Senate Standing Committee on Public Safety

[Background]

That Senate Committee on Human Services will begin in 30 seconds. Rewind. So it happens you chair two committees literally in the same room. It's like. I feel like I just never leave this place. The Senate Standing Committee on Public Safety will begin in 30 seconds.

Okay. Good morning. I'd like to call to order the Tuesday, July 8 2025 meeting of the Senate Standing Committee on Public Safety. We do not have a quorum yet, so we will meet as a Subcommitee. I want to thank the Vice Chair for being present to allow us to begin our hearing.

We do take measures in file order, but we will go to the author present in the room. And so I do see Assemblymember Mark Gonzalez is here. And so I'd like to proceed with file item four, AB 380 by Assemblymember Gonzalez. And good morning.

Good morning, Mr. Chair.

And I'll turn over to you to present on AB 380.

We'll have our witnesses.

If there are any principal witnesses to testify on AB 380 by Assemblymember Gonzalez. If you can, please come forward to the table here.

Awesome. As they're doing that, thank you, Mr. Chair, thank you. Members. I'm proud to present AB 380, a Bill born out of the devastation of the LA wildfires, which destroyed 10,000 structures, including homes, businesses, schools and places of worship. And yesterday was the six month anniversary of those such fires.

As communities work to rebuild, we must protect them from exploitation and price gouging during this vulnerable, vulnerable time. While existing laws provide some protections, confusion remains among renters, consumers and businesses. AB 380 strengthens and clarifies these protections, ensuring stability and guarding against opportunistic price hikes that threaten recovery and displacement.

Critically, I've been working closely with the opposition, very closely, and we have reduced the duration of the following protections. Goods and services is now 60 days. Reconstructive services is 180 days. Hotels and motels is 60 days. Cross commercial real estate properties is 60 days. Rental housing is 60 days.

We will also be amending back the ability to increase rent for the purpose of maintenance and repairs on rental housing and commercial real properties. With these amendments, several opposition have moved to neutral, including the California Apartment Association, the California Self Storage Association, and the National Self Storage Association.

Today you will hear from opposition about the commercial property being included in the Bill under the current price gouging protections, but business owners may face price gouging because it's not directly protected at all.

So we agree with the opposition that not all landlords are bad actors, but those who need, who are the bad actors need to face those consequences. We are still committed to work with them and have been working language back and forth on potential future amendments that may continue to address these concerns.

And so we've had weekly conversations and calls about that issue and because it is a new issue that's not currently protected. That's why it's a little bit more. It's harder for us to get to a better conclusion that makes everybody comfortable. But we are committed to working on that.

So just to be clear, in a time of those chaos and a pain and a loss, businesses need support, not rent hikes. AB 380 will protect all business owners from being harmed during a proclaimed State of emergency and bad actors.

This morning, primary witness in support to discuss the importance of AB 380 is Anya Lawler, Public Interest Advocates on behalf of Bill sponsors, Public Council and Strategic Actions for a Just Economy. Take it away.

I think you'll be speaking on Anya's behalf. It's good to see you. We knew each other back in the East Bay. I'll turn over you to present the Bill for two minutes.

Hello everyone. My name is Jasmine Poyaoan. I'm an attorney at the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area. Public Counsel, Sage and Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area collectively assist hundreds of low income small business owners throughout the state each year.

The small business clients we serve do not have the means to pay for Attorneys are frequently subject to predatory commercial leasing practices and typically lease commercial spaces through month to month tenancies. They are subject to unlimited rent increases with short notice, which can be particularly challenging during a state of emergency.

During COVID for example, we met several long term small business owners whose rent was increased more than 100% with just 30 days notice. After major disasters, community serving small businesses are often dealing with multiple, unexpected and unpredictable circumstances that can make it challenging to stay in business at all, much less absorb a significant rent increase.

For example, a small business owner may be dealing with damage both to their commercial space and their residential space, even if the business owner does not experience physical damage to their place of business. Factors like a decline in foot traffic, which can be prolonged depending on the nature of the disaster, can have significant financial impacts.

In many respects, low income small business owners are similar to residential tenants in terms of their lack of access to resources and the power dynamics between them and their landlords. It is important and just to add commercial leases to the state's price gouging Bill.

It will help communities serving small businesses, which are critical contributors to our state's economy, stay afloat and survive disasters. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Are there any Members of the public wishing to express support for AB 380? If you can please approach the microphone and state Your name, organization and position on the Bill.

Danica Odar on behalf of the Western Center of Law and Poverty in support.

Good morning chair Members. Thank you author for bringing forward this Bill. Kai Clausen on behalf of the Building Decarbonization Coalition in strong support.

Good morning. Marcus on behalf of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors in support.

Good morning, Natalie Spivak with Housing California in support.

Andrew Dawson with the California Housing Partnership in support.

Good morning. Anya Lawler on behalf of Public Counsel and the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation in support.

Good morning. Mayra Baena with the Mesa Verde Group on behalf of Asian Americans Advancing Justice Southern California in support.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else in the hearing room who'd like to express support for AB 380? Okay. If not, we'll now take up to two principal witnesses in opposition to AB 380. Is there anyone wishing to testify in opposition to the Bill? You can sit here if you'd like.

Good morning Mr. Chair and Members. Skyler Wonnacott here on behalf of the California Business Properties Association and our Members of Building Owners Managers Association of California in California. We have an opposed unless amended position on this Bill. Do want to thank the author- amend.

He's done a lot of work working with us as well as a lot of the other opposition. We currently have been asking that commercial properties be stricken from the Bill simply for a lot of the reasons mentioned in the Committee analysis that commercial properties and residential properties differ from one another.

He simply cannot just take commercial properties and dump them into a residential statute. We have offered targeted amendments to limit this Bill to month to month short term leases as well as protect tenant improvements and ensure that those tenant improvement costs are not included in the rent caps. We are working with the author on those.

We're pretty close to coming to some agreements on that at this time. We are urging a no vote on this but continue to work with the author going forward.

Thank you very much. We can take another principal witness in opposition for two minutes. You welcome to sit here if you like or you can stand there.

Good morning Chair and Members. Bernie Simonez Krieger with the California Association of Realtors here to oppose AB 380. California already has some of the strongest anti price gouging laws in the country.

Current law already severely constricts a property owner's ability to increase rent and imposes serious penalties for those who violate the state statute, which include jail time and fines for those raising rate more than 10% during declare state of local emergency. AB 380 would create additional barriers to tenants seeking to locate replacement houses in the wake of a crisis as was experienced by so many families during the LA and Ventura wildfires.

California suffers from extreme housing supply charges.

Despite the Legislature's recent efforts over the last decade to streamline housing production, we remain short of at least 2.5 million residential units with a shortage of 1.5 million units within the market rate housing space, which has placed economic pressure on both tenants and small housing providers as they struggle with insurance costs, income losses and urgent repairs needed after disasters.

While this Bill does offer narrow exceptions for documented repair costs or prior tenant agreements, those are difficult to prove and apply in the aftermath of a disaster.

This Bill, among other things, seeks to double the enforcement period from 30 to 60 days after a declared State of emergency, broadening its scope to include all rental housing regardless of lease term or other economic variables.

That led to the sever housing supply construction we saw in LA and Ventura counties earlier this year, which also led to both property owners and tenants begging for exemptions from the statute to be able to offer and obtain viability needed for short term housing options for those families seeking to rebuild after disaster.

In particular, I want to point out the executive orders that the Governor signed extending price caps on certain zip codes throughout the area. If enacted, AB 380 will likely discourage rebuilding and future investments in California's residential rental markets, hurting long term housing supply and its ability to the detriment of all California's residents.

For this reasons, we urge a no vote.

Thank you very much. Well, are there any Members of the public wishing to express opposition to AB 380? Please state your name, organization, position.

Mr. Chairman, Horacio Gonzalez, on behalf of the California Business Roundtable, we'd like to associate our comments with the Business Properties Association. We are opposed unless amended. Want to acknowledge the author's continued discussions with us and we're hoping that we can arrive at a compromise. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to express opposition to the Bill?

Mr. Chair and Members, Margaret Gladstein, on behalf of the California Retailers Association, we very much appreciate the recent amendments. We're reconsidering our position right now. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. Mr. Chair. Jackie, on behalf of the California Fuels Convenience alliance, respectively, opposed. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair. Members not opposed apologize about my tardiness. Jp Hanna, on behalf of the California Nurses Association in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to express opposition to Assembly Bill 380? Okay. If not, I'll bring it back to the Committee for any questions or comments. Mr. Vice Chair,

Some questions. I want to kind of explore the commercial part of this so I can understand the, you know, the effects on residential properties.

When you burn down a bunch of residential properties and now people are scrambling to find a place to live, either renting or buying or whatever it is and that having a reaction to the market.

The one I'm struggling with is the commercial because in the disaster area, if a commercial building is affected, the folks that are there are not going to change their market. They're going to try to rebuild where they are. So they're subject to the insurance, getting their insurance and then rebuilding.

But in our commercial world right now, office leasing and things like that are a little difficult. And in fact we have a lot of empty offices because of it. So I'm trying to understand how a commercial building that is already short tenants should be affected by this.

Because I mean, what's the incentive by commercial building owner or manager of a property? Because I can tell you there is none. I manage one. There's no incentive for me to raise the rent on somebody who is, I mean, already there and trying to absorb, you know, more business. Correct.

So I'm not sure why how we, how the disaster results in the commercial business is gouging people.

So I represent downtown Los Angeles, one of the most hardest hits as a result of COVID In addition to the areas that needed the most to help to re establish their businesses, commercial property is currently not regulated at all. And in conversations that we've had with the staff, this is something that they've never really come across before.

The analysis was a little bit more than I think it needed to be, but that's because we're in a space that we haven't engaged in before. If you're a commercial property owner and you're not price gouging, you have nothing to be worried about. It's very simple.

So I don't necessarily think that there needs to be anybody who's worried about it. It just creates protections in place for those businesses who are getting pushing people out of the area without a disaster.

For example, in my district there are mom and pop shops whose rent was $2,000 and now raised up to $10,000 a month without any regulation. Now we're not putting that forward today, but we are talking about commercial properties who are taking advantage of those who are just trying to simply to survive.

So if we want small businesses and mom and pops to survive, this creates protections from them during that duration of the emergency. Now I hope we don't have an emergency today or tomorrow, the next day. But this is just to create those protections for those individuals who need it at the moment, not the long term.

Right. That scenario just doesn't seem very realistic because raising somebody's rent like that would cause them to shut down, and then you'd have an empty building. So there's absolutely no incentive whatsoever for a commercial building owner to do that. I think in that respect, we're probably trying to manipulate a market too much.

But I understand the residential side of this and some of the other goods and services aspects, although I really do feel we have the protections in place. But unless that commercial part of it changes, I'm not inclined to support that.

Well, we can't mix residential and commercial and call them the same thing. Those are two different protections. Here again, commercial properties are the first ones who. We know there are some bad actors who do that. There are currently no protections in place for those.

This creates a protection to start, and I think it's a difference between manipulating and regulating. This is regulation, not manipulation.

Yeah. All right, thank you.

Go ahead. I'm sorry, can I give her 30 seconds?

Typically, witnesses don't interject unless a Member has a question. Zero, is that a question? Sorry, Senator. So just to maintain order here, I'm not going to recognize you at this time. That's okay, Mr. Chair. Thank you. But I thank you for bringing this Bill forward.

You know, I was the mayor of Berkeley during the COVID 19 pandemic, where we established a moratorium on commercial evictions and rent increases. That was critical to stabilizing our retail economy at a time where people were losing jobs and businesses were struggling to stay open.

And I see this as a similar type of emergency intervention to ensure that small businesses in particular, I think that's the focus of your Bill, is small businesses who may be impacted by large rent increases because they don't own their properties during a State of emergency have protections. And so I appreciate you bringing this Bill forward.

I appreciate the work you've done working with opposition to try to address their concerns. I'm hopeful that you'll be able to continue to work on this if this Bill moves forward today. I will be supporting your Bill today, and I'll turn over you to clis.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for addressing this. Yes, this is geared towards small businesses. So look, AB380 is a call to action, because when disaster strikes, the last thing on our communities should face is exploitation.

In moments of heartbreak and chaos, we must meet urgency with courage, compassion, ensuring that recovery is driven by justice and not by greed. This Bill isn't just about the last disaster because we all know this certainly won't be the last and it won't be the last time that bad actors try to profit off people's pain.

This Bill, AB380, tries to protect and tries to protect those who are profiting off of people's pain. And that Bill ensures that when the next crisis comes, our communities will be protected, not preyed upon. And with that, I ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We do not yet have a quorum, so when we establish quorum on a motion on AB380. But thank you, Assembly Member, for being here today and presenting your Bill. Thank you. To our witnesses, encouraged that the conversations will continue. I appreciate all the work you've done this important measure. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Okay. We are waiting for another author to present. So if there is an author who has a Bill up on the Senate Public Safety Committee agenda today, please come to room 2200 and we'll take you out of file order and we'll take a five minute recess until we have another author. Thank you.

Sam Sa.

Okay, we'll reconvene the Committee hearing. And we are joined now by Assemblymember Lackey and Assemblymember, we have AB 486. Are you ready to present on that Bill? Please join us, sir. If there are any principal witnesses to testify on AB 486, you're welcome to join us here at the table. And good morning, Assemblymember.

I'll turn over you to present on your Bill.

Good morning. I do have a witness somewhere nearby. Hopefully. We'll sit. Okay. He is here. I'll wait for you to sit. All right. Well, thank you, Mr. Chair, and all you members for allowing me to present AB 486.

Well, this Bill will amend Penal Code section 466 to include key programming devices and key duplication devices to the list of burglary tools. Key programmers and key duplicators have become the number one up and coming trend in autocrimes.

These electronic devices are used to mimic keys and plug into a vehicle's onboard diagnostic port to override the security system and start the engine, allowing the person to drive away within seconds. These devices are readily available online with no screening process, meaning anyone could get a hold of these.

Oftentimes, the vehicles stolen are high horsepower, high luxury vehicles which have been known to be used in a multitude of crimes, due to their ability to flee from police at an extremely high rate of speed. In 2023, an estimated 202,802 vehicles were stolen in our state, an increase of 2.1% within California from the previous year.

To curb this upward trend, 486 will give law enforcement the ability to take action for possession of these devices. With me today, representing the California Police Chiefs Association, is Jonathan Feldman.

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

Yes, sir. Good morning, everybody. Jonathan Feldman, California Police Chiefs Association, in strong support, and thank the author for addressing this emerging issue. You know, existing law outlines rudimentary tools—picks, Slim Jims, Crowbars, grips—when it describes the burglary tools that with felonious intent.

And we've talked about intent being a high bar to prove, you have to prove that these tools are not just in possession, but used for a specific crime with the intent to commit that crime. Existing law does not include any type of technological or programming devices that this Bill would add into that definition.

And appellate courts have ruled that tools of similar design would fall into this category of burglary tools, but again, not the types of technology that we're seeing used today, which again, we'd still have to prove that felonious intent with the possession of this and the commission of a crime.

Law enforcement prefers to operate with clear authority and clear guidance, not in gray spaces. That's where we see ourselves get into more trouble. So, we would prefer that the statute is explicitly clear, adds these devices into it, so we know that we have enforcement powers over them, that they are part of the definition of burglary devices.

And we think this Bill is incredibly important given the increase in vehicle thefts and the numbers that the author just mentioned. They're alarming and we've got to do more to combat that. So, with that, we request an aye vote on this Bill.

Thank you very much. Is anyone else in the hearing room would like to express support for AB 486? Please state your name, organization, position on the Bill.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Corey Salzillo, on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association, in support.

Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Senators. Kobe Pizzati, on behalf of the City of Thousand Oaks, in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Is there anyone else wishing to express support for AB 486? Okay, if not, we'll take up to two principal witnesses in opposition to Assembly Bill 486. Is there anyone wishing to speak in opposition? Yes. You have two minutes as well to present.

Good morning, Chair and Members. George Parampathu, Legislative Attorney with ACLU California Action. Rising your respects for opposition to AB 486. AB 486 adds to a problematic portion of the Penal Code, a list of legally purchasable items which can land someone a conviction for possession with criminal intent. A list that includes things that we all own, like screwdrivers and pliers.

AB 486 would add in key programming devices and signal extenders which mechanics often possess, and hands-on car owners may also possess. When enforcing AB 486 and Penal Code 466 more generally, police essentially ask who looks like they think like a criminal. This is sure to invite bias.

And while the criminal intent standard might save innocent actors from from being convicted, the intent standard does not prevent police from arresting or searching innocent Californians. Any stop, search, or arrest is disruptive, and history has shown that they can be deadly.

When a person has legally purchased an item and has not taken a direct step towards a crime, they should not be criminalized. Let us be clear that if they were to take a direct step towards stealing a car, regardless of the tools they used, they would be prosecuted for the crime of attempted burglary or attempted theft.

Because AB 486 unnecessarily expands a problematic portion of our Penal Code, I urge a no vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to testify in opposition to Assembly Bill 486? Okay. Seeing no other witnesses. I'll bring it back to the Committee for discussion. I have a question for the author, then I'll turn to my colleague, Senator Caballero, if she has any questions as well.

So, a police officer has a reasonable suspicion that somebody's going to commit a crime in order to stop or search that person. So, they just can't stop somebody because they, you know, how they look or whatever.

There are certain legal standards that, that involves stops and searches, and there's an even higher standard for searches, if I'm not mistaken. So, just addressing what the opposition had said, this doesn't just make it a crime for having these devices.

If you have them with the intent to break into or enter a vehicle, a building, that's when the criminal penalty could potentially be imposed. Is that correct?

Yes, absolutely. I mean, mere possession is not a crime. It has to be accompanied with intent. And as you indicated before, in order to have an encounter, there has to either be a consensual encounter or reasonable suspicion is the lowest level of justification for a contact. So, all those aren't relaxed through this particular measure.

They will still be held to that standard. And I think my, my witness would like to say something as well. Mr. Feldman, anything else you want to add on this?

Yeah, absolutely. I mean, there's, there's oversight and accountability and, and protections in place, in addition to just this one code section. But the felonious intent that's outlined in the section, I think provides a pretty high standard that protects against simple possession getting you in trouble.

Yeah. It's not just intent, it's felonious intent, to feloniously break or enter into a building, railroad car, aircraft vessel, trailer, coach vehicle, or altering a key or other instrument so as to open up a lock.

Yes, correct.

Okay, thank you. Senator Caballero, any questions or comments?

So, I am—it's interesting to me that this is described as a flawed statute. And, because, you know, the bottom line is that, yes, having a screwdriver could mean different things, but usually, in my experience, and I did criminal defense work for 25 years, which is interesting to me that this now is seen as a, a flawed statute.

It's that usually what happens is that there is a crime in process where the police have been called, somebody, people are breaking into cars, or there's been a burglary or there's something that they need to check into.

And, and what happens is that during the search, during the investigation, checking into the issue, there are individuals that have these kinds of devices. It reminds me of the scanners, that—if you're on a scanner trying to figure out where the cops are or what's going on and you're alerting people, then there's, there's a—the scanner may be innocent, but the fact that you're then alerting people means that there's, there's criminal conduct happening and that it's done in conjunction with other people.

So, I'm just, I'm struggling with seeing this as a flawed statute because frankly, if somebody's got one of those programming instruments, everybody's car is, is, is subject to that.

That's even worse than a screwdriver because if you're walking around in a neighborhood at night at 2 o'clock in the morning with that kind of a device, you're probably not up to any good.

And so, I would want the police to have the ability to see that instrument as problematic to investigate further and adding it to the statute, I don't think—I think it gives us more tools. People want crimes to be solved and there's nothing worse than, than being robbed or burglarized. And these are robbery and burglary tools.

So, I don't have any questions. I just needed to think through the comments that were made, and I do appreciate the information. But I'm going to support your Bill when we have a quorum.

Thank you very much. I'll turn it over to you, Assemblymember Lackey, to close.

Well, I thank you for the discussion because it's all surrounded by logic and often, I would just tell you that law enforcement tries to use nothing but logic when trying to address the mal intent of certain individuals. So, we believe that this will be a preventive measure instead of just a punitive measure.

And we hope we can earn your support.

Thank you very much. We do not yet have a quorum, but when we establish quorum, we will entertain a motion on the Bill. Thank you for being here today to present.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you to the witnesses.

Okay, next in file order is, and I see of those authors present, is file item 10, AB 788, by Assemblymember Quirk-Silva, and then we'll go to file item 12, AB 851, by Assemblymember McKinnor. Good morning, Assemblymember. Are there any witnesses who are going to speak about AB 788?

Yes.

Please come forward to the table here. Thank you.

And I will turn over to Assemblymember to present, when you're ready.

Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee. Today, I'm presenting AB 788, a Legislative Women's Caucus priority bill which requires the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to strengthen its rehabilitative efforts for incarcerated women in state prisons. CDCR is responsible for overseeing California State prisons.

Women are primarily housed at two facilities, the Central California Women's Facility in Chowchilla and the California Institution for Women in Chino. In 2007, the Legislature required CDCR to create a Female Offender Reform Master Plan to provide incarcerated women with trauma-informed and gender responsive services.

The Master Plan detailed the steps necessary to meet the needs of women offenders in order to reduce the likelihood of future incarceration and lower recidivism rates.

Most of the features of this Bill have existed previously in CDCR but have been allowed to degrade over time or were diluted in focus or were erased from the Department's priorities, resulting in the loss of critical emphasis on dignity, rehabilitation, and safety.

Furthermore, incarcerated individuals, particularly women, continue to face disturbing challenges including sexual violence, extreme heat conditions, and use of force incidents involving correctional staff. These ongoing issues demonstrate the urgent need for reform to ensure safety and accountability within CDCR.

With the potential of the prison population growth following the recent passage of Prop 36, it is even more critical to implement correctional policies rooted in respect. AB 788 will help restore and strengthen CDCR's commitment to providing safe, appropriate, and effective services that are both gender responsive and trauma-informed, ultimately improving outcomes for women in our correctional system.

I just want to take a personal note here. The Women's Caucus has put an emphasis on women incarceration this year, myself and Assemblymember Mia Bonta leading a women Incarceration working group, and we've also traveled internationally from Norway to Scotland to Ireland—in Ireland and Scotland visiting women's prisons.

And we know that the outcomes for women across the world are much different than for men. One surprising fact is that women are visited much less in prison than their male counterparts. Also, knowing that when women are removed from the family system, this, in fact, erodes the breakdown of the family.

So, what we can do while women are incarcerated is immensely important. So, with me today to provide testimony in support and to answer any further questions is Wendy Still, the former Associate Director of CDCR's Female Offender Programs and Services.

And great honor to introduce here former State Assembly Member and current Board of Equalization Member of the Second District, Sally Lieber.

Good morning. Thank you so much for joining us today. Good to see you, Board of Equalization Member Lieber. You each have two minutes to present on the Bill and whoever would like to start.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and Committee Members, for the opportunity to testify in strong support of AB 788, rehabilitation and safety for incarcerated women, which seeks to update the provisions of Penal Code 3430, which I assisted Sally Lieber with the initial drafting. My name is Wendy Still. I'm a criminologist and a conditions of confinement expert.

I'm currently the Senior Monitor appointed by the federal court to ensure the deficiencies related to women prisoners in the federal system, previously housed at FCI Dublin here in California, are corrected.

I have over 40 years of correctional experience managing California prisons and community corrections agencies, holding positions including Southern Regional Administrator for CDCR, where I had responsibility for direct oversight of the three women's prisons and 10 male prisons, housing over 45,000 inmates.

I also was responsible for the creation of the Prison System, Sexual Abuse and Assault Prevention and Intervention, PREA Program, in 2005, when the Department housed over 170,000.

Most relevant to today's hearing is I am the CDCR's first appointed Associate Director of Female Offender Programs and Services confirmed by the Senate and the creator of the Female Offender Master Plan, which was award winning by University of California at Irvine as their capstone project.

The development of the initial Master Plan included input from nationally recognized gender responsive experts in operations, programming, trauma, mental health, medical education, substance use disorders, community-based organizations, advocates, those with lived experience who provide services to incarcerated women and those reentering on supervision in the community, in the California women's prisons.

Advocates, legal expertise, and many others were just a few of how important the voices were in the original creation of the Master Plan. Strategies in the Master Plan were based on research, gender responsive principles, and the demographics of incarcerated women in California prisons.

I designed the structure of the FOPS program itself to support the requirements of Penal Code 3430 and address the gender specific needs of individuals incarcerated in CDCR's female prisons and their reentry needs.

Resources were allocated by the Legislature to support improvements needed, which included gender responsive programming, training for staff designed to transform the culture of the staff working in women's prison, and the staff and organizational culture needed to transform the male-biased prison policies and practices into those that are gender responsive and address different needs behaviors to female inmates.

Initially, CDCR made significant progress, but then, as was described, the system basically began to backslide. The needed changes were only achieved due to originally the oversight of this Legislature which was demanding needed system and outcome improvements in support of the departmental leadership at that time. I really feel like we're back where we began.

Changing culture within CDCR was not easy and it has not been accomplished. It took dedication, commitment, and willingness to push back against the male bias prejudice at the facilities and headquarters level that existed at that time and continue to exist currently.

As the person responsible for making these critically needed system improvements, I can unequivocally report that these changes would not have happened without the mandates of Penal Code 3430. Unfortunately, as I said, the progress basically has delayed and basically, went backwards.

I'm sorry to interject. You are at 3 minutes and 30 seconds, so if you can get to your point.

AB 788 will address and improve the knowledge and experience level of the individual AD responsible for making the necessary operational practice programmatic policy changes, provide the organizational structure resources necessary for oversight and accountability, mandate ongoing updating and reporting of the Master Plan, and reestablish the Gender-Responsive Strategies Commission.

Again, 3430 accomplished much, but without that and the movement towards looking away, basically, this Bill is absolutely needed and critical and I really commend the Women's Caucus for focusing on this as it is currently as much needed now as it was back then. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll keep my comments very brief because I think my two predecessors in speaking have done a great job at pointing to the need for this Bill, and I'd just like to say that the Legislature has made a long-time commitment to improving conditions for women in California prisons.

Unfortunately, the reality of those goals actually being enforced was very brief and there has been no communication back with the Legislature saying, hey, we as a Department decided to stop doing the things that we promised and are still receiving funding for.

So, this Bill is really taking us back to what has existed in the past, such as an ombudsperson that is strictly for the women, something that unfortunately the level of sexual assault in our state prisons has really pointed to the need for.

And so, this is a critically needed bill towards accountability, and I think it will really help to fulfill the needs of the women who are going to return to their families and communities, whether they are traumatized by their time in the state prison or assisted and rehabilitated by it.

So, thank you very much for your consideration of this Bill.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to express support in the hearing room for Assembly Bill 788? If so, if you can, please approach the microphone and state your name, organization, and position on the Bill.

Chris Lobson, in strong support.

Thank you. Unless there are any other members of public wishing to express support for AB 788, we'll take up to two principal witnesses in opposition, if there are any. Anyone wishing to speak in opposition to AB 788? Okay. Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the Committee for any questions or comments on AB 788. Senator Caballero?

I don't have any questions. I think this is a really good Bill. And whenever you're trying to change institutions that have been around for a really long time, it's hard. And having a clear direction is going to be really important too. And thank the Women's Caucus for all the work that, that you all have done.

And thank you, the author as well. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you and I second those comments. This is a really important Bill that I think when having an ombudsperson assigned to adult female institutions, you know, having a clear focus on supporting female inmates is absolutely critical.

As we know, there have been several bills that have come to this Committee this year dealing with the issue of, of sexual assault and violence within our women's correctional facilities in California. And we actually passed a Bill by Senator Menjivar that specifically focused on increasing accountability for women inmates. This is a critical issue.

And I thank you, Assemblymember, for bringing this forward. And I'll turn it back over you to close if you like.

Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you to our witnesses for being here today. Thank you for your service. And we do not have a quorum yet, but when we do, we will entertain a motion on the Bill. Okay.

Moving on to our next bill and file order, we'll proceed now to file item 12, AB 851 by Assemblymember McKinnor and good morning, assemblymember. Whenever you're ready, you may present on your bill.

Mr. Chair and members. AB 851 would codify Governor Newsom's executive order to extend homeowner protections for families impacted by the January 2025 Eaton and Palisades fire from unsolicited offers on residential properties until 2027.

Additionally, AB 851 would allow the seller of a residential property within the Eaton and Palisades declared disaster zip codes to rescind the sale of their property for four months after the close of escrow. Many homeowners in Los Angeles County who were devastated by the January 2025 fires have reported being targeted by unscrupulous businesses, scam artists and predatory fires.

In response, Governor Newsom issued an executive order prohibiting unsolicited below market offers on residential properties in affected LA County zip codes. That order was extended and expires on July 1st. LA County Fire survivors have experienced unimaginable trauma and need additional protection and time to make an informed decision whether to rebuild or sell their property.

This limited four month rescission window will give impacted homeowners time to breathe and make a decision that is in the best interest of their family. I am extremely concerned about the potential displacement of families from Palisades and Altadena, especially the families within the historically black neighborhoods of Altadena.

AB 851 provides important protections to all families impacted by the Eaton and Palisade fires and is an important part of LA County's effort to rebuild from the devastating natural disaster. Here to testify and support is Amy Hines on behalf of the California Community Land Trust Network and Tamika Lacluse, Executive Director of the Sacramento County Land Trust.

Thank you.

Thank you. Good morning. You have two minutes to present on the bill and whoever would like to start.

Great. Thank you. Chair and committee members. My name is Tamika L'Ecluse and I'm the Executive Director of the Sacramento Community Land Trust. Today my remarks represent the entire California Community Land Trust Network who are proud sponsors of AB 851 by Assemblymember McKinnor. The California Community Land Trust Network includes 34 established CLTs and 16 emerging CLTs.

They collectively steward 1700 permanently affordable units for the benefit of 3600 residents across the state. The Community Land Trust model is to remove housing off the speculative market and steward it in perpetual affordability for low income residents who can either lease or own their homes on CLT land.

Our core value is to stabilize communities and to stop the displacement. It is unconscionable that we would allow a deadly disaster to not just occur, but we would stand by and watch a completely avoidable economic disaster.

Fire survivors in LA County have experienced unimaginable trauma and they deserve to make informed decisions about whether to rebuild their home or sell their property. However, many homeowners affected by the fires report being targeted relentlessly by unscrupulous businesses, scam artists and predatory buyers. This behavior threatens the fabric of our communities.

It accelerates displacement and it risks eroding the rich cultures of these impacted communities. AB 851 is a common sense measure to protect homeowners navigating their tremendous challenges of physical, financial and emotional loss from being targeted by predatory behavior for a limited time period until January 1st, 2027.

On behalf of the California CLT Network, we respectfully urge your aye vote once you have a quorum.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. Honorable chair and esteemed members of the committee. My name is Amy Hines-Shaikh with Wildcat Consulting, representing the California Community Land Trust Network, the sponsor of AB 851.

Today I want to share with you a little bit about the experience of an Altadena resident who couldn't be here today but asked that I share with you what he and his community have been going through. Coach Zaire Calvin is a third generation member of the Altadena community.

He considers himself a survivor, advocate, property owner and community leader. The Eaton fire took many things from Zaire's community. He lost two homes, two cars, and tragically, his beloved sister lost her life in the fire.

Since these losses, speculative investors have sent individuals to Zaire's home and they have walked up to him with verbal offers, left cards on the property, deluged his phone with cold cards, cold calls offering cash, and even attended FEMA workshops and invaded community member space at the FEMA shelter asking if survivors wanted to sell.

Zaire tells us that survivors always have to pick up the phone for unknown numbers because that number could be someone following up regarding aid, insurance company representatives, government service providers or the like. They can't block it out. But when they answer, these individuals are very vague and do not identify themselves or who they're working for.

Zaire says that the that he usually hangs up on them, but he fears for all his friends and neighbors. At their lowest moments, some might actually stop to listen.

Maybe in their lowest moment, they might even think that it would solve their worries to get out of the paperwork and legal troubles just to get what they can for their property. In that low moment, Zaire says we can't allow the predatory calls and visits to come.

Zaire's understanding of community is that his neighbors are there for each other to keep bad actors from preying on folks during the hardest times they will ever face.

And that is why he and his community support AB 851 by Assemblymember Tina McKinnor and we thank her very much for her leadership vote yes to stop unsolicited offers in the wildfire areas.

Thank you very much. Okay, are there any other members of the public wishing to express support for AB 851 in the hearing room if you can please come forward and state your name, organization and position on the bill.

Good morning, Mark Esidro on behalf of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Elise Worth on behalf of the California Community Foundation in strong support.

Thank you.

Keon Bliss as an individual in strong support.

Thank you very much. Are there any other members of public wishing to express support for AB 851? Seeing none. Is- Is there anyone wishing to testify in opposition to AB 851? We'll take up to two principal witnesses in opposition for two minutes each.

Seeing no one wishing to testify in opposition. I'll bring it back to the committee for any questions or comments. Okay. Assemblymember Caballero.

Appreciate you for doing this bill. It's really important and wish there was a way for us to keep those phone calls from coming in. But know that this, I think this legislature has taken proactive steps. We'll see what bills get through, but I'm very confident that we'll do everything to protect the victims of the wildfires.

Thank you. I also want to thank you for bringing this bill forward which is really focused on trying to help those who've been directly impacted by these devastating wildfires at a time when they're most vulnerable.

Thank you.

I mean, this is the last thing that people should worry about being being preyed upon by people that are trying to unscrupulously try to take possession of the property. And this builds on, I think all the work the legislature is doing, including the work that your colleague Assemblymember Gonzalez just presented on around price gouging.

So I thank you for bringing this forward. I will be supporting your bill today and I'll turn over you to close on your bill.

Thank you. With the anniversary, the six month anniversary being yesterday, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. We don't have a quorum yet. Hopefully we'll have one soon at that. And at that time we'll entertain a motion of the bill. We're going to go next to Assemblymember Bonta and then Nguyen and then Bryan. And so we'll go now to file item 14, AB 938 by Assemblymember Bonta. Okay.

No, we're going to go to bottom one, AB 46 by Assemblymember Nguyen. If there are any principal witnesses in support, if you can please join us here at the table. We're only going to be able to take two witnesses to speak in support.

Mr. Chair, one is an interpreter.

Okay, great. Thank you.

Thank you.

So, we'll allow sufficient time for interpretation.

Thank you for that. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Senators. I want to start by accepting the Committee amendments and really thank the Chair and the Committee staff for working with us for many hours and many days and many months on this. I'm proud to present AB 46, which clarifies judicial discretion in mental health diversion cases.

AB 46 doesn't change who's eligible or take away access to treatment. I want to say that again, this does not in any way take away access to treatment. It simply clarifies that judges can weigh the full picture, including public safety, victim impact, and a person's history, not just clinical criteria.

This Bill straightens judicial discretion with clear guardrails so decisions reflect both rehabilitation and accountability. Here in support today is Sacramento District Attorney, Thien Ho, and a crime survivor, Isa.

Good morning, Mr. District Attorney. I'll turn it over to you to present.

Good morning, Mr. Chair. First of all, I want to thank Assemblymember Stephanie Nguyen for her leadership in authoring this Bill and working with the public safety community to better protect Californians.

I also want to express my sincere appreciation to the Chair, to your staff, and the consultant in really collaborating and working with us, especially as we discuss this with those who are in opposition.

And I do want to note that we have continued and will continue to work with the opposition and those that have concerns about the Bill. For example, we have retained the super strike language in C4 with an amendment there. In addition to that, we will continue to work with those who share concerns about the Bill.

But the key here is to give discretion back, discretion to the judges, in regards to who can and who, who should and who should not get mental health diversion while balancing public safety and the need to address mental health. With me here today in support of AB 46 is Isa.

Isa is a victim and if I could quickly present in terms of the background, she lives here in Sacramento. She had a dispute with her neighbor who has been harassing her for years. Her neighbor telling Isa, who is an immigrant to this country, to go back to her country and, and abusing and threatening her repeatedly.

And on this particular day in 2023, she was trying to go back into her house. She looked around and thought it was clear. So, she ran into her house and her neighbor came up, attacked her, punched her in the face, fractured her orbital bone.

He went into custody, over my office's objection, received mental health diversion and was released from custody, committed a homicide, and dumped the body in another county. And so, what we are asking for here is in support of discretion for the judges to really weigh the different factors.

But with that, I would respectfully turn this over to Isa, who is being assisted by an interpreter.

Thank you very much. Good morning. Thank you for joining us today.

[Speaking Spanish]

"Good morning. My name is Isabel Ramirez. I don't like to recall this, but I will. Two years ago, my life changed. I'm a mother and I'm a dad. I have two jobs. My husband died and I'm a mother to a son. My neighbor, he wanted to kill me. I never did anything to him."

"That day changed my life. He went to jail, but then he was let go. Now, since then, I always live in fear. I'm in fear that he will come out and go after my son. My life has changed so much. I wake up in fear."

"And I wake up very early in the morning because I work in construction. I wake up at 3:00 AM and now, I'm in fear that he will come out."

[Speaking Spanish]

I only work for my son. I live for my son. And I don't hurt anybody. I've never hurt anybody. And that for him to let him go again, and then he came out and made another mistake. He killed two people, I think. I don't know, he killed somebody. And now living with a fear to have been hit, and I wake up in fear every morning. And I only live for my son, and my son lives for me.

He goes to school, he works a little bit. And I only want them to change the laws because they're protecting more than people, they're protecting them more than the victim. My fear is that they let him go again. And now I fear people outside on the streets. I feel people, fear people when they get close to me. I live with that fear every day. Thank you.

Thank you very much for joining us today. I know how difficult it is to talk about this really horrible experience that you and your family has gone through. But I think it's important to illustrate why bills like this are important, and thank you for your courage in being here today and telling your story. Okay.

With that, we'll now take any members of the public here in room 2200 who wish to express support for Assembly Bill 46. If you would like to express support for AB 46, please come forward and state your name, organization, and position on the bill.

Mr. Chair and Members. Cory Salzillo on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association. Not seen the amendments. We're supportive of the concept of the bill, restoring discretion and making sure that the standards exist, but looking forward to reviewing. But we in support in the in print version. Thank you.

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

Good morning, everyone. Brad Morrow on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association in support.

Good morning. Samantha Beck on behalf of the Carmichael Improvement District and the Arden Howe Business Alliance. We're in support.

Good morning. Patrick Espinoza from the San Diego County District Attorney's Office in support.

Good morning. Dillon Lesovsky with the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department in support.

Good morning. Ryan Sherman with the Riverside Sheriff's Association and California Narcotic Officers Association in support, along with the other law enforcement associations listed in the analysis. Thank you.

Hello. My name is Matthew Carte. I am a resident of California. I'm also a fellow victim of or survivor of attempted murder, and I very strongly in support of the bill that they're talking about today. So thank you.

Good morning. My name is Pamela Carte, California resident, retired law enforcement, and a mother who watched her child fight for his life after being attempted murder and his negative effected by the current mental health diversion bill as it is, and I request the changes.

Good morning. Don Carte, and I'm the father of the victim of one of these issues, and I strongly support this bill. And I'm former law enforcement, retired, as well.

Good morning. I'm Crystal Tobias, president of the Sacramento Area Creeks Council and member of River City Waterway Alliance. California resident in strong support of this bill. Thank you.

Is there anyone else wishing to express support for AB 46? If so, if you can please approach the microphone and state your name, organization, position on the bill. Okay. If not, we'll take up to two principal witnesses in opposition to AB 46. And you'll have two minutes to present.

My name is Nick Stewart-Oaten. I'm a Los Angeles head deputy public defender. Before I begin, I want to thank the Chair, the Committee, and the author for considering the amendments. I think we're working towards a place where we will reach a resolution. I'm speaking today officially on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association.

On a more personal level, I'm speaking today on behalf of tens of thousands of Californians who've lost loved ones to mental illness. When I was 13 years old, I returned home to find my mother in tears because my cousin had been killed by a mentally ill veteran suffering from delusions. That veteran was my older brother, Chris.

For months before our tragedy, my family had tried desperately to get law enforcement to intervene, but were told over and over again that law enforcement does not involve itself in mental health issues. After 30 years of dealing with the loss of my cousin and my brother, my message to you, a Committee that includes my own Senator.

Hey, Senator Perez. Is this. Families like mine do not want failed policies that reduce access to mental health care for people in the criminal justice system. Families like mine do not want criminal laws to pretend we can fix mental health issues with jail or prison. Right? That doesn't help. It makes it worse.

Families like mine do not want people using our tragedies to create bad policy. What we do want is more access to mental health care. And in cases where mental illness and the court system intersect, we want an assurance that the judge can always order mental health treatment if treatment is the best possible outcome.

And of course, it doesn't always work. And of course, the victim here has nothing but my sympathy. Having gone through it myself, I feel her. Over the past six years, using our existing diversion laws, California has been doing exactly what it's supposed to. Under the guidance of the Mental Health Diversion Law, judges are permitted but not required to consider years long court supervised treatment as one way of resolving a case.

In LA County, we've embraced this opportunity, and the results have been incredible. Through our diversion program, I've watched men and women arrested while literally living in cardboard boxes talk about how, after two years in our program, they're now medicated, living in their own apartment, employed, and reunited with family members they have not spoken to in a decade.

Participating in these graduations is the most meaningful thing that those of us who work in this field have experienced in our professional lives. And I include myself. I want to tell you about a typical one of my cases. A 19 year old boy in Los Angeles was charged with punching his mother while in the middle of his first psychotic episode. When I met him in the courtroom lockup, I discovered that while he'd been waiting to speak to me, the voices in his head had told him to smash out each of his own teeth.

So when I entered the cell, his teeth were in a pile on the ground and he smiled at me with blood dribbling down his face. That child's mother begged me, the court, and the prosecution to get him into treatment. But under the current iteration of AB 46, he would not qualify because I cannot prove that he's not likely at some point in the future to reoffend. He hasn't even started his treatment yet.

As the creators of public policy, I imagine that each of you would like to vote for a policy that works, that's supported by data and facts. You'll notice that nobody thus far has offered you data and facts about the efficacy of mental health diversion. In LA, we do track the difference between mental health diversion outcomes and state prison outcomes. The difference is truly astounding. The recidivism rate for state prison, for people sent to state prison by our local District Attorney is 42%.

Right? So 42% of the time folks sent to state prison commit a new crime. For people sent to mental health diversion through our program, the recidivism rate is 9%. So if this is truly about protecting public safety, get as many people as you can into treatment because they commit fewer crimes if they're medicated and treated and have supportive services.

Sorry to interject, I know you're about to wrap up. If you can just complete your thought. You're at three minutes and 46 seconds.

If you care about good policy, data, facts, and giving judges, not partisan lawyers like me, the ability to pick the best option to protect public safety, keep diversion programs accessible, strong, and pretty please consider funding them.

Thank you very much. Sir, we can't hear you. Microphone to your direct...

Can you hear me now? Thank you. Thank you for this opportunity. My name's Anthony Kline. I'm a retired presiding justice of the California Court of Appeal. Before that, I was legal affairs secretary to Governor Jerry Brown in his first term. When Jerry Brown...

Well, I'd like to first address the extent to which the amendments to this statute are in conflict with the purpose of the statute. When Jerry Brown took office, he was presented with a bill repealing the indeterminate sentence law, which had been in effect since 1917.

The reason that that bill was repealed in a bill by two Republican Senators, John Nejedly and Howard Way, was because of the colossal evidence had been presented that the prediction of dangerousness is egregiously unreliable. That's the reason that... The main reason, there were other reasons. But that was clearly the main reason for repealing the indeterminate sentence law.

And there was strong support across the board from that, except for one person, an important person, Ray Procunier. Ray Procunier was the head of the Department of Corrections under Governor Reagan, and he was the head of the Parole Board under Governor Brown in his first term.

He was violently against the repeal of indeterminate sentencing because he said to the Governor, I remember this vividly, that if you sign that bill, if you shift the power to punishment from a Parole Board that is in the executive branch to a political body, the Legislature, what will happen is that every time there is a sensational offense by a person on probation, the Legislature will increase the punishments and you will get massive overcrowding, which had happened...

I'm sorry. Which had happened in other states. The Governor signed the bill because it was too late to do otherwise, and Ray Procunier was proved correct. In 2009, the prison population of California was at almost 200% of the design capacity of our prisons, more than. Our prisons, 36 at the time, had double the population they were designed to contain.

Now, in 2011, because of that overcrowding, the US Supreme Court declared the California prison system in violation of the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. The plaintiffs in that suit were mentally, lawyers representing mentally ill people.

In the 42 years that I have sat on the trial and appellate bench of this state, one of the most astounding developments that I have experienced is the explosion of mental illness among, in the criminal justice system. Our prisons, our jails are inordinately full of people who should not be there really, who cannot be treated.

You cannot rehabilitate people in a carceral context. The leading criminologist of this state, in my opinion, the father of Assemblyman Matt Haney, his father, Craig Haney, has written on what happens to mentally ill people in our prisons and jails. The cruelty, the isolation that exacerbates illness, it doesn't solve it, even though there are attempts to do that.

What is the idea, the fear that Procunier had that the political reaction to sensational crimes would guide sentencing policy. That's what's happening here. That's the attempt of this bill. What this bill is going to do is to diminish the scope. The purpose of penal code Section 1001.36 is to get mentally ill people out of prisons, out of jails. The biggest mental institution in the United States is the Los Angeles County Jail. And this bill is going to limit the eligibility of people...

And I'm sorry to interject, if you can complete your thought, we do need to move.

Okay. I just want to say one other thing. The idea that a public defender has to prove that a person will not likely commit violence if he's treated in the community simply is not justified. These cases are extremely rare. The care that mental health court judges take to ensure that the diverted person doesn't injure others are colossal.

The monitoring that goes on, the use of GPS, the stay away orders that would hold a defendant in contempt of court if he visited the victim, those protections are colossal. And many mental health courts are excluding from diversion people charged with offenses other than those which are prescribed by the statute.

So that in Los Angeles mental health courts, for example, they will not divert people who have committed offenses who are eligible if there is a weapon, if there is a sex offense, if there is a DUI, so that the protections are there. Yes, this isn't perfect. Nothing is. Judges have to make these decisions. And the evidence. I just ask you all, if you have any doubt about this. Google the question, are predictions of dangerousness of an individual reliable. What you'll get is a colossal amount of mega studies showing that they're egregiously unreliable.

Thank you, your honor. Thank you for being here. Thank you for your comments. We'll now take any other members of the public in opposition to AB 46. If you can please state your name, organization, and position on the bill.

Good morning. My name is Norma Nelson. I live in District 8, and I really wanted to support...

Yes, you have name, organization, and position on the bill. We're not taking any other comments.

Well, I think my comments were important. But anyway...

I'm sorry, that's our, that's our Committee rules. So if you can just say are you in favor or against the bill?

I'm against the bill as it currently exists and request amendments on behalf of my brother, Donald Nelson.

Thank you. Okay, once again, if people can state their name, organization, and position on the bill.

Natasha Minsker, Smart Justice California. We are opposed to the new amendment that appeared for the first time this morning regarding the presumption. That said, we, out of great respect for the Assembly Member, we are not requesting a no vote today because the Assembly Member has committed to addressing our concerns as the bill moves forward. And we really greatly appreciate the work she has done on the bill so far. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Once again, anyone who is in opposition, please state your name, organization, and position on the bill.

Margo George on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association, opposed unless amended. Thank you to the Committee and the Committee staff, and thank you for the author for the commitment to work on the bill. Thank you.

Danica Rodarmel on behalf of the LA Public Defenders Union Local 148, Vera California, La Defensa, also still in opposition. But, again, echo all of my colleagues and all of the appreciation by the Committee staff and the Member and we hope to move to neutral. Thank you.

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

Simelia Rogers on behalf of Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in respectful opposition.

Ariana Montez on behalf of the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice in respectful opposition.

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

Good morning. Shivani Nishar on behalf of Initiate Justice in respectful opposition. Thank you to the Member for the continued work on the bill.

Good morning. Giuli Mello on behalf of Felony Murder Elimination Project. We oppose unless amended. Thank you.

Jim Lindburg, Friends Committee on Legislation of California, opposed.

My name is Roxana Gonzalez, sexual assault survivor, also extremely failed by Sac PD, in strong opposition.

Bernice Singh with All of Us or None in opposition.

Mark Isidro on behalf of the County of Los Angeles, respectfully opposed and look forward to to reviewing the amendments.

Keyan Bliss with Anti Police Terror Project and Decarcerate Sacramento in opposition.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else here in the Committee room who wishes to express opposition to Assembly Bill 46? If so, if you can please come forward and state your name, organization, position on the bill. Okay, seeing no other witnesses, bring it back to the Committee. Committee of one at this point. Other... Oh, Senator Perez. Hi, good morning. Are there any questions or comments from Members of the Committee? Senator Perez.

Yeah, certainly. A couple of things. One, I was, you know, taking time just to kind of better study and understand your bill. And I, you know, I was not here to hear from the support. So, you know, just in trying to understand I think the problem that you're laying, you're laying out here and pointing to, which is that diversion is over prescribed in cases, which is what I think your bill is suggesting. Would that be a correct assessment, Assembly Member?

Thank you, Senator. And I think, you know, opposition and I, we agree that work needs to be done on this. And if you heard our witness, Ms. Isa, kind of share her story. I believe in mental health diversion program. I think it truly works. I believe that there are a lot of people that would have benefited from mental health diversion program that served time in prison or in jail. I actually ran a nonprofit organization for over a decade working with those that were formerly incarcerated.

And some of them never should have been in there because if mental health diversion programs were there for them, they would have excelled, they would have benefited off of that. So I'm not here by any means to say that we need to scale back on mental health diversion program. What I'm saying is that we need to take a better look at it and make sure that judges are able to make that discretion.

In the case of Ms. Isa, where the individual then came back and reoffended and murdered an individual, those are where I think slips through the crack and makes mental health diversion programs look like a bad thing. And it absolutely is not. There are a lot of folks that have benefited off of it, and we don't want to take that away by any means at all.

Opposition and I spoke out there in the hallway, and we both agree that I took every amendment that opposition wanted, just that last part, which I found out at 8:55 that they were not in favor of that. And so my commitment is that we are going to walk out of here and figure out how to make this work so that we can all be neutral and we can vote on something that we all agree with.

And the, and the amendment that you're speaking to is changing the burden of proof that the prosecution must meet in order to overcome the presumption. Because we lowered the burden from clear and convincing evidence to preponderance of evidence, which I think kind of flipped back on what the Assembly Public Safety had originally recommended to you. Is that correct?

That's correct. So and I am glad you brought that up. Because in good faith I have, when opposition came forward with their suggestions in every Committee, I've taken it. And here I've done the same thing. And I got the information, thought this is what they wanted, and again found out that this isn't. And so my commitment is we would like to get it out of this Committee so that we can work on getting it into the next because we don't have much time left.

Okay, that's helpful. You know, I will say, and I'm just assessing how personal I want to get here. You know, for me, in my experience with the criminal justice system, I have seen the opposite in terms of diversion not being offered enough. And frankly have seen and experienced many cases where I think there would have been huge benefits had it been offered. Over 10 years ago, the person who I consider the most important person in the world to me almost had their life taken by somebody else that I knew very closely.

And that happened when that person was experiencing a mental health episode that was drug induced. And going through that experience and the frustration and the hurt when you have someone do something like that to someone you love so deeply, it is life changing.

And it took a very long time for me to process, I think, the rage that I felt in that situation, but also coming to terms with the fact and realizing that this person that had also tried to commit this very heinous act, that I knew them, I knew things about them.

I knew that they would benefit from a diversion program. I knew that, had they gotten resources sooner, that this event may have not had happened and that maybe we could have avoided this very traumatic event altogether. And that was a very hard thing to come to terms with after many, many years of therapy.

And so I think I understand what you're saying just in terms of we do have these cases where folks do recommit, but I think I've also seen and heard incredible stories where people have benefited from diversion programs and we've seen recidivism rates drop and crimes be prevented. And that's ultimately what we want.

Ultimately, what I want is to see the harm never happen, and that's something that's really important to me. So I personally, I'm going to be laying off the bill because this is something that I think inherently like, I'm very... I have questions about the problem. And I think overall, like, need just data and a better understanding of the issue I think that's being pointed to here.

I understand too the presumption issue that I think that you also want to work on as well and appreciate that you've been working with the opposition, which I think is really important too, and very critical. But for me personally, just in my experience, it is that diversion is not something that I've often seen offered to members of my community when it really would have benefited.

Senator, thank you for sharing. And if I may, I mentioned earlier, I worked with many individuals who had a mental health disorder. And as you had said, over 10 years ago, you're right. If this was offered decades ago, there are so many people that would have avoided being incarcerated and they would have had a life. They would have done so much better. Right.

But what's happening now is this program is, while it's wonderful, and I believe that there are so many people that qualify for it, there are a few people that fall through the cracks, and those are the ones that I think we need to scale back on, not the ones that deserve it. I want to make sure this program sticks around.

And I think unless we take a look at it and we tighten it a little bit more to make sure that those that deserve it get it instead of the ones that do things like what had happened to Ms. Isa here, you're going to see other Members come back here again and again and again.

And so what we're trying to do is fix the problem now while it's still fresh, while it's still here, rather than let it get to a place where you've got the public saying this is a bad thing. This is not a bad thing. Not at all. I'm a big, big supporter of wraparound services. I'm a big, big supporter of working with those individuals that were incarcerated and getting them out and getting them into a life. I did that for many years and it was the best part of my job.

And that's why this is so important to me, because I don't want a good thing to be seen as a bad thing by any means. And that's why I've been willing to work with opposition and that opposition also agrees that we need to take a look at this. But I respect it. Thank you for sharing the story. And, you know, hopefully if this makes it out of the Committee and makes it to the floor, I hope that we can change oyur mind and get your vote on this.

Be happy to have further discussions on this, and appreciate you being open minded and even having discussions, I think, with the folks that are, have raised concerns. So I appreciate the work that you've done here, Assembly Member.

Thank you very much, Senator. Senator Gonzalez, we're discussing AB 46. Do you have any questions or comments?

I really just want to align my comments with Senator Perez, as we both represent Los Angeles County. And I certainly hear the testimony from both sides and certainly understand the reasoning on why you would want to bring this forward. I do believe in diversion though. I really do.

And I know that you'd mentioned, you know, there's some folks that might slip through the cracks. True. But I think when I've spoken to law enforcement and to some of my, you know, home prosecutors and Superior Court judges back home, they have helped shape the lives of thousands of folks.

And I know Los Angeles County isn't exactly Sacramento and it's not like other counties, but I do feel that there is a richness and a real righteousness about these programs. I would still like to work with you. I know you will be working with the Smart Justice, who have gone neutral, which is good. And I know you will continue to work on this. I know your life's work has been in this space. So I will lay off today, but I would like to continue working with you on this really important topic.

Okay. Thank you very much. I appreciate the work you've done with myself and Committee staff over the past several weeks. Just for the record, I expressed concerns to the Assembly Member about making it more difficult for people to be referred to diversion.

And just speaking about the experience in my county, Alameda County, we're under a federal consent decree in our county jail because of the abysmal job that our county sheriff has done in providing mental health treatment for people that are in our county jail.

And we're, as the Justice had said, we're seeing an increased number of people who are significant behavioral health issues who are in our jails because we don't have enough mental health treatment. We don't have enough mental health beds. We're trying to change that through Proposition 1 through increasing the capacity of beds and services.

I will also just make an editorial comment. I think Prop 36 is moving us in the other direction. But I do understand the concerns that you've expressed that there are cases where people are, after they have been arrested or going through the criminal process, allege that they have a mental health disorder.

And there have been some, you know, really unfortunate cases of murders and other serious crimes that have impacted people in California as well. I think we need to have a balance. I don't want to see us roll back on making sure that people can get connected to mental health diversion I think is absolutely critical.

I think it's going to save the state more money long term than spending money incarcerating people. I appreciate the work you've done to hear the concerns of opposition, the amendments that you've worked with the Committee to take, and the ongoing work that you'll do as well in meeting with opposition.

On that basis, I will be voting for your bill today, and I appreciate the work that you've done and bring this bill forward. Vice Chair Seyarto, we're discussing AB 46 on diversion. Do you have any comments? Okay, with that I'll turn it over to you, Assembly Member, to close.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for your words. And thank you to both the Senators. I think you've seen, you know, if you've not already heard and seen, I am willing to work. I am willing to listen to opposition and figure out how we can get to neutral, and I am committed to doing that and making sure that we can get everybody in a space where we feel comfortable with this. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. Okay, we do have a quorum, so I will ask the Committee Assistant to please call the roll. And thank you, witnesses, for joining us today.

[Roll Call]

Okay. And I will entertain a motion on AB 46, Nguyen. Is there a motion? Okay, moved by Seyarto. The Committee Assistant could please call the roll.

AB 46, Nguyen, motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations. [Roll Call]

Keep that bill on call. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Senators.

Thank you. Okay, we're now going to go to file item 14, AB 938, by Assembly Member Bonta, and then we'll go to the bills by Assembly Member Bryan after. And Assembly Member, I'll turn over you to present on AB 938.

Good morning, Chair and Committee Members. I would like to express my deep appreciation to your Committee staff for their time working on this Bill. And I also respectfully accept the Committee amendments that exclude murder convictions from being eligible for vacature, with the exception of felony murder.

I authored AB 938, the Survivors Act of 2025 because of the consistent calls from organizations and survivors themselves who expressed the critical need for expanded legal remedies, protections, and resources for survivors of violence and exploitation. AB 938 is fundamentally about listening to survivors and ensuring our justice system does the same.

It recognizes that many individuals who have been arrested or incarcerated are not simply offenders, but survivors of profound violence and exploitation. We cannot claim to value public safety while simultaneously criminalizing the very individuals who most urgently need protection. AB 938 acknowledges the realities of trauma and offers survivors a path towards justice and healing, rather than continued harm.

AB 938 expands legal protections and vacature relief for survivors of human trafficking, intimate partner violence, and sexual violence, by allowing survivors to present their experiences of abuse as affirmative defense, expanding access to vacature relief so survivors can petition to vacate convictions resulting from abuse and victimization, thereby removing significant barriers to housing, employment, and other essential resources.

I want to be clear when I say this, there must be judicial review when petitioning for vacature. The petition is evaluated on its individual merits and directly tied to the survivor's victimization. Survivors deserve our compassion, not further incarceration. Historically, the criminal justice system has disproportionately penalized individuals for adopting survival strategies in response to severe abuse and exploitation.

This legislation represents a commitment to protecting women, women of color. Particularly, Black and Latina survivors are disproportionately impacted by the criminalization of their actions taken while being harmed, coerced, and threatened and violated. California wouldn't be alone. Georgia, Louisiana, Nebraska, Wyoming, and New York all allow vacature for survivors of all offenses.

Oklahoma, South Carolina, Wisconsin, and Wyoming allow for an affirmative defense for survivors for all offenses. Many of these laws passed with bipartisan authorship and support. A national survivor conducted survey conducted by the Polaris Institute showed US a grim reality—90% of human trafficking victims are criminalized while being trafficked.

This Bill is proudly sponsored and supported by survivor advocacy organizations, public defenders, trauma informed legal scholars, and leaders in restorative justice. With me today to testify is Jamie Beck, a Vacature Attorney and human trafficking and domestic violence expert. And Susan Bustamante, which I'm very honored that you are here, a courageous survivor who will share her personal experiences with criminalization directly linked to her victimization.

Thank you very much. Before I go to our witnesses, I just want to summarize the Committee amendments that the author has accepted. The Committee amendments make vacature relief inapplicable to a conviction of murder, except felony murder.

In order to align the relief with the affirmative defense, which is not applied to murder, vacature relief would still apply to vacate and arrest for murder where there is no conviction and if it's in the interest of justice.

So, just want to just summarize that amendment for the Committee and for the public and I'll turn over you to present. You have two minutes.

Thank you. Chair, Members, and Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Jamie Beck and I'm an Attorney and Expert Witness. For over a decade, I have had the honor of working with hundreds of survivors of abuse, assault, and human trafficking, who were criminalized.

While each survivor's story is unique, the patterns among their cases are painfully familiar. Most endured childhoods marked by physical and sexual violence and abuse and other traumas. They were targeted by abusers and traffickers who exploited their vulnerabilities. The majority are women, non-binary, and Trans individuals.

75% of the survivors I've worked with are women of color, bearing the weight not just of trauma, but of systemic racism and gender based violence. Men are also victims of these crimes, particularly men in the LGBTQ community.

Traffickers and abusers often force their victims to commit their crimes to avoid liability themselves, and then use those very crimes to further control, exploit, and isolate their victims, making it even harder for them to escape or seek help.

Since California's vacature law was enacted in 2017, I've seen both the lifechanging impact of this relief and the severe limitations of this law. Too many survivors whose cases do not fit into the narrow confines of the current law are left with criminal records for conduct that was a direct result of their victimization and their exploitation.

Their records prevent them from finding housing, employment, or healing. Opponents argued that this Bill would protect rapists, child abusers, and murderers. That is simply incorrect. This Bill protects crime victims, many of whom were raped, abused, trafficked, or nearly killed by their perpetrators.

The circumstances surrounding their criminal charges occurred in the context of severe trauma, coercion, or self defense. Moreover, due to the recent amendments, survivors convicted of murder are unable to access this relief. Opponents of the Bill also raise public safety concerns.

But I will tell you, the greatest risk to public safety is a system that criminalizes trauma and punishes people for the violence they've endured, as we heard a lot about on the last Bill. When survivors receive care and support, they don't reoffend. They heal. They rise. They give back.

Survivors deserve justice and AB 938 would give them a path towards justice. For all of these reasons, I urge this Committee to vote aye. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Hi, good morning.

Thank you very much. Thank you very much for having me here. My name is Susan Bustamante. I was raised in the Hispanic culture of what happens in the household days in the household. At the age of 12, my father started molesting me and it continued to the age of 18. I finally told my brother about the abuse.

He said, don't worry, sis, I'll take care of it. When he came back, he said, go home. He'll never touch you again. And he never did. I, at 19, I met Steven, my husband. When we met, I didn't know he was a Vietnam vet or that he was raised in domestic violence household.

The first time he hurt me, my husband dragged me in the bathroom and threw me around. He kept me isolated from my family and only allowed me out of the house twice a year, for Christmas and my birthday. In the six years I was married, he threatened to kill my sister and my mom and said how they would have an accident.

It was torturous. When he brought me close to death several times, I truly believed his words. I had no doubt that he would—that they would—have an accident. When I was pregnant with my first daughter, he literally dragged me through the house.

He was constantly hitting me. He would have flashbacks to Vietnam. I would wake up with him choking me. I had permanent damage in my neck from all the beatings. In 1980, I became pregnant again. He forced me to have an abortion. That was my turning point. I wanted him out of my life, but he threatened to kidnap my daughters if I ever left.

So, I reached out to my brother once again. And again, he told me, don't worry, sis, I'll take care of it. The idea that he would kill him never occurred to me. Later, he called me and said Steven was dead.

He threatened to call the police and say I planned it. He blackmailed me for Steven's insurance. I was afraid of having my daughters taken from me, so I gave in at 24 years old. A few years later, my brother died and somebody who knew told the detective that I killed Steven.

When I went to trial, nothing was allowed about the molestation, nothing about the domestic violence. Any time I tried to say anything, it was struck from court record. After three days for picking the jury, two day trial, three day deliberation, I went to prison for life without the possibility of parole.

I had no words; I had no voice. I couldn't say anything for them to understand what I lived through for 13 years of my life, consecutive. So, at 32 years old, I had never been in trouble. I was sentenced to die in prison. My daughters were 8 and 11.

I missed their weddings, the births of the children, my grandchildren's lost their parents and my sister while I was in prison three decades. If AB 14, 19—if AB 938—was law then, I would have been able to share my story.

Maybe I would have been able to access affirmative defense or get a different sentence, or maybe it would have turned out the same, but I would have been able to speak my words, to share what happened to me and what happened to my husband.

Thankfully, I was granted clemency in 2017, went to the parole board and came home in 2018. I am a survivor of domestic violence, a survivor of child molestation, and a survivor of the California prison system, which was, as you were speaking earlier, it's horrific.

And I'm an advocate for victims and survivors who should have the chance at least to tell their stories in court. I am here in strong support of this Bill. Thank you very much.

Thank you so much for being here today and for your courage in telling your story, which I think so clearly illustrates why this Bill is important. So, thank you so much. And with that, we'll take any other members of the public who wish to express support for AB 938. Please state your name, organization, position on the Bill.

Natasha Minskr, Smart Justice California, in strong support.

Leela Chappelle, Coalition to Abolish Slavery and Trafficking, proud co-sponsor, strong support.

Capri Walker, with Californians for Safety and Justice and Crime Survivors with Safety and Justice, proud co-sponsor, in support.

April Grayson, Sister Warriors Freedom Coalition, Member of the Justice for Survivors Coalition, in strong support of this bill.

Claudia Gonzalez, on behalf of...California, in strong support.

Faith Conley with the Wideman Group, on behalf of Valor, in support.

Samelia Rogers, on behalf of Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, in strong support.

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

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

Danica Rodarmel, on behalf of La Defensa, in support.

Shivani Nishar, on behalf of Initiate Justice, in support.

Narlene Campos, with Silicon Valley Debug, in support.

Cecilia Chavez, on behalf of Silicon Valley Debug, in strong support.

Alicia Chavez, on behalf of Silicon Valley Debug, in strong support.

Keon Bliss, on behalf of Anti Police Terror Project, in strong support.

Roxanna Gonzalez in strong support.

Bernie Singh, with All of Us or None, in strong support.

Joanne Shear, Felony Murder Elimination Project, proud co-sponsor of this Bill. In strong support.

Raj Jadev, on behalf of Silicon Valley Debug, in strong support.

Lourdes Best, with Silicon Valley Debug, in strong support.

Andrew Bigelow, on behalf of Silicon Valley Debug, in strong support.

Damaris Britain, Silicon Valley Debug, strong support. Thank you.

Dwayne Hyman, Silicon Valley Debug, with strong support.

Chris Larson, strong support.

Glenn Bacchus, Drug Policy Alliance, in support.

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

Thank you, everyone, for your testimony. We'll now take up to two principal witnesses in opposition to AB 938 and you'll have two minutes to address the Committee on the Bill.

Good morning everyone. Bradley Morrow, on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association, in respectful opposition. I want to start by saying I've been a prosecutor for the last 13 years. I've handled domestic violence cases, child sex assault cases. My heart goes out to all the people who have been victimized by these crimes.

But I do want to say that CDA is opposed and respectfully opposed to the proposed legislation as because it's expanding current law in too broad a fashion. It allows relief for all crimes with the exception just mentioned by the chairperson, when previous law also excluded violent crimes.

And that is when one of the primary reasons why CDAA is in opposition of this, there are people who are being victimized by the target population of this bill. And another issue with that is that victim restitution orders will also be vacated upon relief that's requested by this bill being granted.

However, the victims can still get services from CalVCBA. We know what the status of the budget situation is here in California, and eliminating direct victim restitution is also a problem with the bill that CDAA has. And with that, I would conclude my opposition. Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Ryan Sherman with the Riverside Sheriff Association, California Narcotic Officers Association, and the other law enforcement groups listed in the analysis in respectful opposition to AB938. As was stated, current law limits vacatur relief to a person who was arrested or convicted of a non-violent offense.

Regrettably, AB938 dramatically expands this limited relief to include all violent offenders except murder and does so without including any requirement that the relief be based on what's the best interest of public safety. Proponents claim that the bill seeks to protect survivors of violent crimes while ignoring the violent crimes these survivors perpetrated against innocent victims.

I would like to take a minute to recognize and thank the author, however, for her willingness to meet throughout this process and for the amendments taken to date which make the bill much better in the eyes of our members.

However, because we are philosophically opposed to expanding vacatur statute to include violent offenders, we remain respectfully opposed to AB937. Thank you. 938.

Thank you very much. Are there any other members of the public wishing to express opposition to AB938? Please state your name, organization, position on the bill.

Chair members, Jonathan Feldman with the California Police Chiefs Association, also acknowledge the work that the author, her staff, and sponsors have done on the bill, but remain opposed.

Thank you. Anyone else wishing to express opposition AB938? Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the committee and ask are there any questions or comments from members of the committee? Okay, if not, I'll turn it back over to the author to close.

Oh, sorry, Senator Perez. Sorry.

Yeah, so sorry. I didn't, I didn't realize. No, I just, I just wanted to take a moment to just thank you for being here and sharing your story so powerfully.

I was gonna.

I know that, you know, doing so, especially in this setting is, you know, probably a little overwhelming and so just appreciate you being here and it's, it's incredibly powerful to hear directly from you and I hope that you take a lot of pride in what you've been able to do today because this legislation will have impacts on so many other.

Other folks who I'm sure have stories just like yours, but aren't here today. So, thank you.

Motion by Senator Gonzalez. Any other questions or comments from members of the committee? Okay, now I'll turn back over to assemblymember to close.

Thank you, Senator. And thank you, Senator Perez, for your comments.

I want to thank, also thank Ms. Bustamante for coming forward and for even the people who offered me toos who often have to kind of tap into the pain and violation in order to be able to tell their story, so that we can look at policy from a lens of, that is survivor-centered.

That is what this policy intends to do. It focuses on making sure that we are focused on rehabilitation and justice, and that we are approaching our criminal legal system with an eye towards being survivor-centered. I just want to just quickly address some of the concerns of the opposition raised.

Yes, restitution orders are directly tied to, in this instance, vacated convictions. It is the case that the supreme court in Nelson v. Colorado essentially had held that any fees, fines, and surcharges collected must be returned to an individual once their conviction is vacated or they are exonerated.

So this policy essentially follows that case law established by the supreme court. And as was indicated by the opposition, there is still an opportunity for a victim to be able to be entitled to support. From the California Victims' Compensation Board. I also want to address the issue of the standard that is used here.

There is an ability for the court to be able to consider the interest of justice in the court review process.

So I think on those two elements we've addressed in this policy, a way to be able to move forward with balanced legislation that matches, again, legislation that already exists in Georgia, Louisiana, Nebraska, Wyoming, and New York, which applies to survivors of all offenses, both nonviolent and violent.

So, just in this instance, California would be following the lead of states that are typically considered to be considerably more conservative than we are in that victimization is complex.

It requires us to be able to understand, particularly for those who have been sex trafficked, are experiencing intimate partner violence or sexual violence, the totality of that experience and the actions that individuals need to take in order to be able to survive while they are under, under duress, in doing so.

I want to thank the many sponsors of this bill and supporters of this bill, and quite frankly, the opposition, law enforcement, and prosecutors who have been able to make sure that this is a balanced representation of what California should be doing right now in this moment. With that, I respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you very much. We have a motion by Senator Gonzalez. If the committee assistant will please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay, we'll keep that bell on call. Thank you for joining us today. Thank you, Assemblymember. Before we go to assembler Brian, I would like to move to the consent calendar very briefly.

Consent consists of file item 6, AB 1210, Lackey file item 13, AB 922, Hoover file item 16, AB 1087, Patterson, and file item 17, AB 1134, baines. Would any Member like to pull an item from consent or entertain a motion on consent moved by Senator Perez? Thank you. If the Committee assistant please call the.

[Roll Call]

Okay, we'll keep the consent calendar on call and assembler. Bryan, I will turn over to you to present on your two bills. Which one would you like to start with? Okay, we'll move to file him to AB247 and I'll turn over your Assembly Member to present. If there are any witnesses, you're welcome to join us here at the table. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and colleagues. Yesterday was the six month anniversary to the date of the wildfires in Los Angeles County breaking out. And during those wildfires, which are two of the three most destructive wildfires in California history, like every wildfire, we had thousands of incarcerated firefighters who were on the fire lines.

The conservation camps in California for incarcerated firefighters have existed for nearly 100 years. They have fought more wildfires than we could possibly count. And to date they are paid for that service. But they are paid merely a dollar an hour, sometimes five to $10 a day, working grueling, back breaking, 24 hour shifts.

A 2018 report discovered that incarcerated hand crew members were more than eight times more likely to be injured after inhaling smoke and particulate matter compared to professional firefighters because of where and how they worked during these disasters.

Additionally, they were four times more likely to experience object induced injuries such as cuts, bruises, dislocations and fractures compared to professional firefighters working on the exact same fires. In some cases, because we know their work is dangerous, it is also fatal.

From early 2017 to late 2018, just one year, three incarcerated hand crew members died fighting to protect Californians, to protect lives, to protect property, and to put their lives on the line in service of others. This year, like we do every year when they save us from disasters, we thanked them.

In fact, we brought them to the assembly floor for the first time ever. We took a delegation, including my colleague, from Murrieta to Pine Grove to meet with some of the incarcerated hand crew members who helped save communities across Los Angeles.

But what we've never done until this point is discuss what dignity, respect and fair compensation can and should look like. I don't believe anybody who puts their life on the line in service of others should make less than the federal minimum wage.

In fact, the California Assembly, in a bipartisan fashion, agrees with me that nobody who puts their life on the line in the service of others should earn less than the federal minimum wage. And that is what AB 247 does. It sets a new wage standard for incarcerated hand crew members who fight on the fire lines every fire season.

It's about dignity, respect and fair compensation. Joining me today to testify are Shivani Nishar with Initiate Justice and Tyreek Shipp with the Anti Recidivism Coalition.

Thank you very much. You each have two minutes to present on the bill. Good morning.

Good morning, chair and members of the committee. My name is Shivani Nishar and I'm the policy associate with the Initiate Justice. As proud co sponsors, I'm here to voice our strong support of AB 247, a bill that represents a vital step toward justice, safety and resilience in the face of a worsening climate crisis.

This bill will raise the hourly wages of incarcerated people who are risking their lives to fight California's wildfires to $7.25 an hour while actively fighting a fire compensation that begins to reflect the magnitude of their service and their sacrifice. We are living through a time of accelerating climate catastrophe.

Eight of the 10 warmest years on record in California occurred in the last decade. In 2020, over 190,000 acres burned in a single wildfire. Earlier this year, Governor Newsom declared a State of emergency as the second and third most destructive fires ravaged Los Angeles. We are seeing more deaths, more destruction, and more danger.

Amid this, we rely heavily on a firefighting force that includes incarcerated Californians. Incarcerated firefighters make up a critical part of our fire response system. There are currently 35 conservation or fire camps across the state. Yet the incarcerated heroes filling these roles remain woefully underpaid, earning as little as $5 a day.

This is not just inequitable, it is exploitative. The work these incarcerated firefighters perform is dangerous and grueling. As the assemblymember mentioned. According to research, they are 8 times more likely to suffer smoke related injuries and 4 times more likely to sustain physical injuries than their non incarcerated colleagues.

In the past few years, several incarcerated firefighters have lost their lives in the line of duty. And yet we continue to compensate them unfairly while they protect our homes, our forests, and our communities. As California leads the nation in climate policy, we must also lead in moral clarity.

AB 247 is a matter of equity, public safety, and most importantly, it is a matter of basic human decency. I respectfully urge this Committee to support AB 247 and honor the humanity, labor and courage of those on the front lines of California's climate disasters, no matter where they sleep at night. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Good morning. You have two minutes to present the bill.

Good morning, members of the Senate Public Safety Committee. My name is Tyreek Shipp, but I'm here to center a voice of a young person who couldn't be here because of matters beyond their control. So I'll read their testimony. Here it is. Good morning, members of the Senate Public Safety Committee. My name is Isaiah Nazari.

I'm a formerly incarcerated youth who participated in the Fire Camp program at Growlersburg, number 33. I came home in October 2024, and I'm a proud member of the Anti Recidivism Coalition. I'm here today to express my strong support for AB 247. During my time at Growlersburg, I was sent to real fires that put lives and communities at risk.

I wore the same equipment and took the same risk as any other firefighters, but I was paid just a few dollars a day. The experience gave me purpose, structure, and discipline, and I carry those lessons with me today. But it also showed me how a state can benefit from your labor without fully valuing your life.

I didn't fight fires for the money. I did it because I wanted to serve my community. But that doesn't mean I or others should not be valued. Since coming home, I've been working hard to rebuild my life. But I know many others are still in camps, risking everything and earning less than a few dollars per day.

AB 247 will ensure that when incarcerated, hand crews are on the front lines. They are paid $7.25 an hour for their work. It isn't just about compensation. It's about dignity and equity for people doing heroic work. All lives have values, regardless of incarceration status.

This bill makes sure California's emergency response system is not built on the backs of unpaid labor. In addition, it supports successful reentry by allowing individuals to come home with savings and pay any restitution owed. I urge you to support AB 247. I know what it's like to step up in a crisis and fight for fires for this state.

Incarcerated or not, equity should matter and people should be treated with fairness and respect. This bill sends the message that our contributions matter and our lives matter, too. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We'll now take any testimony from any members of the public. Also in support of AB 247, please state your name, organization, and position.

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

Claudia Gonzalez on behalf of VR California in strong support.

Danica Rodarma on behalf of La Defensa in strong support.

Natasha Minsker, Smart Justice California. Strong support.

Roxanna Gonzalez on behalf of Initiate Justice Action and a proud co sponsor in strong support.

Ariana Montez on behalf of the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice in support.

April Grayson, Sister Warrior Freedom Coalition in strong support.

Bernice Singh with All of Us or None in strong support.

Chris Larson, policy community organizing manager at ARC proud co sponsor in strong support. Also here on behalf of the Coalition for Adjusting, Eggleville, California. That's the Lineage Equity Advancement Project, the American Redress Coalition of California, Sacramento American Redress Coalition of California, Bay Area California, Black Lineage Society, all in strong support.

Julie Mellow, Felony Motor Elimination Project in strong support.

Layla Alicon on behalf of the Michelson Center for Public Policy. In support.

Simelia Rogers on behalf of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in strong support. I've also been asked to read support for Prosecutors Alliance Action and Drug Policy Alliance. Thank you.

Savannah Jorgensen with the League of Women Voters of California in strong support.

JP Hanna with the California Nurses Association in strong support.

Jim Lindbergh, Friends Committee on Legislation in California. In support.

Mayra Baena with the Mesa Verde Group on behalf of Asian Americans Ambassador Injustice Southern California. In support.

Raj Jadev Silicon Valley Debug. In strong support.

Keon Bliss with Anti Police Terror Project. In support.

Susan Bustamante, California Women's- California Women's CCWP. Sorry, I'm still a little off. The California Women's anyway. In support.

Anthony Corletta, Norco Conservation Camp Crew 2 formerly incarcerated firefighter. In support.

Sheila Bates, on behalf of Black Lives Matter California, Black Lives Matter Grassroots and Black Lives Matter Los Angeles. In strong support.

Sheila Hines with Black Lives Matter Grassroots in strong support.

Lisa Hines, mother. Wakeisha Wilson, California resident in strong support.

Melina Abdullah, California Faculty Association. Strong support.

Dwayne Hyman, Silicon Valley Debug. Strong support.

Damaris Britain, Silicon Valley Debug. Strong support. Thank you.

Lourdes Best, with Silicon Valley Debug in strong support.

Deanna Siana Sullivan, strong support and Silicon Valley Debug.

Stephanie Luna, strong support.

Josh S. Strong support.

Madeline Martinez with Silicon Valley Debug in strong support.

Belen Martinez, Silicon Valley debug and I strongly support.

Naraly Campos with Silicon Valley Debug and strong support.

My name is Sam Sullivan. I strongly support this bill.

Alicia Chavez, on behalf of Silicon Valley Debug and support.

Regina Cardenas, I'm in strong support.

Karina Griswold, strong support. Silicon Valley Debug.

Cindy Nunez with United Families for Justice and strong support.

Melissa Miramontez, United Families for Justice and strong support.

Andrew Bigelow, Silicon Valley Debug, strong support.

George Paramtu, on behalf of ACLU California Action and strong support. Thank you.

Debrace Andrews, Cattle California. Strong support.

Ed little on behalf of Californians for Safety and justice and strong support.

Okay, thank you all for being here today and for your testimony. We'll take now up to two principal witnesses in opposition for two minutes each.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Corey Salzillo, on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association, in opposition to the Bill. We recognize the contribution made by inmate firefighters and in return for that service, something we really haven't talked about today, these inmates earn very generous early release credits that reduce their sentences.

Every day served in this role earns two additional days of credit, meaning that an inmate who serves in this capacity only serves one third of their sentence for the time they qualify.

The Bill is not so clear whether it will create fiscal pressure for counties who are already facing challenging budget times, that if counties, in the end, are determined to be responsible for this increased wage, they would be forced to consider that new cost when determining if and how to deploy inmate firefighters.

And there's no language in the Bill that says who pays the wage, irrespective of what current practices might be. And if it's a county, that probably will factor in a decision on whether or not they are able to deploy inmate firefighters. So, it's a little bit more complicated than just, should we pay somebody a wage?

They are already receiving compensation in different ways for the service and in recognition of that. We appreciate that, but we respectfully ask for your no vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to express opposition to AB 247? Seeing none. I'll bring it back to the Committee for any questions or comments. Senator Perez.

Well, one, want to thank the Assemblymember for bringing this forward, and I would love to coauthor this Bill. I had an opportunity to meet with many of the incarcerated firefighters that battled the Eaton Fire that happened in my district. And having an opportunity just to connect with them and meet with them was really incredible.

Actually, one of them was recently released and is moving on to become a firefighter. And we found out, my staff found out because he reached out to the office to let us know, which, you know, I think is really incredible. But recognizing the hard work that these folks do is, is just so, so, so, so important.

I, I think it's ridiculous that we don't even pay them the federal minimum wage just to begin with. It's pretty shocking to, to even realize that because it is very, very deadly work that they're doing out there fighting fires and we know that more of these major fires are happening all across the state.

I mean, we just, I don't even know if San Luis Obispo is still on fire right now, but I know just this past weekend we had, you know, we had over 9,000 acres that, that burned there. So, we know, they're working around the clock, and you know, their work is very meaningful to them.

You know, they've shared with me how life changing it is to be out there, to be called a hero. And I could tell you, members of my community were just so incredibly proud to read about the work that they were doing. So, this is such a righteous and important Bill and just really appreciate you bringing this forward.