facts Law Truth Justice Law Firm, and Taxpayer Oversights for Parents and Students. With great respect to the author and that great suit he's wearing, we oppose the language of this bill. Thank you.

Beverley Talbott from San Francisco, Democrats for an Informed Approach to Gender and Women are Real, in strong opposition to this bill. Thank you.

Is there anyone else wishing to express opposition to AB 82? Seeing no additional members of the public wishing to speak, we'll bring it back to the committee for any questions or comments. Senator Gonzalez.

Yep. Just want to say thank you. I'm a proud co-author. I think what you're doing here is similar to what we did for healthcare, reproductive healthcare for Californians, and this is absolutely needed. My neighbors thank you for this. I know it is an LGBTQ priority as well, and just, if I can co-author again, I would ten times over. Thank you for bringing this forward, Assembly Member.

I'm also very proud to co-author this bill. Thank you for bringing this forward. I think this is essential now more than ever with the, the attacks by the federal government, other states trying to restrict access to these critical medications that are important not just for reproductive health, but also for gender-affirming care, and I will be supporting the bill today. So turn it back over to your close.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Nothing? Okay. Just want to respect the Vice Chair as well, too. We have an active conversation on a lot of topics, but I think fundamentally this comes, you know, from some very important tenets that we're really hopefully trying to be able to get more, I think, unanimous support behind, that no one's private health data should be tracked and shared for others to target them or their families, that parents and families should not be criminalized for entering into--for ensuring that their loved ones received the healthcare.

That is a really important conversation solely between them, their parents, and their doctors, and no one should be threatened with violence and assault for providing legal healthcare, and we're trained to provide--and Senator Gonzalez had mentioned it so appropriately, is that we continue to watch and monitor for the evolving times and where threats to our healthcare systems, those patients and those parents are arising, and certainly have we seen that in recent years in reproductive care, and now certainly one of the most focal points is on those that are trying to lawfully seek gender-affirming care as well here in California, a lawful practice, that we stand behind the science and the medical research that supports the well-being of many of these patients, and I appreciate your consideration for the public safety elements of this bill as we continue to move it forward.

I think I'll see you again in Judiciary Committee, and with that, when the time comes, I would respectfully request your aye vote.

Okay, thank you so very much. We do not have a quorum yet. Hopefully we will soon. At that time we'll entertain a motion, and thank you to the witnesses for your testimony. I saw Assembly Member Pacheco here. Yes. So we will now go to File Item Four: AB 400.

And whenever you are ready, Assembly Member, you may present on your bill.

Thank you and good morning, Mr. Chair and members. Today I am presenting AB400. AB400 will require that all law enforcement agencies with K9 units meet the statewide standards established by the Commission for Peace Officer Standards and Training, also known as POST, for these programs ensuring consistency, accountability and excellence.

The POST guidelines that were released focus on three areas the use of force standards, minimum training requirements and essential skills for canines and handlers. With the passage of AB 400, California will lead the nation with the most comprehensive statewide canine requirements in the country.

This bill represents a significant step toward fostering trust between law enforcement agencies and the communities they serve. Police canines are invaluable public safety partners. Scientific research estimates that a canine sense of smell is anywhere between 10,000 and 100,000 times more sensitive than that of a human.

Canines can also hear sounds that can't be picked up by the human ear and they can isolate specific sounds amongst ambient noise in complex environments. These exceptional abilities make canines irreplaceable in high risk scenarios. From locating dangerous suspects to protecting their partners and communities by identifying potential threats early enough to avoid dangerous situations.

AB400 will ensure that all law enforcement agencies are safely deploying canines and prioritizing safety of canine handlers and the public, making California a national model on this issue. With me today to testify are Jonathan Feldman on behalf of the California Police Chiefs Association and Randy Perry from Peace Officers Research Association of, California, also known as PORAC.

I will now hand it over to my witnesses to testify.

Okay, thank you very much. You each ave two minutes to present on the bill.

Thank you chair members. Jonathan Feldman, California Police Chiefs Association, proud co-sponsor of the bill. There's been a lot of debate around police canines over the last several years and I want to place this bill in the context of those prior debates because I know there's been a discussion about prior discussions that we've had here.

There were two bills last year that made its way both through assembly and senate policy committees. They were joined together. There was an agreement between the two authors and we were the sponsors of one of them with assembly member Pacheco. Ultimately those bills were hung up in senate appropriations.

But despite that, POST had already begun even prior to those bills introductions work on updating their canine guidelines. And as our goal has remained to create meaningful standards across the state relating to these units, we thought it was important to make those guidelines actually requirements that every agency meet, which includes some accountability then for meeting those standards.

Those guidelines do include a lot of the discussions and language from the prior debates that we've had here just because they were very comprehensive and robust debates. And they do also retain some of the existing legal standards that we had discussed in this committee last year.

But it decided after debating whether or not to change that to leave untouched reverting to existing case law, which that is what that legal standard is. Existing case law. AB 400 still sets meaningful minimum standards, doesn't preclude local agencies from doing more and doesn't preclude this body from considering to do additional work in this space.

And we welcome those discussions. And I want to finish with two points. There'll be discussion about statistics. The statistics that we have from some of the larger agencies in the state, San Diego PD, Long Beach PD, California Highway Patrol, show that these are some of the most effective de-escalation tools in our state.

In their deployments, they result in force in single digits, percentage of cases, actual bites. If you look at some of the larger agencies I mentioned, it's around 1% of actual deployments.

And then finally, I want to say that these guidelines will sit on top of a body of law, case law, existing policies, state statutes that govern use of force. These are not the only rules that govern use of force across the state.

We also spent years debating use of force standards in this state and came with some of the most robust landmark pieces of legislation that include proportional force requirements, de-escalation requirements, crisis intervention, dealing with vulnerable populations, reporting oversight. All of that is in addition to what these guidelines will sit on top of.

I think that's important to note and we hope that we can move this forward through the committee and continue to work in this space. Thank you for your aye vote.

Mr. Chairman. Members, Randy Perry on behalf of PORAC. I would only add that the work we've put into this wasn't just, you know, POST sitting around and creating policies.

Early on, we had put together a large group of trainers, canine handler trainers, canine trainers, policy professionals in the area of arrest, use of force, POST the commission itself, who does all the training in law enforcement, California, and then representatives from all the organizations, both labor and management, to sit down and really talk about the national standards and the standards that we need in California.

So that was the basis of all of this that we've been working on for years now. Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much. Will now take any testimony from anyone in support of AB400. If you can please come forward and state your name, organization and position on the bill.

Mr. Chairman is Corey Salzillo on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association, please. To co-sponsor this bill as well. Thank you.

Good morning. Brandon Up. On behalf of the Los Angeles County Sheriff in support.

Good morning. Zach Saflutha with the League of California Cities in support. Thank you. Mr. Chair and Senators Koby Pizzati on behalf. Of the City of Bakersfield and Mayor. Karen Goh in support.

Okay, thank you. We'll now take up to two principal witnesses in opposition to AB400. If there are any. You'll each have two minutes to present on the bill.

It.

Good morning, Chair and members. George Parampathu, legislative attorney with ACLU California action rising in strong opposition to AB 400. As noted in the analysis, AB 400 is a bare attempt to circumvent the legislative process. Last year, Assemblymember Pacheco ran AB 3241, which contained lackluster standards for the use of police dogs.

When the bill reached this committee, this committee removed the weak legal standard. When the bill reached Senate Appropriations, the bill was changed to require post to study the issue. That version of the bill was never voted on.

In the summer that followed, post miraculously updated its guidelines to be word for word what this committee and Senate Appropriations had just rejected. Rather than continue the debate where it left off, AB 400 now asked the legislature to make those faulty standards statewide policy. This goes against our public and iterative legislative process.

Moreover, we already know that these standards are an objective failure because they simply reiterate the existing policy from agencies with a proven record for abuse. For example, Bakersfield Police Department's K9 policy written by Lexipol is nearly identical to post latest guidelines and their Results are abysmal.

89% of dog bites resulting in severe injuries were against black or brown residents. A federal Department of Justice investigation concluded that Bakersfield Police Department used its police dogs primarily on people who are intoxicated or mentally ill. An alarming 97% of dog deployments were not to defend self or another 97%. These policies are completely inadequate.

The legislature rejected these standards last year for being too weak. The only thing that has changed since then is that more Californians have been mauled by police dogs and more locals have paid out million-dollar settlements. These standards should be rejected once more. I strongly urge your no vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Margo George on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association; I would echo my colleague's comments, but also, I just want to address the whole process as he has talked about it from the legislative viewpoint.

One of the best pieces of legislation that has come out of the legislature in the last five-or-ten years regarding police practices was the Police Use of Force Bill carried by Dr. Shirley Weber. And that bill involved the participation and dialogue by both law enforcement, the community, the legislature, and ultimately the Governor.

That is a true democratic process and that's what is missing in this effort. The police trainers and the police agencies have preemptively created a bare minimum standard. And what's wrong with that is it really doesn't take into account what the people have to say about what's happened.

And what the people have to say is one incident after another where black and brown mentally ill drunk people have been attacked by police dogs. And it's not just those people. Police have been attacked by police dogs.

So, it really needs - and these are based on data from the Department of Justice, the California Department of Justice, which has compiled the reports that are brought to them by the police agencies and looked at the data.

There's one other thing is this is constantly the use of police attack dogs is justified by decreasing the risk to officers. And in at least one case, New Orleans, which was under a federal consent decree and were prevented from using police attack dogs at all, the city was not less safe, and the officers were not less safe.

So, I think all of this information needs to be taken into account in a truly democratic process. So, for those reasons, we respectfully ask for your no vote.

Thank you very much. Okay. We'll take any testimony from anyone in opposition to AB 400. If you wish to express opposition the bill, please come forward and state your name, organization and position.

Elizabeth Kim, on behalf of Initiate justice and Law Defense, in respectful opposition.

Okay, thank you. Anyone else wishing to express opposition, AB 400? Okay. Seeing no further testament. I bring it back to committee for any questions or comments. Senator Gonzales, thank you.

I would like to ask the author a question as to what the opposition had mentioned is why there wasn't a more democratic process through this, you know, before coming out with these standards that now you are proposing to make state law.

So, it actually went through the democratic process because we went through the Assembly Public safety, we went through the Assembly Floor. We've actually been through this process as well. Given last year we also introduced this bill, a similar bill, along with Assemblymember Cory Jackson.

So, this has been going through the process now for two years and I don't know if my witnesses want to testify any further.

Yeah, I would say we debated the issue for two straight years, took feedback and input from everyone and there was feedback and input opportunities through the post-commission development of these guidelines as well. And again, nothing prohibits agencies from doing more than what is in place through those guidelines.

These are minimum standards, and nothing prohibits the legislature from continuing to debate this issue and do more.

I think the decision we have here and, and it's, you know, again, our goal is always to put some meaningful standards in place is can we at least make these guidelines the minimum standard and do what we can in the immediate to increase accountability and consistency across the state, Leaving the door open for any additional discussions.

I mean the only other policy that's been put forward from the opponents has been either a complete ban on the K9 units or a definition that would essentially define the dogs as deadly force, which would be an effective ban as well. So again, nothing precludes an additional discussion and debate. More work to be done.

I know there's training that's in development now. That's a discussion that's open for the legislature to weigh in on. But we think that it's important to at least get something done, put something on the books. These guidelines have been produced.

They're either going to sit there as just guidelines or they're going to become actual standards that agencies have to meet. And I would disagree that with the characterization of them as useless or meaningless or not effective.

Okay. Well, it seems like there's still a lot of questions. Do you think to the author and to the opposition that this is the right time to do this?

Yes, I believe now is the right time. These are our local police departments, and these are an essential and vital tool that they use by using canines. So right now, is the right time to use to have this.

And this would be the first time we would be doing; we would be leading the way in California by having these statewide standards. And again, we've been working on this for two years and so we believe that right now is the right time.

And again, I don't know if my, I don't know if my witnesses want to elaborate further, but I think they would agree that right now is the right time.

Okay. And yes, if the, if I may ask the opposition as well.

Thank you, Assemblymember Gonzalez. I would say first off, that two weeks ago, San Jose settled a case involving a K9 for $1 million. Two months ago, they had a $1.6 million case settling a K9 incident. Three months ago, Sacramento had a $750,000 case settling a settlement K9 incident.

Seven months ago, Brentwood had $1 million case about a K9 settlement. All these involved the current post standards as implemented at the local agency. Is it the time for reform? Yes, but what we need is real reform. As Mr. Feldman pointed out, we had run AB 742 last year.

The standard there was a police officer can only use their dog if they are pursuing a person suspected of a felony that threatened or resulted in death or seriously bodily injury of another. Now, importantly, what else was included in that standard was a line which Mr. Feldman was alluding to, was that if an officer uses their police dog and the dog kills or injures somebody, that is liable to the officer. That is common sense that if you want the officers to care what the dog is doing, you make the individual officer liable. I would also point out for all these settlements I mentioned.

Those settlements do not come out of police department budgets. They come out of general funds from city and local county governments. The point there being that not even the police departments have an incentive, financial incentive, to care what the office is doing.

And without the personal liability standard, the individual officers don't have an incentive to care what the dogs are doing. And one last thing on the iterative legislative process, as was mentioned, this did go to the post-commission. I would encourage everybody to listen to the June 4, 2025, post-commission hearing where this agenda was brought up.

At that hearing, several commissioners raised the concern that they had not seen the guidelines. One of the commissioners or two of the commissioners who are dog handlers complained that the guidelines were too weak. That's the post-commission themselves saying that these guidelines are inadequate.

And I would like, if, if appropriate, I would like to respond to that. Or I can address it in my closing.

The Senator has the floor.

Okay. So, thank you. And I would certainly like to ask you to respond. But I will say the timing for me, which I think has not been mentioned here, coming from Los Angeles, having ICE raids.

You and I share Southeast Los Angeles, in some cases with Bell Gardens, who have been just completely inundated with ICE raids, which has been a worrisome situation, very worrisome for us here in Sacramento and protests that are peaceful. But I worry that this current standard does not apply. It does not account for what is happening now.

And that, I think, needs more discussion and more of a democratic process amongst all parties. And this is not easy. You know, having these putting forward these standards does take time.

If it takes two more years, I'd prefer it to take two more years to get it right versus jamming it through not having as much input from the opposition and from folks that are middle ground. And then also, again, given what is happening in Los Angeles, specifically southeast Los Angeles, in which you and I represent.

So, I will not be supporting the bill today, but if you would like to respond to the opposition, we'd love to hear that, too.

Well, thank you, Senator, and I appreciate the comments. Like you mentioned, we are dealing with a lot of raids within Los Angeles County, within our districts, within my assembly district, and it's something that is of concern to myself. But these are our local police departments. These are not federal agents.

And our police officers really care about, about public safety. They care about our community. And it's because of that that we want to adopt these statewide policies. That's the reason we have PORAC involved. That's the reason we have the police chiefs involved, because they care. Our local police departments care.

And I want to differentiate the local police departments versus the federal agents. They're two different agencies. And so, we have to focus on what's at hand here. And we've been working through this process. We've had a bill last year. This bill is moving along this year. And it's, again, as the opposition mentioned, they mentioned some cases.

Well, this just proves that we do need statewide policies to ensure community safety, to ensure that there's trust with our local police departments. So, this is essential, and the timing is right. Again, there's a big difference between our local police departments, who are here to protect and serve, and the federal agents who are terrorizing our community.

So, I do want to draw a major distinction between the two.

And, Mr. Chair, if I may. I understand the distinction between the two. I really do ask for you to pause and wait. Our communities - in fact, I'm meeting with Sheriff Luna this Thursday to talk about engagement at these peaceful protests and engagement, you know, when flash bombs are being thrown in playgrounds in the City of Maywood.

What is the engagement from local police departments with ICE, federal agents, men coming in, you know, masked. What is that engagement look like? So, I think it's an opportunity for us to sit back, coalesce, and take a little bit more time. Thank you.

Thank you. And if, Mr. Chair, if it's appropriate, I would like to have my witness testify as well.

I'd like to move on with the discussion. I think we've had an extensive -

Thank you.

- discussion of this. I want to turn the floor to Vice Chair Seyarto.

Great. I haven't seen a lot of dogs being used in any of the ICE raids or anything like that. Maybe they are, maybe they're not, but I haven't seen it. And that's not a typical, typical use for the dogs.

When they are in a public location like that, they are usually restrained, and they're there just for the deterrent effect that they may have. We've been dealing with the dog thing for three years now. It started with a full ban on dogs, canines, police canines.

I've been around a lot of police canines in my career, and I've said it before that as a paramedic, I would much rather be treating a dog wound than a bullet wound. And when you look at what these dogs are able to accomplish in forms of de-escalation, which is a big thing. Right.

Everyone wants us to de-escalate things in terms of keeping their partner safe. Because when you are going down an alley looking for somebody who has ran and now is hiding out, if somebody jumps out, an officer and attacks them, they're liable to get shot. And they're going to probably get shot dead.

If they jump out at a police officer, the dog will bite them and hold them. That's a lot easier to deal with than a funeral for a police officer. We are making, I mean, with these, I don't know what else they can hear in the last three years that they haven't already heard.

To be able to develop standards, at least minimum standards. And those that want to go beyond the minimum standards can work from here on till the cows come home on their standards, whatever they think needs to be addressed. But putting minimum standards in place, which, you know, in most departments, they probably already had those.

I don't know of too many departments that don't have procedural manuals on what's appropriate and what's not. But this is making it more universal. And that's all this does, is it creates a minimum standard taught to everybody of what our expectations are now. Yes, there are always going to be lawsuits.

There's lawsuits paying somebody $50 million because their Starbucks dropped over on them. We can't - a million-dollar lawsuit nowadays is a nuisance suit, in my opinion. Yes, the agencies are going to have that liability. And by the way, it's the insurance that most cities carry that pays for that.

And it does increase the insurance rates when they have too many claims. So, I just don't understand why we have this penchant that we need to somehow get rid of police dogs. Because the invaluable part of law enforcement that they contribute to keeps people safe, keeps suspects alive, keeps police officers alive.

The last police dog I know was shot was shot up in my district, just above my district. And the police dog was shot instead of his handler being shot. That was something that was directly related to instead of the handler being the victim, it was the dog.

Which is really, really sad, but not as sad as a police funeral. So, I'm supporting your bill. I think your bill is a great place to start. After three years of listening and hashing, rehashing all of this out, we need to do, we need to move forward and that's what this is doing.

The ICE raids have nothing to do with this policy. I know it's emotional, but it has nothing to do with this policy. And so, I don't even know why that gets brought up. But anyway, this is a good bill that you've created, and I think we should be moving it forward. Thank you.

Thank you. I just have a few questions. So not every jurisdiction, county, or city has a policy on the use of canines. And I just think about the City of Berkeley, which I live in, which I represented for 20 years; in the 1980's, they adopted a policy saying that the police department shall not use canines.

So, by passing this bill and requiring that we have to adopt the post guidelines that allow for the use of police canines, does that mandate that a city that has a prohibition on the use of canines, that they have to allow the use of canines?

So, this - what this bill does is sets minimum standards. So, if a police department wants to set more restrictive standards or do something else, they're able to do so.

So, if a city prohibits the use of K9s, this bill would not be in conflict with that.

I'll go ahead and let my witness.

Yeah. Mr. Chair, the way that it reads, it says any law enforcement agency with a K9 unit. Has to have the minimum standard policies in place. So, if they don't have a K9 unit, don't have to do it.

Okay. This doesn't preclude a local agency from adopting a more, you know, restrictive standard that may go beyond what post does.

Yeah, it says minimum. Okay. At least a minimum meet these standards. Okay. So that infers, yes, they can go above and beyond that is the intent.

Got it. And then my last question is, you know, you had noted the multiyear debate that's happened here in the legislature about establishing a policy, statewide standards around canines. And I think the issues that the opposition raise are legitimate issues.

But that being said, there's a very important use for canines not only to, you know, intervene in cases where there's armed suspects or situations involving drugs, departments are using other tools like drones, robots, as a substitute for putting an actual officer into a dangerous situation.

So, I think allowing those things to happen with strong safeguards to ensure that they're not being abused. Because we all remember what happened in the 1960s where dogs were sick on protesters. We don't want that to happen again. You know, in the state.

I think the concerns Senator Gonzalez are raising around the escalation and militarization of communities in Southern California at the hands of the federal government is deeply concerning. And we want to make sure that our local law enforcement partners who are - they're different from the mass federal agents and contractors.

I just want to note that very clearly, but that, you know, that we're not adding to that terror and that harm that's being created on communities.

So, my last question is if the legislature does decide to go a different route and establish more narrow or restrictive standards around the use of canines, but post says this policy, how would we reconcile that? Because, you know, Senator Jackson had a bill that was different from your bill.

And if somebody comes forward with a bill that may go even further than what post does, how do we reconcile that?

I mean, the way that it would layer on top and someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but state statute would trump post guidelines. And so post would have to update their guidelines to reflect state statute. And then every agency, if this bills in place, would have to update their policies because they have to meet post guidelines.

Got it. Thank you. Thank you very much. Unless any other questions or comments, I'll turn over the author to close.

Thank you very much and thank you for the robust conversation. I appreciate the opportunity to present this very important bill. I also want to just reiterate this is the usage of K9s is for our local police departments. Our local police departments want to keep our community safe.

And it's separate and distinct from the ICE raids, which again, is very disheartening. It's very distressful in my district. And so, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Okay. Thank you very much, Assemblymember. Thank you witnesses. We don't have a quorum yet, so we're entertaining a motion when we establish quorum. And going next in file order. We'll proceed now to file item 10, AB 1011 by Assemblymember Hoover, who I see is here in the committee room.

And if there are any witnesses who'd like to testify on AB 1011, if you can, please join us here at the table. And I'm going to pass the gavel to the Vice Chair very briefly.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, members. Appreciate the opportunity to present AB 1011 to you. This bill was brought to me by my constituent, Ryan, who is here with us today as well and will share his story, who tragically lost his daughter Ryla in 2019 as a result of child abuse.

Unfortunately, child abuse happens far too frequently in California and usually at the hands of a parent or caretaker. However, because of how California law is structured, these offenders qualify for California's most generous early release formula that is provided in the fire camp program even when this crime results in death.

We have worked really hard over the last three years to narrow this bill and tailor it as narrowly as we can to make sure that those who commit this crime of child abuse that leads to death, it does not actually change the ability for them to get early release in the regular formula, but it would prohibit them from getting early release using a two-thirds formula in the fire camp, and so, I'm happy to answer more questions, would greatly appreciate your support, but right now, would love to turn it over to Ryan to share his story.

Go ahead, sir. Yeah, try to stick to the two minute rule, please.

Yep. Good morning here. My name is Ryan Strange. On February 6, 2019, my daughter was abused and received great bodily damage resulting in death of a child right here in Sacramento County. This daycare worker had the audacity to hand my child dead in my wife's arms when she went to pick her up, being more specific: brain dead.

I was away for work. After four hours, when I got the news, I lost all control. I couldn't comprehend what just happened, just the fact that how this happened, my sweet little beautiful girl. When I arrived to UC Davis, I was met with multiple Sacramento County sheriffs and two detectives.

That moment told me the situation was far worse. We were informed by the chief neurosurgeon that Ryla's brain has shifted complete opposite direction. She had a massive skull fracture from the back of her head all the way to the side of her eye.

The trauma was so severe that it would take being thrown off a four-story building to have this exact situation happen. The next day we kept Ryla on life support so our family could say our final goodbye to her. Me, my wife, got to hold our daughter in our arms, and before we took her out, my wife walked away and I was the one that kept holding her because I didn't want to let her go. Let me just say this: no parent should have to watch their child held in arms, watch their heartbeat turn blue. That should not happen.

Seven months later, our daycare worker was arrested. She spent time in Sacramento County Jail. Two days later she was charged with PC 273a, parent a, child engagement and abuse with a sentencing enhancement PC 12022.95, which is great bodily damage result in death of a child. That same day, she walked out on bail for this crime.

During the court proceedings, the further it went, we found out that this wasn't just an accident. It was premeditated. She was already searching how to cause a baby's brain to hemorrhage, how to get a baby to suffer and have a stroke, which she did have multiple strokes, by the way, going to the hospital.

She knew what she was doing. She eventually pled guilty and was charged and was sentenced ten years, but after one week she got out. She went into CAL FIRE's camp. She spent six months and then went straight into rehabilitation center and spent the last remaining time. She was released January of 2024. Just to give you a perspective, she pled guilty in April 2021. She walked out January 2024. That was serving only one week behind bars, by the way.

You have to wrap up.

This is why I'm here to you. I'm calling a Public Safety Committee to stand with me--I'm a Democratic constituent who created this bill, just so you know--to support AB 1011. Let's do the right thing here that Chair Nick Schultz supported and the Democrats have supported me on the Assembly floor because it's the right thing. Let's do this for my daughter and every child that's coming before us. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. That is a horrific story and I applaud your bravery for coming here to tell us about it. At this time, we'll take anybody else that is in support of this bill to come up as a #MeToo.

Mr. Chair and members, Cory Salzillo, on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association, in support.

Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair, for stepping in. Anyone else wishing to testify in support of AB 1011? Okay, thank you. We'll now take up to two principal witnesses in opposition, if there are any, to AB 1011. Ask if--you can sit on this side of the table. Thank you.

Would you mind sitting at that end? Ms. George?

Good morning, chair and members of the committee. My name is Elizabeth Kim, and I'm the policy Director at Initiate Justice. I rise today in respectful but strong opposition to AB 1011 by assembly member Hoover. Before stepping into this policy role, I am a former preschool teacher.

I've served as a lawyer and policy consultant serving four legal divisions at the California Department of Justice, and later taught inside Level 3 and 4 yards at Mule Creek State Prison. These experiences shape how I view justice not as something fixed at the moment of sentencing, but as something that should reflect both accountability and transformation over time.

And I deeply care about the safety of children. There's no question that harm to children is serious in California. Law already treats it that way.

Our penal code already allows for decades long sentences, 25 years to life in some cases, and prosecutors currently have discretion to apply multiple enhancements and charges for child abuse resulting in injury or death. AB 1011 does not add protection for children.

What it does is ban people with these convictions from participating in rehab programs like the Conservation Camp program. That matters because these programs, especially Fire Camp, are some of the only pathways that allow people to give back meaningfully while inside. These are the very programs that help reduce recidivism through support, healing, and offer a sense of purpose.

I know because I've taught these students personally. I've watched them tutor peers, earn multiple degrees, complete anger management, and write letters to people that they've harmed, apologizing. These are not abstractions. These are human beings working to be better.

And most of them show the highest level of academic rigor, more than most of my students in college outside of prisons. And I saw that my students with the most violent charges are the ones who had the worst childhoods, the saddest upbringings, and the most in need of the rehab programs that this bill takes away from them.

You can please complete your thought.

Yes, AB11 does not prevent the tragedy that's happened to this person's family. And we need preventive measures to keep our children safe. For these reasons, I urge your no vote on AB11 or 1011.

Thank you.

Margo George, on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association. And I want to say first, you know, I really feel your pain and the anguish that that caused the loss of your daughter Ryla. And I'm really sorry about that. This bill will not bring her back or ease that pain in really any meaningful way. And 273A.

The actual crime is not just abuse. It's neglect or endangerment. And so what that means, you know, you have described a horrific situation that happened to your family.

But imagine a father who is trying to rush his child to the emergency room, has no car, borrows a car from a neighbor without a child seat, and is in an accident where the child is killed. That is child endangerment.

A true case that happened in Berkeley was a mother who had no very limited resources, left her toddler with an older child while she had to go to work. She had no daycare, she had no neighbor willing or family member, adult family member willing to watch the child.

And that mother was that toddler died when the older child left the room. And the mother was prosecuted in one of the most liberal counties in the entire state. So the ambit of this bill is really broad because the language of 273A is really broad.

But this is bad policy for the same reasons that my colleague addressed is because it doesn't give people the opportunity for redemption. Firefighters, people who have actually made the grade and become firefighters, incarcerated firefighters, are risking their lives. We saw that most recently in Los Angeles. So thank you. And we urge your no vote.

Thank you. Will now take any testimony from anyone in opposition to AB 1011, if you can please come forward, state your name, organization and position on the bill. I don't see anyone wishing to speak in opposition. Oh, okay. Anyone besides this individual wishing to express opposition?

Celia Rogers, Ella Baker, center in respectful opposition.

Okay. Seeing no other members of the public wishing to express opposition to AB 1011, I'll bring it back to the committee for any questions or comments or motion. Yes, Vice Chair Seyarto.

I'm sorry, in your bill, the assertion was that they're unable to participate in a conservation camp. They can still participate.

It does not. Yeah, that is not accurate. So any individual. In fact, I think there's a lot of inner accuracies that I'm happy to address. But any individual can continue to participate in fire camp. They also can continue, by the way, to earn early release credits.

They simply cannot earn 2/3 formula early release credits, which is the most generous formula available. They would continue to be eligible for the other, I would say rather generous formula that does allow half early release credits to be earned with good behavior and fire camp participation.

Right. So it's not saying that they can't participate in the programs or in the rehabilitative programs that they have. This just talks about the time that they get good time credits.

Certainly. And you know, I would agree wholeheartedly with the opposition that rehabilitation is a critical part of our criminal justice. System, I would in no way want people to not be allowed to participate in those programs.

I do though, however, think it's important that for certain crimes, you know, there are justice be served in a greater way than was in this case.

Right. In other words, serving. They're serving the time that they're supposed to serve. Correct. And not being given the opportunity to make that time half of what they were sentenced to. Correct. Yeah, yeah. Because what this does, it delves into the issue of, you know, what about the victims?

Because the victim that obviously in child, in cases involving children, you know, the child is gone. And so initially when they were a victim, they're a victim. But the other victims are the people that are left behind and they need justice.

And justice isn't watching the person that killed them, that snuffed them out accumulate time for good behavior. Because to me, the behavior that they exhibited when they snuffed out the life of a child, even though it's.

And we treat it different, you guys said we treat that different than, you know, life of an adult talking about children especially heinous act. And we treat that different. And this is treating it different. And this is putting people on notice. And if that doesn't deter them, I can't help that for them.

But certainly I'm not ready to reward somebody who has killed a child. And. Then subject the family to multiple hearings of release hearings, you know, the parole hearings.

This is not related to this particular case, but it's related to another case that in fact, in one week, family is going to be subjected to yet another hearing after two years. Every two years, they get to go to the parole hearing for this guy who killed their child. So, yeah, we treat them different.

And this is part of being treated different. And I think your bill addresses that. And it helps the victims that are left behind by not feeling like their loved one. Their child is not something that, you know, it's not forgotten because it shouldn't be ever. And if they ever get out, you know, great for them.

But the people will never, ever get over having their child killed by somebody. So the, just the appearance, that we are treating them special, the people that perpetrated the act in a special manner with kid gloves is offensive to them. And I recognize that.

Okay, thank you. Any other questions or comments? If not, I'll turn it back over you to close.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. You know, I didn't have a big close, but I did want to respond to a few things here. You know, first of all, there was a few comments made by the opposition that this will not prevent this strategy from occurring. That is the case.

You know, Ryla, you know, justice was not served in Rila's case, but we introduced Rila's law to help make sure that crimes like this do not occur in the future. And I also, you know, want to touch briefly on one of the issues that were raised about how these crimes are prosecuted.

You know, in California, child abuse resulting in the death of a child is not considered a violent felony. It is not considered a serious felony. And so that has actually created some challenges. We didn't make the bill about that, though. We're not trying to make the bill about that.

We made this bill, crafted it very narrowly to make sure that when someone is sentenced, when someone pleads guilty, which happened in this case, when someone is given, you know, a sentence, that justice be served in that case, they simply are not allowed to receive the most generous formula available for early release credits in California.

It does not ban participation in fire camp. It also, you know, the opposition arguments do not address the tremendous discretion that DAs and prosecutors and courts will have in cases that are not like Ryla's case. And so I would greatly appreciate an aye vote on this Bill.

We've worked very hard over the last three years to make sure that this is not going to have too broad of an impact. And, you know, for. For Ryla's sake, I. I ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Energy.

Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you to the witnesses for being here today. Thank you, sir, very much for being here. And we don't have a quorum yet. Thank you. So at the appropriate time, we'll entertain a motion. Thank you. Our next in file order is file item 11AB 1036.

And then we'll go after that to file in 12 AB 1094. Baines. Just to announce as we're transitioning, I. I have to go vote in Senate Energy, and then I have to present Mr. Schultz's Committee on three bills. And so I will be leaving the deus soon to hand the gavel over to the Vice Chair.

We will have to recess at 11:45 and then reconvene at 1:30. And so, unfortunately, if we have not gotten to your bill prior to 11:45, we will take it up in the afternoon session. So I just want to make those announcements.

With that, I'll turn over to Chair Schultz, presenting your bill.

Thank you, and good morning, Mr. Chair and committee members. I'm pleased to present Assembly Bill 1036 today, and I'd like to start by thanking the committee for working with our office. On the amendments to this bill, I will be accepting the committee amendments to ensure that AB 1036 is in line with the Box Decision, as more thoroughly discussed in the middle of page 7 of the committee analysis. AB 1036 expands access to discovery materials for individuals convicted of felonies resulting in incarceration. Let me explain just briefly, why is this bill necessary?

Current law only allows individuals with a specific sentence length of 15 years or greater to request post-conviction discovery. This arbitrary sentence requirement prohibits worthy petitioners from accessing their discovery when they are preparing to file a post-conviction motion. I'll note that there is no codified right to post-conviction Brady materials or jury selection notes.

These materials, however, are vital to individuals seeking relief under statutes such as the Racial Justice Act, resentencing petitions under Penal Code Section 1172.6, and/or habeas corpus claims. So let's--I'll wrap by just talking in a little more detail about what the bill actually does. It broadens discovery access, enhances fairness, transparency, and efficiency, and here's how it does it.

Many post-conviction claims, such as those based on new evidence, prosecutorial misconduct, ineffective assistance of counsel, Racial Justice Act claims, or changes in sentencing laws, require access to original discovery materials. Without them, courts lack the full picture necessary to make informed decisions.

1036 respects the work product privilege, but draws a clear line. If jury selection notes reflect racial discrimination or improper motivation, then that--then what's being protected isn't legal strategy. Respectfully, that's unconstitutional and impermissible conduct and that becomes available to someone needing access to file their claim to seek justice in our court system.

The bill includes meaningful safeguards such as an in-camera review process and limiting access when no peremptory strikes were used in jury selection to ensure that the privilege, the work product privilege, is preserved where appropriate, but not weaponized and not used by prosecutors to block access to justice and to the truth.

AB 1036 does not create new appeals or delay mechanisms. It does, however, ensure that individuals have access to evidence that could prove a wrongful conviction, an excessive sentence, or racial bias from their original trial, reinforcing public confidence in the criminal justice system. With me today to speak in support of AB 1036 is Jasmin Harris, Director of Policy with our sponsor, the California Innocence Coalition.

Great. Thank you very much. You have two minutes to present on the bill.