Senate Standing Committee on Public Safety

The Senate Committee on Public Safety will begin in 30 seconds.

Good morning. I'd like to call to order the Tuesday, July 15, 2025 meeting of the Senate Committee on Public Safety. We do not have a quorum yet, so the Committee will operate as a Subcommitee until such time that we establish a quorum. And we will begin with our first Bill presentation filed in 1AB15 by Assembly Member Gibson.

I see the Assembly Member here. Good morning. Once we establish a quorum, we'll entertain a motion on the consent calendar. And Assembly Member will turn over you to present on AB15.

Thank you very much. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Senators, thank you for allowing me to present Assembly Bill 15, California's Homicide Families Rights Act. This Bill is a reintroduction of the exact version introduced last year, passed almost unanimously out of this Committee.

Assembly Bill 15 aims to create a procedure for families members, specifically designated persons for homicide victims, to request law enforcement conduct a review for open, unresolved homicide cases. If a review if a person. Excuse me, if a case is to reopen again, this case is to be reviewed by law enforcement. Unsolved gun.

Excuse me, unsolved cases for victims of gun violence. What this Bill simply does, it gives officers an opportunity to review a case if in fact particular case is to be reviewed. It gives law enforcement opportunity to hear from victims what I found in my particular community.

I represent impacted community where there's gun violence any given Friday or weekend where you have gun violence to take place and gun violence rang out, where victims have lost their lives. Victims of loved ones go to law enforcement and this is no shade on law enforcement. Victims go to law enforcement with evidence.

And sometimes these calls go unanswered time and time again. And it gets frustrating for family members when they have evidence to show precisely that can lead to cases to be open.

And there's no particular framework for law enforcement to use or family members to have some kind of comfort when they have evidence to show where in fact law enforcement can have cases to be reopened again, and sometimes law enforcement don't return people's phone calls because there's no framework. What this Bill seeks to do is provide a framework.

And sometimes when a cases being worked and worked, you need a fresh set of eyes in order for law enforcement to come in and provide, and this provides that particular kind of framework. California statewide case clearance rates. Homicides have been at under 65% for the last 10 years, meaning that over a third of homicide goes unsolved statewide.

The available data tells us consistent stories. California needs to do more to solve homicide cases, especially in impacted communities. Giving families often wants more information about status for their loved ones, but there's been no uniform particular race.

When I'm at home and I can't find my keys for hours, I'm looking for my particular keys and I ask for someone to show me or help me find my keys. My keys sometimes are right in front of me. I need a fresh set of eyes.

And when you have detectives looking who have been on a particular case, you need a fresh set of eyes. When you look for murder cases, you you need a fresh set of eyes. We need a framework. When loved ones provide information, we need a fresh set of eyes.

When you asking for information on the street and sometime information comes on the streets and we give information to detectives, we need a fresh set of eyes, we need a new framework. And this Bill provides the fresh set of eyes but also a framework.

And I realize and I've heard from also law enforcement and that sometime that you need not only a fresh set of eyes but also law enforcement are overworked. But last year this Bill also showed that a number of departments already have unsolved team coming in and also working these particular cases. And we applaud that.

But we want a uniform process throughout the State of California and here with me to provide supporting testimony and support of this particular Bill. We have individuals from youth alive and also I think moms demand actions here to support this Bill. AB15, I think it just arrived. I was trying to stall for time.

Thank you. If there are any witnesses who are speaking in support of AB15, if you can please join us here at the table. Assembly Member, you're accepting the Committee amendments?

I am accepting Committee amendment.

Thank you. Thank you and good morning. You have two minutes to address the Committee on AB15. Whoever like to begin.

Good morning. My name is Leticia Galvan, President of Luis G. Alvarez Jr. Rewards for Justice and a volunteer with Moms Demand Action. My son was shot and killed April 2, 2016. Crime stop, Crime Stoppers offered a reward of up to $1,000 which we really appreciated, but we didn't think that was enough.

In October 2016, we started Luis G. Alvarez Jr. Rewards for Justice. We are a 501 organization. Our mission is to raise funds and bring awareness to unsolved homicides in an effort to offer larger reward compensation with a hope that will encourage witnesses to come forward with information leading to the arrest and conviction of these criminals.

We have worked with local law enforcement, Crime Stoppers and the DA's office. We have put up five rewards in Lodi, one in Manteca, and we had put up a $10,000 reward for the mass shooting here in Sacramento. We are also working with out front billboards and putting up, excuse me, putting up billboards for unsolved homicides.

And most of them have higher rewards. I am here today to urge you to support AB15 because it's important for families and law enforcement to work together to solve these cases.

When a case goes cold or unsolved for three years, family members and homicide victims should have the right to request, to request that law enforcement conduct an unsolved homicide case file review to determine whether a full reinvestigation could result in new leads. AB15 creates that process in California. It would help families get answers and closures. Thank you.

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

Thank you. Good morning Chair and Members. My name is Janiesha Grisham. I am 25 years old and I am a violence prevention educator for Teens on Target at Youth Alive in Oakland, California. My role as a VPE is to give you space to discuss the impact of violence on them and their community.

Our goal is to teach them that their voices and their negative experiences should never hold them back. I actually had the privilege of being a youth leader for Teens on Target while I was a student at Castlemont High School in Oakland. Back then, T&T was a place where I could express myself freely without judgment.

The safe space that was provided was something I will never forget. It made me want to be the example that you can and should use your story to spark change within our communities. Which is why I am here today in support of AB15.

Prior to joining T&T, I had just tragically lost my brother Christopher on December 31, 2010. Unfortunately, my brother's killers were never caught. I am here today speaking out for the families who want and actively seek justice. Countless times I have heard mothers and siblings speak about how they just want answers for what happened to their loved ones.

Social media posts, counting up how many days it's been since an arrest was made or they were even updated on their loved one's case. The last time I told my story, I had been waiting 5,177 days for justice. That number is now 5,310.

These experiences that me and so many others in Oakland share is why I am in such support of this Bill. This Bill will give families a second chance at potentially, excuse me, getting answers, finding peace and justice. There is no harm in taking a second look at a case if it can give a loved one closure.

That's why I'm asking you to support this Bill, because of what it means for families like mine, families who were just looking for justice. Thank you.

Thank you so very much. Before we take me too testimony and support, I just want to summarize the amendments that the authors accepted for AB15.

They expand the applicability of the Bill to include all homicides, not just murders, strikes the language related to similarly situated persons, and includes domestic partners in the definition of immediate family members who may apply for a cold case file review. So now take me to testimony in support of AB15.

Please state your name, organization, position on the Bill.

Danica Rodarmel, delivering support on behalf of Smart Justice California.

Thank you.

Anita Razo, volunteer with Moms to Demand Action and founder of the DJ Geo Music is Life Arts and I support this Bill.

Mary Dupla, volunteer for Moms Demand Action and a gun violence survivor. I am asking you to support this Bill. It's very important.

Thank you very much.

Jillian King, volunteer with Moms Demand Action in support.

Louise Lopez, volunteer with Moms Demand Action and retired police dispatcher. I'm in support. Thank you.

Diana Honig, volunteer with Moms Demand Action in strong support. Thank you.

My name is Marci Colici, I'm with Moms Demand Action. I'm in support.

Dr. Joe Stricker, a volunteer with Moms Demand Action in support of the Bill.

Bridget Jacobowitz, volunteer with Moms Demand Action in support of the Bill.

Mr. Chair, Members Beverly Yu on behalf of Everytown for Gun Safety proud cosponsor and strong support. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Are there any other members of the public wishing to express support for AB15? Seeing no other members, will now take principal witnesses in opposition. And I'm assuming you're representing the California State Sheriff's Association, which is registered opposition to the Bill. If there are any other individuals with registered opposition to AB15, please come forward.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Corey Salzillo, on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association in opposition to the Bill. We certainly appreciate the desire to solve cold cases, especially unsolved murders, now homicides.

This Bill unfortunately creates a rigid process in statute with little room for flexibility to address the particular realities of any specific case or the investigating agency. It triggers what effectively would be an automatic review if an immediate family member files an application.

This moves these cases to the front of the line without regardless to available staff, fiscal resources and other law enforcement priorities, and it requires that that review be done in an exceedingly short period of time and designated persons could ask for this type of review every five years.

Compounding the challenges the Bill creates, we're glad the Committee has finally made some progress by deleting the undefined terms similarly situated person. We're concerned, though, that the Legislature is deciding what metrics should be used to decide what cases are relooked at and when the expansion to all homicides is significant.

And I want to take a little bit of issue and not to take anything away from family members or victims of these awful crimes, but we understand the frustration. And you know who's frustrated? Law enforcement's frustrated when they can't solve a case, when they don't have information.

So it's not that law enforcement doesn't care or doesn't want to solve these crimes. And, you know, cold cases are not a simple matter that you've just misplaced something or that you don't know or you can't see evidence that's in front of you. These are very significant matters.

As the author said, many law enforcement agencies have designated cold case units that are set up to review these types of cases. Some have detectives that their sole job is to look at cold cases.

And this Bill puts an untenable and rigid process and attempts to bolt it on what law enforcement agencies are already trying to do to resolve unsolved cases. So for these reasons, respectfully, we ask for your no vote.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to express opposition to 815? If you'd like to please come forward to the microphone. State your name, organization, position of the Bill. Okay. Seeing no one else wishing to express opposition, I'll bring it back to the Committee for discussion. Yes, Vice Chair Seyarto.

Be happy to have a little discussion on this. You know, I've talked to a lot of law enforcement over the years. I came from a very high, I worked in a very high crime area where we had a high incidence.

In fact, the area I worked in had one of the highest incidents of homicide in the US per capita. And, you know, these cold cases are cold for a reason. And a lot of times the reason is because nobody will cooperate. You need people to cooperate. Solving murder crimes or any other crime is a dual responsibility.

It's a dual responsibility from the people that were involved that know something and in law enforcement, being able to tap into that knowledge and build a case so that they can hold people who commit these types of crimes responsible and the poor people that are left in the lurch because of this lack of cooperation and.

And the inability to address it are the victims, the families who are left behind, especially for these. A lot of these murders. In the case where I was working, we had a lot of gang crimes.

And I would understand that if we went on a homicide involving a gang member, that pretty soon, within the next two days, we'd be going on one for the opposite gang member, and because nobody would talk, nobody would be able to get those guys off the street.

And when they did get off the street, then we would face criticism because there's too many people going to jail. So we have all these conflicting wishes by everybody.

We want to solve crimes, but we're going to fight against new technology that allows police to follow up and actually narrow down and catch people regardless of where there is a witness or not. We're trying to get rid of that technology or try to limit it greatly.

One of the bills was the vehicle license plate recognition, and if it goes more than 30 days, they think it should be expunged. Well, these cases last more than 30 days.

So how are we supposed to solve crimes and bring crime victims their justice, the families their justice, if we're going to keep fighting against the very things that the police, the tools the police need in order to overcome the lack of cooperation that often accompanies these types of crimes? So, you know, that's my dilemma.

And then some of the points that were made in real life. Yeah. If you're going to continue to try to open up and reopen up case files, you're going to have people that talk, people that will that were witnesses come forward.

And in fact, the longer it goes, the less chance you're going to have of witnesses, because especially in the cases that I was exposed to, a lot of times the witnesses are no longer there anymore after five years because they've also joined the ranks of being unsolved murders. These can be solved, but we need cooperation from people.

And without that, I don't know that a lot of this type of legislation is going to overcome that. The other homicides are usually, a lot of times the ones where they do have cooperation, in my experience, they get solved within days. And this legislation is not needed for those.

So, you know, with that, you know, part of me wants to support it because I obviously want to support what family members think is going to bring them justice. But at the same time, it's difficult for me to support things that I don't feel like are going to be successful. Should we give it a chance?

I don't know. Are we hampering other investigations while we keep trying to find this justice that's not going to come because we don't have the tools to do it or we're not being allowed or we're not allowing our law enforcement to have the tools. I don't know.

So it's a tough position for me because I've seen firsthand the, the frustration on everybody's behalf. You know, frankly, as a medic, I got tired of going on calls where I see a person one day I'm talking to some of the.

Because I would interact with a lot of people on the street, and then three days later I'm on another person that I just interacted with. I get sick and tired of that. And nobody would help solve these problems or stop the problem because that was the culture is we'll take care of it ourselves.

And when you do that, we wind up with more dead people. So I'm struggling with this one. I really am, and so I will wait until voting time to decide what I'm going to do. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Assembly Gibson, for bringing this Bill forward and for the amendments which expand the applicability of this to include all homicides.

I do understand the resource concerns, but if this can, you know, ensure that cold cases where there is relevant evidence that can be considered to finally bring justice to families and to help solve these crimes, that that can proceed. I support this. This has a do pass as amended recommendation. I turn over you to close.

Thank you very much. And I want to just to speak to Senator Seyartos comments. I'm frustrated as well. I'm frustrated that people should step up when you see something, say something. And not enough people are saying something when they see something. And I do hear the opposition.

We do believe that there's a lot of law enforcement that do care and they do get frustrated in their jobs. Excuse me, in their jobs. And we don't think that a lot of law enforcement just throw up their hands and don't care.

But we do need more people to stand up who do, in fact, see something and say something. I belong to a number of organizations just for murdered children, parents for murdered children. That, but I also understand the frustration of parents who have to fight, bid final farewell to their children who are victims of homicide.

Each and every day we see it on the news of children and loved ones, husbands and wives being at the wrong place at the wrong time. There's nothing frustrating then at every birthday at Christmas time, where there's an empty chair, where there's a Christmas tree being placed on someone's grave.

And you're going to law enforcement and trying to provide information and not getting a phone call back with significant evidence that could lead to a person, a perpetrator being brought to justice and that information not being followed up on. And this AB15 is a thoughtful way of trying to provide a framework.

And we applaud the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department. We applaud Riverside Sheriff's Department who have the mechanisms put in place to address cold cases cases, to put fresh set of eyes on those cold cases, to put law enforcement in to interchange detectives and move detectives in and out, to put new, fresh set of eyes on cases.

When officers who have put time in and put new, fresh set of eyes in on cases and resolve on cold cases, we applaud those. But not every Department have those fresh set of eyes in those particular situations. In California, we want to provide these kinds of frameworks so loved ones won't feel that their calls are going unanswered.

We want to make sure that loved ones feel respected. We want to make sure that loved ones feel valued when they provide information, when they hear information on the streets. We want to make sure that loved ones feel that their ears are on the ground, that they're taking significant information and turning over to law enforcement.

And law enforcement is working that information so they can provide justice, so that they can also feel peace at night, so they can feel that, you know, that the person or the perpetrator is being brought to justice. And so they can truly feel that they're bringing closure to the pain that they're feeling.

That that's what they want to feel. That's what they want to feel. I respectfully ask for aye vote at the proper time.

Thank you very much. Assembly Member. Thank you very much to our our two witnesses and support for being here. I'm so sorry for your terrible loss. And I appreciate the courage of you being here and talking about what you've endured and why this Bill is important to provide justice not just for you, but for other families in California.

So, and thank you to our witness in opposition as well. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, I see Assembly Member Ta here. So as we transition to the next Bill, we don't have a quorum yet, so we're meeting as a Subcommitee. So we'll now move to File item 2 AB327 by Assembly Member Ta, and Assembly Member, good morning.

Whenever you're ready, you may present.

Good morning, honorable Chair and Senator of the Committee. I'm here to present AB 327, a Bill that will protect innocent victims from the rising trend of swatting. I want to begin by thanking the Committee staff and the Chair for their cooperation on this Bill. I am happy to accept the Committee amendment.

This amendment will clarify that this Bill only applies if an emergency response happens because of an intentional false report. Swatting is when someone makes a false claim of an emergency in order to incite a massive law enforcement response.

This often result in SWAT team being sent to a location thinking that there is a threat, active shooter, or hostage situation. Facing the possibility of a bomb on an active shooter, first responder may break down door and enter with weapons drawn as innocent people are put directly in harm's way.

School across our state has been shut down because of this serious crime. According to the Educator School Safety Network, Swatting accounts for 63.8% of all violent incidents in school and has increased 546% from 2018 to 2023. AB 327 will address this serious crime by making swatting a...

Depending on the circumstances, AB 327 will also ensure that victims are compensated for any property damage, such as destruction of their front door during emergency responses. This Bill will only apply to adult repeat offenders. I am honored to introduce my witnesses.

Matty Hyatt, from California Civil Liberties Advocacy, and Nick Bishop, a subject matter expert, wrote his postgraduate thesis on how widespread this crime is.

Before we go to our witnesses, once again, the Committee amendments make the increased punishment for a second or subsequent swatting offense applicable to cases in which the conduct results in an unnecessary emergency response, meaning it impacts or impedes emergency response. And I'll turn over to you to present for two minutes.

Good morning, Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Matty Hyatt. I am here on behalf of California Civil Liberties Advocacy sponsoring AB 327. Swatting isn't a prank. It's an abuse of emergency services that endangers lives, violates constitutional rights, and cost taxpayers in California tens of thousands of dollars per incident.

When law enforcement is sent to a home based on a false report, they often arrive with weapons drawn and they enter without a warrant and conduct a search under the Plain View Doctrine. That's a fourth amendment issue. And that's the reason we flagged this Bill and the reason we decided to sponsor it.

We'd like to see it passed. Just as an aside, our organization, we found our, CCLA, on several hit lists on both fringe left and right groups. So, this is not a partisan issue. Swatting has targeted people all across the political spectrum.

As I was saying, Mayor Michelle Wu on Christmas Day, Maine Secretary of State, Shena Bellows, in response to removing Donald Trump from the ballot. And then our own Lieutenant Governor, Eleni Kounalakis. Even this building was swatted last year, not once but twice. And we had the anthrax host and the bomb threat.

Given the shifting landscape of federal enforcement, particularly in light of signals from the Trump campaign and its allies suggesting pardons for individuals convicted in the January 6 Capitol Attack, there is a growing concern that federal accountability for politically motivated crimes, including swatting, may erode if individuals who commit acts of intimidation or public disruption are shielded from consequences at the federal level.

California must ensure it has its own legal infrastructure to respond swiftly and proportionately. AB 327 provides state level prosecutors with the discretion and tools they need to hold repeat swatting offenders accountable, regardless of what happens in Washington. We cannot rely on a federal system that may be undermined by political favoritism.

California must protect its residents, institutions, and public servants through laws it can enforce independently. Let's be clear, AB 327 doesn't target kids who make one dumb mistake. It's a measured response, applying felony liability only to repeat adult offenders. It still allows prosecutorial discretion and protects first time and juvenile defendants.

As a civil liberties organization, we support restorative justice, but this isn't a conflict between safety and rights. It's about protecting both. Swatting turns emergency services into weapons, and this Bill gives our courts the tools to respond proportionately. For all these reasons, we urge an aye vote.

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

Good morning, Chair and Committee Members. My name is Nicholas Bishop and I'm here to provide testimony in support of this Bill, based on my academic and professional experience. I hold a master's degree in Emergency Services Administration from California State Long Beach. As part of that program, I authored a thesis on recognizing and mitigating swatting incidents.

I've been employed as a Law Enforcement Dispatcher for over 11 years. Within that role, I also serve as a Training Officer, and I hold an Advanced Dispatching Certificate from California Peace Officers and Standards.

Assembly Bill 327 helps to address the growing problem of intentional false reports of an emergency, known as swatting, and the use of 911 as a system as a tool to annoy/harass another person. At its lowest level, swatting causes stress for responders and victims.

Swatting can and has led to an erosion and trust in law enforcement, increased public safety costs, property damage, injury, and death. The victims of false reports and harassment include targeted individuals, uninvolved third parties, businesses, churches, schools, and politicians. Public safety professionals are also direct and indirect victims of these incidents. A few examples of recent incidents are, in 2024, Bay Area high schools were targeted by a person falsely reporting there was someone outside the school with a rifle.

In May of this year, a college and a children's hospital in Southern California were the targets of false reports. This led to evacuations and disruptions in medical care. As previously mentioned, late in 2023, Lt. Governor Kounalakis was the target of a swatting incident and even a Member of this Committee, Senator Scott Wiener, was a member of a false—or the victim of a false bomb threat, previously.

Research indicates that swatting incidents are likely to become more frequent due to the availability of personal information on the Internet and the use of disposable phone numbers via the Internet and cell phone applications.

This Bill, which makes second and subsequent false reports or harassment offenses a wobbler, strikes a good balance between protecting the people of California against the financial and time cost of prosecution and imprisonment by allowing a prosecutor to use the totality of the circumstances to charge those offenses as a misdemeanor or felony to maintain public safety.

Based on this, I ask that you support this Bill and pass it.

Thank you very much. Will now take me too testimony in support of AB 327. State your name, organization, and position.

Mr. Chair and Members, Mark Smith on behalf of Cal NENA, the California Chapter of the National Emergency Number Association, representing California's nearly 9,000 dispatchers in the State of California. We ask for your support. Thank you.

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

Good morning. Andrea Tavener, on behalf of the California District Attorney's Office, in support.

Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to express support for AB 327? Seeing none. We'll now take up to two principal witnesses in opposition, for two minutes each.

Good morning, Margo George, on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association, we appreciate the amendment that, one, regarding limiting this to adults, and two, I appreciate the amendment we just heard about this morning and would welcome the opportunity to review it. We appreciate the harm and strain that swatting causes for both victims and law enforcement resources.

Unfortunately, even with the very limited circumstances that you've now amended the bill, apparently it will still be directed primarily at people who are mentally ill and people who, who have political beliefs that motivate them to act in this manner.

And I don't think that this will have a deterrent effect on either of these populations since these statistics show, from the National Institute of Justice and elsewhere, that longer sentences do not deter crime.

Second, although this is aimed at saving law enforcement resources, this will actually cost more to prosecute and incarcerate individuals, money that could be better spent on more effective solutions to our current problems. The Bureau of Justice Statistics indicates that the United States spends more than 80 billion each year to keep roughly 2.3 million people behind bars.

So we respectfully ask for your no vote.

Thank you, Danica Adarma, on behalf of Debt Free Justice California, echoing my colleague, in appreciation of all the amendments that have made to the bill so far, but still remain in respectful opposition because we also really believe that it will not have the deterrent effect it proposes to have and that we should really be working for true solutions to stop swatting, which is a serious issue along with doxxing, which I know many people in this community have also been victims of.

There's no reason to believe this bill will stop the kinds of people who are repeatedly engaging in this conduct. And in fact, as pointed out by some of the proponents, the real issue is identifying people.

So the folks that are likely to be caught and punished repeatedly are again, people who are suffering from mental health issues or developmental disabilities. I also want to note that the bill, you know, intends to ensure that people who cause this kind of harm are held responsible for the financial consequences of their actions.

And according to the Federal Reserve, in 2023, only 13% of adults in the United States would have been able to afford an unforeseen $400 expense. So it's very unlikely the kinds of people that would be engaging in this conduct would be able to actually pay for the harm caused.

So, so really encourage us to actually find true solutions to prevent this kind of harmful contact and do not think that AB 327 is that kind of solution. Urge your no vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to express opposition AB 327, you can please hit your name, organization, position.

George Bramthieu on behalf of ACLU California, Action Law, DEFENSA, Louisiana Public Defenders Union Local 148, and Initiate Justice, in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Eric Henderson on behalf of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, in opposition.

Thank you. Anyone else wishing to express opposition to AB 327? Seeing no other members of the public coming forward, I'll bring it back to the Committee for any questions or comments. Senator Caballero.

I just have a question in regards to the amendments. My understanding is the motion intended is with amendments?

Yes, it is.

And what are the amendments?

The amendments would be amending Both in Section 148.3, subsection A, and in Section 653, subsection A2, the second and subsequent violation. That piece. The amendments would make the increased punishment for the second and subsequent swatting violation applicable to cases in which the conduct results in an unnecessary emergency response.

So it was the Committee's opinion that, you know, this increased penalty should only be applicable if it actually significantly impedes emergency response.

Got it. Okay.

And the authors accepted that.

Great. So I'm gonna. I'm gonna wait on this because for some reason in my folder, I did not receive the analysis. And my apologies for not getting it. I was trying to figure out why I didn't have enough information and I missed the testimony. So I want to make sure that I can. I can do it justice.

So if you don't mind, I'm. I'm not going to ask any questions. And I'll go through the analysis. We'll be back to vote on it at a different time anyway with audit quorum. Oh, now we have a form. Of course. All right, good. Good. That's great. I. I do appreciate that. I apologize.

I have four committees today, so I've read over a hundred bills, so.

And on that note, all of us, I think, serve on other committees, so you'll see us coming in and out of the room today. Vice Chair.

Thank you. So, you know, as time evolves, we wind up with problems that we didn't have before, and this is one of them. And the amount. I mean, a long time ago or many years ago, it used to be just bomb threats and things like this. And this has taken on a whole different level.

Yes, there are people that are mentally ill. I would offer that everybody who commits a crime is mentally ill because they shouldn't be committing crimes. But if that's going to be our standard then nobody would be going to jail at all, ever.

And nobody would be held responsible, including the people that perpetrate crimes like on our first bill that we heard today. And nobody would get justice. And what that does is turn justice back to the hands of people who seek it in their own manner. This has to be dealt with.

And the concerns about mental illness playing the main factor in this can be dealt with through the court system as people are determined whether they are mentally capable of answering for their crime. We have a process for that. But not doing anything with regard to this is not the answer.

Hoping that we can single people out who might do this is not the answer. The answer is we have technology now that can track down who's making these calls and address the issue with those people.

When it comes to political violence that is being perpetrated and through the use of things like this, that's not mental illness, that's idiocy. And it needs to be dealt with in a manner that will ensure that people who think they're going to do this and get away with it will not get away with it.

And that is a deterrent. I am sorry. There are a lot of things that are deterrents and this could be one of them. So I will be supporting your bill and appreciate you bringing it and I appreciate you taking the amendments to try to work with everybody to address their issues. But again, the answer can't be do.

Absolutely nothing before I go to the author close.

We do have a quorum, so if the Committee assists can please call.

[Roll Call]

Okay. And unless there are any other questions or comments on AB 327, I'll turn it back over to the author to close.

Yeah, I really want to thank the chair and or the Senator and I really appreciate your commitment in making California as safe as possible. At the end of the day, there is no rector duty that we that we have done to keep our children safe.

When they introduced this bill, many school district Superintendent aroused estate reached out to my office and thanked my team for introducing this Bill because they were dealing with after effect of swatting which cost the school district more than $70,000 in administrative cost. And this is a widespread issue.

If swatting put our children in immediately harm way, we have the moral duty to hold the people who repeatedly commit this crime accountable. I respectfully ask you. I vote.

Thank you very much. This as a do pass this amended recommendation. Is there a motion. Moved By Vice Chair Seyarto, the Committee Assistant call roll.

[Roll Call]

We'll keep that Bill on call. Thank you. Okay, before we go to Assemblymember Pellerin, who has been waiting patiently, the consent calendar consists of file item 9, AB 601, Jackson. File item 11, AB 1153, Patterson.

File item 15, AB 1380, Elhawary, and file item 16, AB 1363, Stefani. Does any Member wish to pull an item from the consent calendar? If not, I'll entertain a motion on the consent calendar. Moved by Senator Gonzalez. Roll call.

[Roll Call]

We'll keep that on call. We'll now proceed to file item three, AB 331. Good morning, Assemblymember Pellerin. Whenever you're ready, you may present.

Good morning. Thank you, Chair and Senators. Through its ongoing elections work and through case studies arising in other states, the California Department of Justice has identified three ways to strengthen and clarify our Elections Code, which, together, constitute this Bill. Historically, the statutory process of certification has been an uncontroversial post-election formality.

However, since November 2020, counties in eight different states have delayed certification of their elections results with tight certification deadlines, at the local, state, and federal levels. Delays at the local level could cause a state to miss federal deadlines, which disrupts an orderly election and could open states up to protracted litigation.

While none of California's county elections officials have been derelict in their duty and failed to certify, AB 331 proactively clarifies that the duty to certify elections—election results—is a ministerial and non-discretional—discretionary—duty of an elections official. The second part of this Bill addresses misleading ballot return envelopes.

In our past election, a voter in Los Angeles received a ballot size envelope in that they could have reasonably confused with an official ballot return envelope. And as you likely already know, displaying fraudulent ballot collection boxes is a crime. So, AB 331 adds distributing fraudulent ballot return envelopes to this crime.

Finally, the Attorney General has received reports that registered voters in county jails are not receiving their voter information guides. This is generally happening because these voter information guides are held together with staples, which are not approved for—to be in most jails.

So, AB 331 requires that both state and county voter information guides be delivered to jails in a format that is acceptable. This Bill has no opposition and enjoyed bipartisan support in the Assembly. And with me to testify is Special Assistant Attorney General, Damon Brown.

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

Thank you. Chair—good morning, Chair and Members. My name is Damon Brown. I'm Special Assistant Attorney General, here on behalf of Attorney General Rob Bonta, who is a proud sponsor of AB 331, by Assemblymember Gail Pellerin. AB 331 will clarify and strengthen California's election laws in three ways.

The first is to ensure the law is clear that a county's duty to certify and report their election results is ministerial and non-discretionary. Since November 2020, counties in eight states have experienced delayed certification because officials have refused to certify the vote.

And due to the tight certification deadlines at the local, state, and federal levels, it is crucial that California's results are certified on time. Clarity in the law as proposed in this Bill would be beneficial to ensure that officials are aware of their non-discretionary obligation to certify.

The second way AB 331 clarifies and strengthens our election laws is to ensure that registered voters in jails receive voter information guides, as required under current law.

Our Office received reports that registered voters in jails are not receiving voter information guides because these publications are almost always held together by staples, which are often not allowed in these facilities. This Bill will require that they be delivered in a format that jails can accept.

And lastly, AB 331 will ensure that unofficial ballot return envelopes are not used to mislead voters. Our office received a report of a potentially misleading of unofficial ballot return envelope being delivered to a voter that could have rerouted this person's ballot and their vote wouldn't have been counted. AB 331 would establish consequences to deter this type of conduct.

Our election laws are foundational to a free and fair election and AB 331 would clarify and strengthen these laws. And for these reasons, we request an aye vote. Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to express support for AB 331? Please state your name, organization, and position on the Bill.

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

Thank you.

Eric Henderson, on behalf of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, in support.

Anyone else wishing to express support for AB 331? Okay, seeing no one else approaching the microphone. Is there anyone wishing to express opposition to AB 331? There was no registered opposition on file. Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the Committee for any questions, comments, or a motion. Moved by Senator Caballero.

Any questions or comments from other Members of the Committee? If not, would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. We have a motion by Senator Caballero. Can the Committee Assistant call the roll?

[Roll Call]

Okay, keep that bill on call. Thank you. Thank you so much. Okay, I do see Assembly Member Davies here. So we will go out of file order to AB 383.

And before we begin, the author has agreed to amendments to remove Section 4 of the bill, the provisions of which expand the existing prohibition on the possession of a firearm until age 30 by a juvenile who's been adjudicated or alleged to have committed specified crimes and create a new prohibition on the possession of a firearm until age 25 by a juvenile who has unlawfully possessed a handgun.

And with that, I'll turn over to the Assemblyman to present on the bill.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senators, today I'm here to present AB 383. I first want to thank Committee staff for working with my staff and stakeholders on this measure. I would like to start off by saying in working with Committee staff, I have agreed to amendments that will significantly narrow this bill into essentially a cleanup measure.

AB 383 is a common sense measure to clean up existing firearm related codes and allow for the following three fixes. One, correct a cross reference issue so that a search warrant may be issued when a firearm or ammunition still has not been turned over yet by someone subject to a domestic violence protective order or a restraining order.

Two, clarifies that minors engaged in hunting activities and education are able to possess a firearm. So as long as they have written approval from a legal guardian and it is for a specified event or training. And three, applies existing post conviction firearm relinquishment procedures to educate minors.

Amendments remove provisions that would have added crimes to the list of offense a minor would have been subjected to to an age of 30 hold for firearm possession. With me here to testify today from the Sonoma County District Attorney's Office is Andrea Tavener.

Good morning, Chair and Members.

If you can speak into the mic.

Sure. Good morning, Chair and Members. My name is Andrea Taverner. I'm here on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association and the Sonoma County District Attorney's Office, as amended. The bill makes a couple of cleanup provisions that I think are necessary. I supervised juvenile for about four years at Contra Costa county before coming to Sonoma.

There are a number of gaps between between the Welfare and Institutions Code and the Penal Code. And I think that this bill provides some necessary cleanup of some of the language, particularly around gun possession and minors. So unless the board has any questions or the Committee has any questions, we urge your support.

Thank you very much. Will now take me to testimony in support of AB 383. Please come forward. State your name, organization, position on the bill.

Mr. Chairman, Members. Cory Salzillo on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association, in support.

Hi. Tommy Mitling on behalf of the Orange County District Attorney in support. Thank you very much.

Anyone else wishing to express support for AB 383? Okay, if not, we'll take. Anyone wishing to speak in opposition AB 383? Anyone wishing to testify in opposition?

George Crampton on behalf of ACLU California Action. Happy to hear about the amendments. We'll re-evaluate our position. Thank you.

Thank you.

Danica Rodarmo on behalf of the LA Public Defenders Union Local 148 and Initiate Justice same as my colleague. We'll take a look at the amendments and re-evaluate. Thanks.

Thank you. Anyone else wishing to express opposition to AB 383? Okay, seeing one else approaching the microphone. I'll bring it back to the Committee for any questions, comments or motion move the bill moved by Vice Chair Seyarto. Any further discussion? I'll turn it back over to the author if he'd like to close. Thank you.

Respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you very much. Okay, we have a motion by Vice Chair Seyarto. If you can please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Thank you very much. I don't see another Assembly Member present. If there's an author who has a bill that's on the agenda for the Senate Public Safety Committee, please come on down. Oh, as we're waiting, let's go back to AB 15 by Assembly Member Gibson. The recommendation of the chair is do pass as amended.

And to summarize the amendments. Can I get that piece of paper? The amendments expand the applicability of the bill to all homicides. Strikes language related similarly situated persons and includes domestic partners. The definition of immediate family members who may apply for a case review. I'll entertain a motion on AB 15 moved by Senator Caballero. Thank you.

If we can please call the roll.

[Roll call]

Okay, we'll keep that Bill on call. And I think we're waiting for an author, so we're going to take a five minute recess while we wait for an author to appear.

All right, we're going to call the Committee back into session so that we can hear the next author who has run down from wherever he was to join us. Mr. Ahrens, you have AB 461.

Thank you, Senator. Yes.

All right, do you have any witnesses that you brought with you or are they here yet? There she is. There's the witness. Can come on up and have a seat in one of these chairs here. You may begin when you're ready.

Thank you, Senator. Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. My bill, AB 461 ensures that families facing school attendance challenges receive the support that they need rather than punishment.

Under current law, parents and guardians of students in kindergarten through 8th grade who fail to ensure regular school attendance may face misdemeanor charges punishable by up to $2,000 in fines and up to one year in county jail. AB 461 aims to eliminate punitive measures that exacerbate economic hardship and instead promote supportive non criminal responses.

With me today are Yesenia Jimenez, senior policy associate with End Child Poverty California, and Rebecca Gonzalez, policy advocate with the Western center on Law and Poverty.

Well, welcome to both of you. You have two minutes each to speak. If you could remain on that timeline, that'd be great. Thank you.

Good morning, chair and Members again, Yesenia Jimenez with End Child poverty in California. AB 461 ensures that families navigating school attendance challenges are met with support, not punishment. Under current law, our system compounds family hardship rather than address root causes related to chronic truancy such as bullying, trauma, fear of deportation or even poverty.

These punitive policies are ineffective, outdated and disproportionately harm low income families. It immigrant and queer youth socio and economically disadvantaged students are much more likely to have their absences labeled unexcused. Black students experience the largest disparity, followed by Native American students.

What's more, research indicates that children of incarcerated parents face cognitive and health related challenges throughout their development. As a minor, one of my parents was incarcerated due to working while living undocumented in the United States. This led to some of the hardest years of my family's lives.

It was acts of kindness for my teachers, my church group and our social safety net that were the reasons I was able to thrive in school. This bill before you is especially urgent considering the federal administration's removal of the Sensitive locations policy.

These actions have heightened fears of deportation among immigrant families, leading many parents to keep their children home and resulting in increased chronic truancy. Because families are scared.

As we all saw earlier this year, we unfortunately saw Homeland Security agents attempted to enter two elementary schools in my hometown of South Central but failed thanks to LAUSD school officials denying them entry. This, unfortunately has led to a decline in average daily attendance in schools where immigration actions occurred nearby.

Again, these are not signs of parental neglect, but parents protecting their children the best way they know how. So AB 461 is an invitation to break this cycle of criminalizing families. When we choose support over punishment, we begin to repair generational harm and build the foundation for true educational equity. And for those reasons, I urge your aye vote.

Thank you, Next Speaker Good morning.

My name is Rebecca Gonzalez and I'm a policy advocate with the Western center on Law and Poverty, and we are proud co-sponsors of this bill. This bill corrects a policy that does not work to keep kids in school and punishes some of our most vulnerable families.

Under current law, education is mandatory for children between 6 and 18 years old unless exempt. Our current system punishes CalWORKS families, some of the poorest families in the state, by partially withholding desperately needed aid in cases where the child is 16 or older. The current law does not take into account the extreme hardships face by these families.

Poverty comes with a variety of challenges that can result in a child becoming chronically truant, including mental health and substance use. Issues in the home can impact children and can make them more susceptible to behavioral health issues themselves. Domestic violence in the home can also impact the child and their ability to successfully navigate school.

Recent news reports make clear that children face real fears of bullying and worse over threats of deportation and discrimination in LGBTQ students. Or possibly a child is hungry and cannot concentrate and can be embarrassed by their performance in the classroom. The current system is inequitable.

Why should poor families be subject to extreme punishment such as having their cash aid, which is already inadequate, reduced? The data are clear that revoking aid only pushes families into deep poverty, which leads to toxic stress and other lifelong consequences for children's brain development, and destabilizes families to the point of interaction with the child welfare system.

With deep trauma and significant fiscal costs, this policy is overly harsh and discriminatory. There is a better way to support these families. By screening these families for the Family Stabilization Program, which this bill will do, we can better support families with the services they need to be successful.

This program assists CalWORKS families by providing support for housing, mental health and family stability. And the program helps people find, hold and retain a job, helps children succeed in school, and helps the mental health of the family.

The bill also allows a child 16 years of age or older to voluntarily participate in the Welfare to Work program which comes with a variety of services such as mental health services and vocational education to support these youth. For these reasons, the Western center on Law and Poverty proudly supports this bill.

Thank you very much. Okay, thank you to our witnesses. Will now take me to testimony in support of AB 461. Please state your name, organization, position.

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

Thank you. Danica Rodarmel on behalf of Debt Free Justice California. Also delivering support for Smart Justice California.

Good morning. Amanda Kirchner with County Welfare Directors Association in support.

Elle Chen on behalf of Drug Policy Alliance in strong support.

Tiffany Whiten with SEIU California proud co-sponsors and support. Thank you.

Claire Simonich on behalf of Vera California in strong support. Thank you.

Good morning. Eric Henderson on behalf of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights and the League of Women Voters of California in support.

Connie Chan on behalf of Treasurer Fiona Ma in support.

Roxanna Gonzalez with Initiate Justice Action in support.

Good morning. Wendy Galuan, volunteer with the Youth Justice Education Clinic at Loyola Law School in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other members of the public wishing to express support for AB 461? Seeing no one else approaching the microphone. Will now take up to two principal witnesses in opposition to AB 461. There was no registered opposition on file. Okay, is there any member of the public wishing to express opposition to AB 461?

If so, if you can please approach the microphone. Say you name, organization, position on the bill and seeing none. I'll bring it back to the Committee for questions, comments or motion. Senator Caballero?

Well, I'll make the motion and just let you know that I think this is a really important Bill. I don't know why we haven't done this sooner.

The whole idea that parents, if a teenager isn't going to school or a child, an underaged individual is is not going to school is because the parents can't supervise or don't believe that attendance at school is important is ludicrous and to make it a crime.

The reality of the situation is most of the counties that I interact with, either as part of my district or as part of a former district, really didn't prosecute parents because they knew that there were all kinds of issues related to poverty that really.

Poverty and mental health and a variety of issues that affect the attendance of a student, the ability to show up to school and to concentrate and to be dressed appropriately and ready to go.

It's just I ran a violence prevention program for a number of years and so we had programs to bring in students that were truant and their parents. And the number of issues that surfaced that the family needed help with. And it wasn't just poor families, it was a whole variety was really amazing.

And in the end we were able. Young people that are not going to school are really vulnerable to a whole bunch of influences that aren't good for them. And so the more that you can get them with adults interacting and looking at alternatives, maybe that school is not. Is not good for them.

Maybe they need to go somewhere else that understands what their issues are. In any case, I like your bill. I move the bill at the appropriate time.

Mr. Chair, thank you very much. Any other questions or comments from Members of the Committee? Okay, this has a do pass recommendation. I'll turn it back over to you Assembly Member to close.

Thank you so much Senator and I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Okay, thank you. We have a motion by Senator Caballero, if you could please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

We'll keep that bill on call for absent members. Thank you Assembly Member. Thank you. Next in order I see Assembly were Gabriel and then we'll go to Assembly Member Bryan. So we'll proceed now to file item 7, AB 468.

And before the Assembly Member presents, I just want to take this opportunity to thank the Assembly Member for his collaboration with my office and with the Assembly Committee on Public Safety on both his bill and the bill in the Assembly Public Safety Committee Today, Senate Bill 571 which both initially address the same issue, which is addressing false impersonation of emergency responders and shooting and burglary.

And I want to just summarize the amendments that we have worked collectively to come to agreement on. One would be amending in Section 463 and the definition of evacuation zone to place a four year limit on the definition of evacuation zone.

This comes into play with regard to the looting provisions of the bill and as well striking the language in the bill that dealt with false impersonation because that's addressed in the Senate version and adding contingent enactment language. So thank you Assembly Member Gabriel for your collaboration with us and I'll turn over to you to present.

Yeah, thank you very much Mr. Chair. And let me just turn the compliment right back around to you. Thank you to you and your Committee for the very thoughtful feedback, assistance and your leadership in helping to bring folks together to put together this comprehensive approach.

And so let me start by accepting the Committee's proposed amendments and thank you for that. I'm pleased today to present AB 468 bipartisan legislation that will provide law enforcement with better tools to protect communities to during fires and other natural disasters. During the recent Southern California wildfires, we were all moved by the incredible bravery of our first responders.

At the same time, we also witnessed individuals who sought to take advantage of this tragedy and further victimize our communities. When my community of Encina was under mandatory evacuation, many residents were deeply concerned about the safety of their homes, which created further anxiety about following evacuation orders.

Looters, and particularly those who impersonate firefighters and other emergency personnel, create chaos and confusion, endanger residents and first responders, divert critical emergency resources, and victimize communities that have already suffered devastating harm. AB 468 will provide better tools to address looting and close existing loopholes that can hinder prosecution.

This legislation will also increase peace of mind for impacted communities by extending protections during the rebuilding process. Importantly, and thanks to the excellent leadership of the chair, AB 468 is now linked to SB 571, bipartisan legislation that addresses the critical issue of impersonation of first responders and others during natural disasters.

SB 571 passed this body by a vote of 390 and when combined with this Bill, will create a comprehensive framework that will close loopholes, provide stronger deterrence, and better protect communities. Together, these bills will make clear that we cannot and we will not tolerate behavior that endangers public safety or puts our brave first responders at greater risk.

This legislation enjoys strong bipartisan support and is backed by a broad statewide coalition that includes the California Professional Firefighters, the Fire Chiefs, the Fire Districts, the California Police Chiefs Association, the City of Los Angeles, the Mayors of San Francisco, San Diego and Sacramento, the League of California Cities, the California Contract Cities Association, the California District Attorneys Association, and local governments from across California.

I'm very pleased and honored to have with me today to testify in support of the bill. Trevor Jamison, the President of Sacramento area firefighters local 522. Thank you and respectfully request and I vote.

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

Good morning. Thank you. Good morning. Mr. Chair and Senators, my name is Trevor Jamison. I am the President of Sacramento area firefighters local 522. I also serve as the third district Vice President for the California Professional Firefighters, I am pleased to be here today in support of AB 468.

I would like to thank the authority, the chair and the Legislature for your work on this issue. I am a firefighter here in Sacramento and I have sworn an oath to protect my community and the residents of California. The public trust is critical for me to do my job.

Whether it is a medical emergency in a home, an active fire or other emergency. It is critical that when I arrive on scene, people trust me and I can quickly move to remedy the situation. During the Los Angeles fires, thousands of firefighters from various agencies supported the mission of protecting life and property.

While firefighters are spending 2448 or 72 hours straight attempting to put the fire out and evacuate residents, there are reports of some individuals looting evacuated homes while impersonating firefighters and other emergency response personnel. This action cannot be tolerated and AB 468 provides a measured approach to ensure that the people who commit these crimes are held accountable.

Individuals impersonating emergency response personnel also present new dangers for the emergency responders. For example, if we see someone in full turnouts with an engine or at a home down the street, we may think they are mitigating the fire spread that allows us to initiate fire attack in another part of the neighborhood.

But if it turns out those individuals were impersonating firefighters to loot, we could be at risk because we are under the impression resources were down the road initiating that fire attack. For the safety of our communities and fellow firefighters, we especially respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. I will now take me to testimony in support of AB 468 if you are in support. If you can please state your name, organization, position on the bill.

Mr. Chairman Members. Dan Filizado on behalf of the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office in support.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members. Amy Brown on behalf of the California Police Chiefs Association in support.

Good morning, Mr. Chair. Members of the Committee Paul Gonzalez on behalf of the City of Norwalk in support.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members here on this bill. Paul Yoder on behalf of the City and County of San Francisco. Thank you. Thank you.

Sarah Brooks of the Sonoma County District Attorney's Office on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association in support.

Mr. Chair Members on behalf of the City of Thousand Oaks in the town of Hillsborough in strong support. Thank you.

Megan Subbers on behalf of the California Professional Firefighters in support.

Chair and Senators Freddie Quintana on behalf of the City of Los Angeles in support.

Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair. Members. Obed Franco here. Excuse me. On behalf of California Fire Chiefs Association and the Fire District Association, California.

Excuse me. Thank you. Are there any other members of the public wishing to express support for AB 468? Seeing no one approaching the microphone. Will now take registered opposition to the bill. Will take two principal witnesses in opposition and you'll have each two minutes to present.

Margo George, on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association in respectful opposition. Thank you for the amendments. Look forward to reviewing them. Today, I want to read my colleague Leslie Caldwell Houston's testimony. Evident for brevity, she's unable to be here. Today, I want to start my statement.

As a fire survivor from the 1991 Oakland firestorm where 3,000 homes burned to the ground, including mine, and as the aunt of a young man who recently lost his home in the Eaton fire in Altadena, my sister escaped through a canyon of fire in Santa Rosa as thousands of homes burned to the ground.

I've also been evacuated from my current home due to fire danger. I cannot begin to describe the devastation of the lost of one's home, let alone an entire neighborhood. But I can tell you this. What we did not and do not need is government taking overwrought action on looting.

While I know you want to be seen as doing something in this unfortunate situation, so here is what fire victims and survivors need. We need the government, both state and local, to focus on immediate financial assistance. We need quick, appropriate and thorough cleanup. We need sensible, quick and red tape free reconstruction.

Altadena continues to add requirements for reconstruction such as electrical outlets for electric cars that are too costly for people with too few funds to even rebuild what they had. We need protection from fraudulent offers to buy our property. We urgently need help with housing.

According to LA government- government county dashboard for Eaton 1019 applications for rebuilding have been received and only 93 building permits issued. As an attorney, well planned emergency preparedness and response is needed. Let me say to you, I understand that you feel you must do something. However, we don't need more incarceration. We respectfully ask for your no vote.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Hi, good morning.

Good morning.

Should be working.

Okay. I'm Imani Turner. I'm a Member of SE Justice Group, a Pasadena local community organization of women with incarcerated loved ones fighting to end mass incarceration. I have family members who are directly impacted by the LA wildfires and other crisis. I understand the ways that system impacted communities uniquely experience criminalization and face unseen inequities in climate crisis.

Last fall, SE canvassed 1352 Altadena residents and learned that 65% of them opposed the increased criminalization and then Prop 36. After the Eaton Fire, myself and other SE members made wellness calls to 538 of our Altadena neighbors over 12 days to provide community resources.

So far we've analyzed trends from 137 of the 530 converse- 38 conversations we had and not a single person we spoke to was concerned with looting, theft, robbery or stealing. That was at 0%. We also know that black homeowners and tenants are being racially profiled in evacuating and in returning to Altadena to remove what's left of their belong belongings.

They are being stopped and accused of looting. In rebuilding Altadena, the residents we spoke to and the over 100 women with incarcerated loved ones from SC who were in the immediate area of the Eaton fire once speedy reconstruction, environmental protection and hazardous waste removal prioritized.

We also need elected officials to improve the government's infrastructure for emergency preparedness, specifically around fire prevention measures, emergency warning and evacuation notification systems. We need elected officials to invest in community identified solutions that are rooted in equity and care. That's why I'm here testifying against AB 468 which would further criminalize our communities.

AB 468 is entirely too broad and doesn't support those impacted by the fires nor does it help in rebuilding. Instead, it has the potential to criminalize all communities across California whether it's an emergency or not. We need the support of each of you to prevent further criminalization of our communities.

We need each of you to focus on offering the care wildfire survivors and vulnerable communities need at this moment. On behalf of SE Justice Group and our neighbors in Altadena, I urge the Public Safety Committee to vote no on AB 468. Thank you.

Thank you. We'll now take me to testimony in opposition to Assembly Bill 468. Please state your name, organization, position on the bill.

Danica Rodarmel on behalf of the LA Public Defenders Union Local 148, Initiate Justice Law Defense and also delivering opposition on behalf of Smart Justice California.

Roxanna Gonzalez, initiate Justice Action in opposition.

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

Eric Henderson on behalf of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in respectful opposition.

Claire Simonich on behalf of Vera California in respectful opposition.

Indigo Byers with SE Justice Group in opposition.

Okay, anyone else wishing to express opposition to AB 468? If not, I'll bring it back to the committee and if I can begin the discussion. I don't normally do this, but I have very strong opinions about this bill. But first a question.

So in reading the statute, just somebody being in an area that's in an evacuation zone or entering into a structure that's fire damaged alone is not a reason to be found in violation of this statute. My reading of the statute says that there has to be an intent to commit grand or petty larceny.

But I'm wondering if the author can elaborate.

Yeah, that's correct. Your reading is correct.

Okay.

So this bill is part of a comprehensive package that both the senate and the assembly has advanced in the wake of the devastating fires in Southern California that include a variety of proposals, including measures to streamline the rebuilding process, increased consumer protections, and then these bills in particular that are really intending on protecting people that have been victims of these devastating natural disasters by making sure that they're not the target of additional harm by people trying to loot their properties or people falsely impersonating first responders, which is what happened in LA in order to commit crime.

So I take very seriously the need to. Every single time we create a crime in California and every single time we pass a law to create a crime in California, it impacts all 40 million Californians, and it could have pretty significant consequences. And we have to be very mindful of that as we craft legislation.

But this is really intended to address a very specific issue, and it's not going to encompass people that are not intending to commit criminal acts. If you are detained or arrested for just going back to your house, that's not a. That is not a crime under the statute.

You have, you have remedies to pursue against law enforcement if they do that. And I think this is important to further protect victims who've already lost so much. And so with that, I'll close and I'll ask if any other members would like to speak on this. Senator Caballero.

Thank you very much. Mr. Chair, I just want to say thank you for the organization that has gone out and made personal contact. SE is the organization name that's really important, really important work. And it's hard work after a disaster because you're talking to people that are suffering. A whole bunch of questions.

How did this happen? Why did it happen? Why me? I know because I've, although I haven't had wildfires in my district, I had significant flooding where people lost everything. And it's a really tough time. But- But the- having said that, so I really appreciate the community identified solution.

It would be great to have a conversation about all the different resources that the state has put out to help the local community, to help the victims recover, because it's not just rebuilding your house, in many instances, it's redoing streets and all of the infrastructure that goes with that. And so there's. I think we can.

I guess my point is, I think we can do it all we have to make sure that when the property is the most vulnerable is right after the disaster strikes. And the idea that somebody would come in and start stealing from what was left after the disaster is really offensive.

So I appreciate you taking the amendments because it narrows significantly the bill. We want to make sure we don't have such a broad area for such a long time that, you know, breaking into someone's car down the road is not the same as looting an area that's, that's been, that's been burned. So that's really important to me.

But I think we can do public safety as well as relief to the fire victim. So we should have that conversation.

Because the frustrating part about the state making money available to local government is that the communication between local government and- and the public and I know we put up $20 million for the families in Planada and there's been dispute over exactly how that money should be used.

And we want to make sure that the community has a voice in all of that. So that's really important. So when appropriate, I'll move the bill right now.

Thank you. Vice Chair Seyarto.

Thank you for allowing me to weigh in a little bit. Okay. Mark

this day, there's some things I really agree with you on in the terms of Ms. George here, in terms of all the things that we need to do to make sure that we don't have these incidents in the first place, because that's one way to eliminate looting. However, that's where agreement kind of stops.

You know, looters in these areas, they don't just go into burned out shelves of homes. They access areas using their false identity to go in and burglarize, basically without as much chance of getting caught. In areas that have no electricity, that the law enforcement is distracted to

areas where they're trying to- they're trying to control traffic, they're trying to control the chaos. And they're very well planned out incidents of crime. They're not necessarily people that are suffering mentally. They have to go out and make sure they buy vehicles that they can disguise into something that looks official.

They have to go out and steal turnouts, which has happened. We have to secure our turnouts on our engines because if you didn't, you'd come back to your engine and find that your turnout pants were missing.

If you're in a medical aid call or something like that, or your turnout jacket was missing, there's a couple $1000 of taxpayer dough.

But the bottom line is now they have a turnout with somebody's official name on it, that they can walk into an area, helmets, turnouts, all that stuff that's on an engine while you run in to help somebody on a medical aid call. And these people lurk around and then they grab these things up and guess what?

You know, they're not going to use them for Halloween. They're going to go out there and use them to access places like that are under duress and under stress and in chaos so that they can take advantage of it and steal from people.

Yeah, we need to deal with them, and we need to deal a little more harshly than we have been. I think that's what this bill is doing, is making sure people know that it is not okay, that we will not put up with it.

And, you know, part of making evacuations effective is allowing people to understand that their homes are going to be safe when they evacuate. If they don't feel like they're going to be safe, they're not going to evacuate. We're going to have more deaths.

And so therefore, it's really important for us to send a very strong message followed by strong action that if you are going to take advantage of situations like that, we're going to hold you accountable. And that's what this bill does. So applaud the author for working with the committee to fold this into part of our wildfire package.

I don't agree with all the package all the time, but I agree with this part, so appreciate it.

Thank you. I'll turn it back over to the author to close on the call.

Yeah, I just want to thank everybody for the- for the thoughtful conversation. I guess I'll just lift up what President Jamison said here, which is, we think this is a very measured approach. And the analogy that I have in my mind in working on this, having lived this is

to the enhancement that we provide for hate crimes. Right. We understand when somebody attacks someone because of their race or sexual orientation or gender, that we provide an extra measure of punishment, because that's not just an attack on that individual. It's actually a harm that's committed against the broader community. And I saw this firsthand.

People in my community, when it was under a mandatory evacuation order, when law enforcement and firefighters were asking people to leave, people did not want to leave because they had seen what had happened in other communities a few days prior. And that put those individuals at risk.

That put the first responders who were coming to try to fight the fires at risk to the extent that they would have to evacuate them. And so people who commit these crimes in the context of an emergency. They're not just stealing from one person's house, they're not just committing a crime against another individual.

It's actually a harm against the broader community and particularly, you know, endangers the safety of our first responders. So because of that, we think this is a measured approach. We think it's consistent with what the community wants. I was showing colleagues. The LA Times did a whole series of articles about residents of Altadena demanding a stronger response.

They have an article here that says soaring burglaries in post fire Altadena rattle residents trauma on top of trauma. They had another article where they talked about security cameras are arriving in Altadena as law enforcement attempts to stem skyrocketing rates of residential burglary in the fire ravaged community.

But residents fear that it won't be enough to keep thieves away. So we have heard very strongly from the community of Altadena and other communities that they want a stronger response and they want to be protected. And so we think this does this in a measured, thoughtful, narrow way consistent with all of our California values.

And so with that would respectfully request an aye vote.

Thank you. We have a motion. If the Committee assistant could please call the roll.

AB 468, Gabriel. Motion is due pass as amended to appropriations. [roll call].

Okay, we'll keep that bell on call for absent Members, but thank you. Thank you to your witnesses. Thank you, Assembly Member, for presenting today. As I had previously announced and promised, we're going to go to Assembly Member Bryan, and then we'll go back to Petrie-Norris. Okay. We'll proceed now to file item 17, AB 1388 by Assembly Member Bryan. Assembly Member, whenever you're ready, you may present.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you to your incredible committee staff for all that they do and have done for many years on these issues. Thank you, colleagues. I'm here to present AB 1388, a bill that ends the practice of law enforcement agencies entering into police misconduct non-disclosure agreements or clean record agreements with problematic officers. Throughout California, dangerous and dishonest officers are skirting accountability through this practice.

This includes officers who are perpetrators of sexual assault, embezzlement, and falsifying police reports. All of these officers entered into a police misconduct non-disclosure agreement, which works to conceal evidence of an officer's misconduct in exchange for their quiet departure from the agency, shielding them from civil liability, criminal charges, and any other forms of community accountability.

A recent Investigation by the SF Chronicle and UC Berkeley's Investigative Reporting Program found that at least 163 California police agencies have executed these non-disclosure agreements and nearly 300 officers and deputies have benefited from them, at times more than once.

These numbers are likely higher, as a third of the agencies contacted refused to release records of these agreements, citing privacy laws. In my own community of Los Angeles, the state's largest law enforcement agency, the LA Sheriff's Department, has an entire division dedicated to drafting these clean record agreements, yet refuses to disclose the ones that they have entered into.

These NDAs allow officers who have engaged in misconduct to continue working as police officers as well, with 108 of the 297 officers identified by the SF Chronicle landing jobs at other law enforcement agencies, affording them the opportunity to potentially continue to inflict harm on vulnerable communities.

Landmark legislation on police accountability and transparency like SB 2, SB 1412, and SB 16 are currently being circumvented and bypassed by these non-disclosure agreements. This work we've got to do in AB 1388 seeks to complete this work. Joining me today to provide testimony in support of the bill is George Parampathu, a staff attorney with the ACLU, and Charmin Leon, director of law enforcement initiatives with the Center for Policing Equity.

Good morning, Chair and Members. George Parampathu, legislative attorney with ACLU California Action, proud co-sponsors of AB 1388. While we agree with the opponents that laws like SB 1421 trump these misconduct NDAs, the reality is that PORAC funded attorneys have muddied the waters by forcing agencies to sign these secrecy agreements.

168 of the agencies investigated by the Chronicle affirmatively refused to turn over records of misconduct NDAs, including the state's 10 largest agencies. A city near San Diego claimed that these agreements are so secret that even searching for them within their files would violate their terms. The Legislature must step in to clarify the law.

The opponents put forth an amendment to limit the bill to agreements relating to SB 1421. But this bill is necessary to protect and uphold more than just SB 1421. Current law requires agencies to report circumstances of officer separations to POST. Meanwhile, these NDAs force agencies to reverse findings of misconduct.

Current laws require agencies to retain all misconduct records. These NDAs have led some agencies to destroy records. Current law requires agencies to provide misconduct records to the next agency an officer applies to. These NDAs force the original agency to lie to the next. We must affirm that all of our accountability laws trump these misconduct NDAs.

Let us be clear that these NDAs reward bad cops and endanger public safety. They have shielded officers who have sexually assaulted victims, embezzled taxpayer dollars, and destroyed evidence of sex crimes against minors. Because of these NDAs, those officers face no accountability.

AB 1388 puts public safety first and ensures that our laws remain relevant to the officers sworn to protect us. The bill enjoyed broad bipartisan support in the Assembly because it is a good solution to a terrible problem. I strongly urge your support. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Good to see you.

Good to see you as well. Yes, it has, sir. Thanks so much. Good morning, Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Charmin Leon, and I serve as the director of law enforcement initiatives for the Center of Policing Equity. I'm a former law enforcement sergeant. Time spent as an investigator in our offices, our department's Office of Professional Standards. I also led our public safety recruitment team for police, fire, and EMS for the City of Cleveland before my departure.

We want our future applicants to have confidence that they will be joining the ranks of men and women for whom integrity and honor are hallmarks of their service. It is with this background that I express my deep appreciation for the opportunity to testify in support of Assembly Bill 1388 introduced by Assembly Member Bryan and commend him for his leadership in this urgent matter.

The issues surrounding non-disclosure agreements have recently come to light, as was mentioned earlier, in the San Francisco Chronicle. This report indicates that a staggering 163 law enforcement agencies across California have employed NDAs to obscure misconduct involving 297 officers. Even more concerning, 168 agencies have failed to disclose records related to the to their NDAs, as was mentioned.

Data provided by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training suggest that these practices may have concealed, on the conservative end, at least 10,000 misconduct records. Such opacity undermines the public's confidence in their law enforcement officers and hinders efforts to achieve accountability within these agencies.

The Center for Policing Equity unequivocally supports and is proud to co-sponsor AB 1388 as a crucial measure in promoting the transparency necessary to establish honorable public safety institutions. By providing a legislative framework that prevents law enforcement agencies from entering into NDAs that shield officers from accountability, AB 1388 will help ensure that serious misconduct is reported and accessible to the public.

Importantly, this legislation will void existing NDAs that perpetuate a culture of silence around police misconduct, guarantee public access to critical information relating to serious violations, and reaffirm the responsibility of law enforcement agencies to report such conduct to POST.

Through these changes, we aim to elevate community safety and ensure justice for these victims as accountability is essential for maintaining a law abiding society. As we look at similar legislative initiatives across the nation, states like Washington, New Jersey, New York, and Illinois have made strides in restricting NDAs pertaining to police misconduct. It becomes clear that California has an important opportunity to join this movement.

By passing AB 1388, we not only align with these progressive measures, but also promote a culture of trust and accountability, which is so badly needed in our profession. For these reasons, CPE supports AB 1388 as a leader in addressing public facing data concerning... I'm sorry. Concerns amidst a lack of transparency. With 10,000 misconduct records potentially concealed, legislative change is essential. In conclusion, I respectfully urge the Committee to support AB 1388 and cast an aye vote. Thank you.

Okay, we'll now take me too testimony in support of AB 1388. Please state your name, organization, and position on the bill.

Thank you. Marcus McKinney on behalf of the Center for Policing Equity, proud co-sponsors of AB 1388.

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

Margo George on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association. Also registering support for the League of Women Voters, the First Amendment Coalition, and Oakland Privacy. Thank you.

Dr. David Turner on behalf of the Million Dollar Hoods Project at UCLA and the Alliance of Boys and Men of Color in strong support.

Darris Young on behalf of the Bay Area Regional Health Inequities Initiative, also known as BARHII, and our housing coalition. I do say aye aye on this vote. Thank you. Strong support.

Good morning. Eric Henderson on behalf of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in support.

Thank you very much. Is anyone else wishing to express support for AB 1388? Seeing no one else. We'll now take up to two principal witnesses in opposition to AB 1388. So anyone who registered opposition who wishes to testify? Seeing none. We'll take anyone in the room who would like to express opposition to AB 1388. Is there anyone wishing to come forward and express opposition to the bill? Seeing none. I'll bring it back to the Committee and ask are there any questions, comments, or a motion? Senator Caballero.

I just have a question. And I think one of the issues that were I was waiting to see the opposition to ask if they still had the same concerns and my, the issue I had was the due process right. I mean this is a good bill, I think it's an important bill. But want to make sure that it, procedurally, it works with the, for lack of a better word, the delicensing. Because we set up a different process now, and the process is you have to get, I call it a license. I think they use some other term, certification. And you need that certification to be able to work.

But ultimately that's POST that makes that analysis. Now the local government can say you violated our policies. So it doesn't have to be illegal. They can say you violate our policies, you can't work here anymore. But this certification becomes important because once that's gone, then you can't work at all as a peace officer in the State of California. So I'm wondering how the process lines up with that certification. Because it was raised early on, but it seemed to me that it was resolved.

It definitely is resolved. I can definitely pass it to George here in a second. But you know, it's my understanding that incredibly problematic officers, these are the officers, you know, if you want to call them the bad apples. They're the folks that the police chiefs are trying to fire that the Board of Rights has affirmed that separation. But then on the way out you get kind of a sweetheart deal.

If you have alleged misconduct and it hasn't been substantiated, sign this deal, leave quickly, we'll erase that. And sometimes, if it has been substantiated, sign this deal, we'll clear that. They're called clean record agreements to hide that from POST in some instances so they don't go through that decertification process. It's all handled at the local level.

And then even, as was mentioned by some of my witnesses, even officers inside that department looking for those files sometimes violate those agreements. They also have pretty heavy confidentiality clauses, so they're not always discoverable by the public. And so it's circumventing the work that we all did, all of us who, most of us who were here for SB 2, that decertification process, this clearly undermines it. And it's a widespread process.

And so I think if we fix this, the other infrastructure that we put in place, that some of our old colleagues from Berkeley and others put in place and spent their careers trying to put in place in terms of transparency and accountability, those can come into full effect, but they can't with the current practice of allowing for these non-disclosure agreements at the department level.

Okay, thank you very much. Appreciate it. And I'll move the bill when it's appropriate.

Thank you. Any other questions or comments? Okay, if not, I'll turn It back over to you, Assembly Member, if you'd like to close.

No, absolutely. As I mentioned, these are the worst of the worst. These are folks who have embezzled, who have committed sexual assault, who have brought a stain to the profession and struck violence in communities. They're the officers that even the department wants to separate from.

But for some reason, they get this sweetheart deal that hides their misconduct and allows for them to go commit harm in another jurisdiction. You shouldn't be pushed out of the Los Angeles Police Department and then be able to serve in the Culver City Police Department in my own district.

That's why this bill had wide bipartisan support, including nearly unanimous support, but unanimous Republican support in the Public Safety Committee on the Assembly side, including two former law enforcement officers. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote today.

Thank you, Assembly Member. This has a do pass recommendation. I strongly support this bill. I think this bill is intended to further implement the laws that we passed over the last several years to increase transparency and accountability. If this bill makes it to the floor, if you need somebody to present it, I'm happy to. With that, we have a motion by Senator Caballero. If the Committee Assistant could please call the roll.

AB 1388, Bryan. Motion is do pass to Appropriations. [Roll Call]

We'll keep that on call for absent Members. Thank you very much. Okay. We will now proceed to file item 4, AB 366 by Assembly Member Petrie-Norris. If there are any witnesses here to speak in support of AB 366, if you can please join us here at the table. And Assembly Member.

Good morning. Good morning. Turn over you to present. Good morning. Mr. Chair and Senators, pleased to join you this morning to present Assembly Bill 366, a measure that will help prevent drunk driving tragedies before the car even starts. And I want to begin by thanking you and your Committee for your work on this bill.

And begin by accepting the Committee's proposed amendments which specify that installation of an iid, an ignition interlock device with no prior offenses, is limited to offenses involving alcohol. Drunk driving is a preventable tragedy that continues to devastate families and communities across the country and across the State of California.

Every day, 34 people in America die in drunk driving accidents. That's one person every 42 minutes. And tragically, California is the epicenter of this crisis. Eight out of the 10 cities that are the deadliest on a per capita basis because of drunk driving accidents are right here in the State of California.

But the good news is that we can do something about this. We can do something to make our roads and our communities safer. And as I said, the goal of AB366 is to save lives before the car even starts. Assembly Bill 366 will do four things.

It will remove the sunset date on California's existing program related to ignition interlock devices. It will align California's law with that of 34 other states requiring IID installation for all individuals convicted of driving under the influence.

The bill will codify and expand by 25% California's existing interlock ignition device financial assistance program, the most generous program in the country. And lastly, the program, this bill will continue our work to collect more and more robust data so that we can find even more effective ways ways to save lives and keep California's streets safe.

The good news is that we know that IIDs ignition interlock devices work. As I mentioned, 34 other states have a requirement to install an ignition interlock device for anyone convicted of a drunk driving offense. Those states have seen accidents due to drunk driving and fatalities due to drunk driving decline.

This bill is a common sense measure and a common sense step that we can take to keep California roads safe. I'm really pleased to be joined today by Colin Campbell who is a national MAD Board of Director, Member of the MAD Board of Directors and a father to Ruby and Hart.

And I'm also pleased to be joined by Mark Vukovich who is the Director of State Policy for Safe Streets for All.

Thank you for being here. Well, good morning whoever would like to begin. You have two minutes.

Good morning Chair and Committee. Some of you seen me from the dais before introduced myself as Mark Vukovich, Director of State Policy for Streets for All. And that is still true.

But I'm also here to introduce myself that just until a year ago I was a bartender for about four or five years at a craft cocktail bar in Assembly. Mer Petrie, Norris District and I'm thrilled here to be testifying on AB366.

My very, very first week working as a bartender, a co worker who at this point I had known five whole business days, five shifts, got drunk, drove home and ended up in the ER for weeks. Lost a finger and almost lost his life.

I know multiple customers and several former coworkers of mine who have DUIs and I believe in the social deterrent and effect of having an IID placed in your vehicle. Drunk driving and the associated traffic violence that comes from it. Is a massive problem in California.

Traffic violence causes the deaths of about 5,000 people a year, a third of which is attributed to impaired driving. And for every death, there are usually about 10 times the amount of injuries which oftentimes lead people with pain, physical disabilities, medical debt and the inability to work.

Traffic violence is also the number one cause of death for children in California. Streets for all supports IID expansion because it is a common sense way that doesn't wait for more violence and death to happen, but focuses on balancing punishment, prevention and justice.

And while I don't think it's undue harm to ask someone to take the bus, IIDs enable people to keep using their cars, empowering them to maintain employment and take care of their families while keeping the community at large.

Safe Streets for all along with 60 plus organizations statewide is urging your support of this critical legislation to to make our streets safer and keep our families whole. I want to thank the author for bringing this forward and I want to respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you very much. Hi, Good morning.

Good morning Chair Members. My name is Colin Campbell. I'm a Member of MADS National Board of Directors and in June 12, 2019 I was driving my family to Joshua Tree for summer vacation. My 17 year old daughter Ruby had a merit scholarship to study at the Art Institute of Chicago.

And my son, 14 year old son Hart, handsome, hilarious Hart, was going to play video games and date girls all summer long. A drunken high driver going 90 miles an hour slammed into our car. When I came to and looked in the backseat, I saw Ruby and Hart's eyes wide open.

Their pupils were black and they were both dead. Their necks were snapped. Both my beautiful children were killed. My wife and I, Ruby and Hart's friends, our family, our community was devastated. My rabbi went to the dentist and burst into tears. And the dentist just nodded and said, oh, you knew Ruby and Hart too, didn't you?

Because she had so many people cry all that week. Because you see, when two children are murdered, it's like an earthquake. It's like a tsunami of grief. Six years in and it's still so hard to live without my Ruby and Hart. It's so hard to believe that this is reality and not just a nightmare that won't end.

The woman who killed my kids had a prior DUI. Her license was revoked, but she was determined to drink and drive. Nothing was going to stop her. Except AB366. Why wasn't there an interlock device in that woman's car? It would have saved my children's. Lives.

How many drunk driving deaths is it going to take to understand that these people who choose to drink and drive aren't making a mistake. They're killing our children. And something has to be done. The woman who killed my kids has two young children of her own. Her family is destroyed too.

An interlock device would have saved her life. It would have kept her out of prison, would have kept her a mom instead of a murderer. Thank you for listening.

Thank you sir, so much for being here today. We are so sorry for your loss and thank you for being here in support of this bill so I can hopefully prevent this tragedy from happening for other families in California. Thank you. We'll now take #MeToo testimony in support of AB366.

Please state your name, organization, position on the bill.

Good morning, Mr. Chair. Justin Fanslau, on behalf of a couple of folks here, SAFE Coalition, Kids and Car Safety National Safety Council, Recording Artists Against Drunk Driving, Students Against Destructive Decisions, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, the American College of Surgeons, NorCal, SoCal and San Diego chapters all appreciate your support today. Thank you.

Terry McHale, with Aaron Reed and associates representing the California Association of Highway Patrolmen. Obviously in support of this common sense bill. Thank you.

Good morning. Mr. Chair. Mike Shreve, on behalf of the district attorneys from Amador, Yolo, Sacramento and Shasta counties and support.

Mr. Chair, Members. Amy Brown, on behalf of the California Police Chiefs Association and support.

Kevin Guzman, with the California Medical Association in support.

Good morning. Beverly Yu, on behalf of the AAA Mounted West Group and support. Thank you.

My name is Ann Callary, as a volunteer with Mothers Against Drunk Driving and on behalf of my husband and other victims of impaired driving, I am in support of this bill.

Good morning. My name is Rhonda Campbell. I'm the California State Victim Services manager for Mothers Against Drunk Driving. On behalf of my baby sister Irene who was killed by a four time repeat offender and all victims we serve, I strongly support this bill.

Good morning. My name is Natasha Thomas, and I am the Executive Director for the Northern California region for Mothers Against Drunk Driving and I strongly support this bill.

Good morning. Chris Tsun Tong, program manager for MAD Bay Area, strongly support this bill.

Mr. Chairman, Members, Mike Knutson, on behalf of the Automobile Club of Southern California. This will save lives and keep families intact. Strongly support the bill.

Thank you very much.

Good morning. Larissa Cespedes, here on behalf of the California New Car Dealers Association and support. Support.

Thank you. Anyone else wishing to express support for AB366? Okay. If not, we'll proceed to two principal witnesses with registered opposition AB366. And you'll have two minutes each to present on the bill.

And whoever would like to begin, you'll have two minutes.

Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chair, fellow Members. My name is Bruce Kapsack. For 20 something years, I ran one of the top DUI defense firms here in California. I'm a recognized specialist and expert in DUI by the California Department of Justice. I'm here on behalf of California Public Defenders Association.

I want to say first and foremost, no one is in favor of drunk driving. I am not. I am sorry for your loss.

However, statistically speaking, with all due respect, the reports that were made both after the initial pilot program and the most recent pilot program show recidivism among first offenders is 3.1%, whether they have an IID or not. So this does not actually capture the problem. On the other hand, it has huge costs.

Anecdotally, and from my own experience, the ignition interlock companies do not follow the formula that you so thoughtfully set forth.

And so I would urge that if this Bill does pass, that more stringent oversight be put, because lots of people out there are forced to make a hard choice of putting a breath device on their car and being in compliance with the law or violating the law because the IID companies do not honor the formula you set forth.

Additionally, anybody who knows anything about economics knows, if I sell a product for $200, but I have to give the next one away for free, then I have to sell the next one for 400 or I go out of business. And that's what happens.

These costs get passed on to other people in order to try and follow the formula. And the last thing I want to say is this Bill does not allow judges to do their job. It does not allow discretion.

There is a huge difference between somebody who is slightly over the legal limit and has no other offenses in their background versus somebody who's a .20 and has 100 speeding tickets.

That's something a judge should be able to look at in making the decision as to whether or not to require an ignition interlock device in every single case. And I ask that you take the economic aspect with the discretionary aspect and the fact that it's really. It's not going to do what we want it to do.

Finally, it also doesn't cover drugs at all. And there's no way we can cover drugs. And that's a problem that I see as well here. There are other solutions. Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair. Members Ignacio Hernandez, on behalf of the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, statewide association of criminal defence lawyers, we're also in opposition. Let me just say a couple of things. I've worked on these bills and opposed these bills most of the time over the last 15-20 years.

And what we have said has been pretty consistent. And unfortunately, some of the concerns that we have remain today after a decade or two working on them. Number one, as was mentioned earlier, judges already have discretion.

And what we have said is that according to statistics, as was mentioned, that reoffenses in the first month, which is what the Bill covers, is significantly low. It's about 3%.

And that's typically in criminal law, we allow judicial discretion when we see statistics like that because we want to ensure that the judges make good decisions but are not imposing the same penalty across the board. It should be on those that pose risk.

We have suggested for years that if you're going to impose an IID, that there should be perhaps guidelines for the judges. There are indicia of likelihood to reoffend, speeding tickets within a short period of time before the first DUI, high blood alcohol content level.

There are a number of other things that can be used to strengthen the ability of judges to choose the right offenders to impose IID because there are a lot of problems as far as the installation we have mentioned. There's also a problem with disproportionate enforcement.

The DMV's annual statistics show every year that 49% of the DUI arrests in California are Latino drivers. That has been consistent and we have not addressed that. We need to understand why there's disproportionate enforcement. And lastly, as was mentioned before, there is very little regulatory oversight of the vendors of these IIDs.

So those are the things that need to be addressed before we go further. We negotiated the deal many years ago to allow for voluntary use of IIDs because statistically there's better compliance and there's lower reoffense levels when you have a balance, when somebody can choose to install an IID and a number of other conditions.

So we have been working on this for years, and unfortunately, this bill goes completely contrary to everything that we've discussed for years. I understand the sentiment. I understand the tragedy. I think we've all had family and friends impacted by DUIs, and we don't discount the importance of that.

But statistically speaking, and what we've worked on over the years, this bill just does not match up with what we have seen for those reasons were opposed.

Thank you. Okay. Is there any other Member of the public wishing to express opposition for AB 366? Please state your name, organization and position on the Bill.

George Bramthieu, on behalf of ACLU California Action in respectful opposition.

Thank you.

Danica Rodarmel on behalf of Debt Free Justice California, the LA Public Defenders Union Initiate Justice and Law Defense in respectful opposition.

Eric Henderson on behalf of the Ella Baker Center For Human Rights in respectful opposition.

Rebecca Gonzales, Western Center on Law and Poverty, respectfully opposed.

Okay, thank you. Anyone else wishing to express opposition to AB 366? If not, I'll bring it back to the Committee for any questions or comments. Vice Chair Seyarto. You and me.

It's you and me. You know what I do, you know what I really do, especially on this subject. As anybody knows. As anybody that knows my background knows, I probably have pretty strong feelings about the consequences and the devastation that ensues for everybody involved.

Whether it's the first of all the victims, the ones that can't speak anymore because they're not here, the families that are left behind, like this gentleman here, the people that have to go witness all of this, it's pretty tough.

So all of that stuff, one of the things you think is when you're a first responder and you pull up on something like this is God, you wish you could just undo it. You wish you could go back and undo it, but you can't. It has to not have taken place in the first place.

All the stuff that goes after a drunk driving accident happens if you could have stopped it before it even started to occur. And that's what this device is trying to do. And it doesn't keep people who are sober from going to work. It might keep somebody who's not sober from going to work.

And they shouldn't be going to work, not in a car, not with them driving. We've had some devastating accidents in southwest Riverside County. Kids wiped out.

One of these things were on their car because they were second offenders, repeat offenders, remember, just because they get caught that one time, I don't care if their blood alcohol is .04 and they have an accident that's called wet and reckless. They've been drinking and they shouldn't be driving. Drunk driving is a choice that people make.

And as they drink more, their ability to reason decreases and they climb behind the wheel.

And if there's nothing stopping them, even friends who try to talk them out of it, this device can keep people like that from going back out on the road again in the condition that got them, that got them that award in the first place. Because that's what it is.

It's part of the consequence of driving drunk for the one time you got caught not for all the times you didn't, but the one time you got caught because something else happened, whether it's you're weaving down the road. And I want to address that.

I'm tired of thinking people thinking that people are profiled on the road when they're drunk driving. They're not profiled on the road. You can't tell who's who in a car.

I defy anybody to get on the freeway, go down the road and figure out what different ethnicities, genders, whoever it is, is driving in cars in front of you. You can't even see them.

But what you do see is a car going 100 miles an hour down the freeway, weaving, going in and out, following somebody too close because they have bad judgment. That's the car you pull over and whoever is in it happens to be the person that gets pulled over. That's, that's who gets in trouble.

So if there's issues with that, then they can try and figure out why it is that, that, that, like you were saying, if, if it's 49% Hispanic who population. Well, let's figure that out.

Why is it, it's not because somebody is spotting a car ahead of them on the freeway and can see, oh, that's a Hispanic driver, I'm going to pull them over. Try it. I'm telling you, get on the freeway and try that. I bet you can't figure it out. So it's all about the behavior.

And the behavior has to be reeled in. And this is something that will help reel that in. And more than that, it'll help protect other people. I feel really bad for the parents of kids who lost their lives when their kid is the one who was the drunk driver, because they probably didn't even know.

But this is a way for us to do that thing that I talked about, which was undo it before it happens. Then all that other stuff, the court, the jail, all that other stuff doesn't happen. And plus, it's a doggone wake up call.

It's a wake up call for the friends, for the families, everybody that this person is having some trouble. We need to take extra steps to ensure that they're not. And that's why I land in favor of supporting this Bill. I think it's a good Bill.

I think it addresses things before it happens and helps, it should address all of the issues that people have about crime, punishment and all those other things. So appreciate your Bill and efforts that you've made to make sure that it gets to the finish line here. Thank you.

Senator Perez

First of all, I want to thank the author for bringing this Bill forward. I'm very supportive of this legislation, I think for reasons that are a little bit different than my Senate colleague, Senator Seyarto.

But I really appreciate Assemblymember Petrie-Norris, you bringing this forward, because I think this speaks to this larger principle that we've been really focused on here in the state Legislature, which is the Norwegian model of public safety, which we've had lots of discussions about even prior to my time arriving here.

And I had an opportunity to actually travel to Norway, where we learned about this core principle, which is normalization.

And I think part of the challenge that we often hear brought up, and I know there's even been reporting on this in Calmatters, is when somebody does have a DUI and you, you know, they are dealing with these issues, they're not able to drive.

And driving, unfortunately, is a very, very important tool, especially throughout parts of Southern California where our public transit system unfortunately needs work in several areas. And so it really determines whether or not you'll be able to get to work, whether or not you'll be able to do the daily tasks that most of us need to do.

And so this, this principle, this principle of normalization really focuses on both rehabilitation and reintegration. And I think that the program that your Bill is supporting here is one that really encourages that. Right. How do we safely encourage people to. To continue driving while also ensuring that they're not drinking and driving. Right.

But still providing them an access point so that they're able to get to work and do the things that they need to do, and they're able to go through that rehabilitative process. I unfortunately, have known people that have had DUIs and have gone through that process.

And, you know, these tools, although they can be embarrassing and although they can present some challenges, I think it does allow somebody to focus on that rehabilitation process. And it's also a reminder of the harmful thing that they did and the harm that they could have caused somebody else in the process.

So I actually think programs like this that try to focus on reintegrating people back into society while still holding them accountable, but balancing, I think, the goal that we're trying to get to, which is to not have recidivism. Right. And to successfully support somebody in that transition, I think that's a good thing.

And I think this is a program that's an example of this. So I'm very supportive of this. And, you know, I think these are the kinds of programs that we should be taking a look at and have seen other examples, you know, being in Norway of normalization and how they incorporate that into their society.

But think that this is really a step in the right direction and the program has proven to be successful as well. So happy to support your Bill and happy that you've also been working, I think with some of the opposition. I think that there is, there's, you know, work to be done here.

But this is really good legislation and smart legislation. Thank you.

Thank you. We have a motion by Vice Chair Seyarto. I also want to thank you very much for bringing this Bill for and I just want to particularly acknowledge the provisions of the Bill that reduce the cost of these devices. If somebody is low income, I think that's absolutely critical.

I mean, if we're going to require it, we need to reduce the barriers to people to implement this technology. And so I appreciate your considerations. Really thinking about the equity considerations of this program and amending the Bill to focus specifically on alcohol related DUI offenses.

I just want to acknowledge somebody who isn't here today, our colleague Senator Archuleta, who is a co author of your Bill, who lost one of his family Members earlier this year due to a drunk driving incident. I know he feels very strongly about the importance of this Bill.

Could have prevented that tragedy from happening, could have prevented this tragedy from happening to your family. And so I strongly support this Bill. I do have a do pass as amended recommendation. I'll turn it back over you to close.