Assembly Standing Committee on Public Safety

Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the Assembly Public Safety Committee. I'll note this is our last regularly scheduled program for the year. Thank you all so much for being with us. I'd like to begin with a couple housekeeping items.

This part is important. There are some general rules of conduct before we start our hearings today.

Please note that in order to facilitate the goal of conducting a legislative hearing, and as we proceed with witness and public comment throughout the hearing, I want to ensure that everyone understands that the Assembly has rules to ensure that we maintain order and run an efficient and fair hearing.

Please silence your cell phones if you haven't already done so. We will not permit. I will not permit conduct that disrupts, disturbs or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of today's legislative proceedings. I will give one and only one warning. Please be aware that violation of these rules will subject you to removal or other enforcement actions.

We have the off calendar. We have a Senate Bill 356 by Senator Jones that has been pulled by the author. We do not yet have a quorum. However, we do have sufficient Members to proceed with a Subcommitee, so we will put aside our consent calendar.

I will mention at this time that due to scheduling issues, we are making special accommodations by allowing Senator Wahab and Senator Umberg to present their bills out of sign and order when they arrive as soon as possible for all other measures. We are hearing today's measures in sign and order.

I will also note that we will be hearing SJR9 by Senator Durazo today. This measure is a resolution that was added to our agenda yesterday. As always, authors will have five minutes to present as will their main witnesses, with a combined total time of five minutes per side. That is the Committee standing practice. One moment.

Senator Wahab, are you ready to proceed? We have someone who can go in front of you if you need a minute. Okay. I see. The very gracious Senator Wahab will allow Senator Arreguín, who's chairing Senate Public Safety, to go first. Mr. Vice Chair, it's just you. Oh, and Mr. Gonzalez is with us as well.

We'll start with Senator Arreguín. This is. Bear with me. This is item number 19, colleague, Senate Bill 704, entitled Firearms Firearm Barrels.

Senator Arreguin, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members, for the opportunity to present SB704. First, I'd like to begin by accepting Committee's amendment which reduced the criminal penalties under the bill. SB 704 requires that the purchase of a firearm barrel follow a Similar process as to when someone purchases a firearm.

That is it must be conducted in person through a licensed dealer and with a background check conducted on the purchaser. Put this in context. In 2019-2021, the number of ghost guns recovered from a crime in California increased by 592%.

And this increase in ghost guns accounted for nearly 70% of the total number of crime guns recovered in California during this period. And following this data, in 2022 and 2023, California enacted leading laws to combat the manufacturing of gun of ghost guns. However, the fight in combating unregulated firearms continues.

The ghost gun industry continues to seek out new ways to market. Skip the background check. Access to untraceable firearms. Criminals and segments of the firearm industry have pivoted away from traditional ghost gun parts and kits towards 3D printing, once again circumventing state and federal firearm regulations.

And so why this is relevant is that the purchasing of a barrel is an essential piece of a gun and essential piece to help manufacture a ghost gun. Barrels are entirely unregulated, can be purchased online or in a store without a background check or any restriction.

SB704 seeks to close this loophole that allows individuals to acquire firearm barrels using those guns without oversight. In order to curb gun violence in our communities, we have exempted law enforcement, we have lowered penalties. We have really taken into consideration the input we've heard from stakeholders.

This bill does extend the process for lawful gun owners, including individuals have already gone through a background check because they purchased a firearm. It exempts law enforcement agencies, including the military, a federally licensed collector, among others. With me to testify, Steven Lindley, Senior Program Manager at the Brady Campaign and Jonathan Feldman represent the California Police Chiefs Association.

Corres Chair and Committee Members. My name is Steve Lindley. I'm a 28 year law enforcement veteran and former chief of the California Department of Justice Bureau of Firearms. Over probably the last 20 years we've had a ghost gun issue here in California and it became progressively worse.

In 2016, we took the opportunity to pass legislation in order to curb this problem. However, that was vetoed by the Governor at the time.

And that tidal wave of ghost guns came from California, washed across our country, and we've seen a rapid increase in the number of fire ghost gun firearms that have been confiscated by law enforcement, not only here in California, but across the nation. So California finally took action to curb the ghost gun issue.

However, that just kind of shifted the problem from completely manufactured ghost guns to the ghost guns frames being manufactured at home with 3D printers. Those 3D printers have become vastly more efficient and reliable. And now we have these ghost guns being produced at home.

One component that is very difficult for people to produce at home is the barrel. It normally needs to be professionally manufactured, and that's what we're seeking to curtail. The ghost gun issue with 3D printers is hard to deal with the software because it's already out there.

And two, the manufacturers of these items, it's not really illegal for them to allow it to happen. So 3D printed guns. The way to control that is through the barrels. Thank you. I'm here for questions and I ask for your aye vote.

Yeah. Good morning, Chair and Members. Jonathan Feldman with the California Police Chiefs Association first want to apologize that our letter didn't get in on time. We took a late update support position on the bill. And it was largely because the debates internally within the chiefs on firearms regulations are contentious. Right.

If you can imagine, there are a lot of police chiefs that have firm Second Amendment beliefs. But through those conversations, our perspective and our guiding principle always is what is good for public safety.

It's overall the benefits versus the burdens, and in this case, absolutely the benefits in regulating the barrels, which are critical components of the ghost guns that are a prevalent problem and becoming even more so throughout the state.

It's important that every bit of information that we can gain to investigate, prevent and protect against gun violence, we add to the bits of information that we have to do everything that we possibly can to prevent the type of violence that is being committed through the use of these firearms.

And for that reason, we strongly support the bill. Ask your Aye vote.

Thank you, Senator, for the presentation. Gentlemen, thank you for your testimony. Next we'll hear the #MeToos. Anyone else in support of the bill come forward. Name, organization and position only, please.

Ethan Nagler, on behalf of the city of Santa Rosa, in strong support. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Rebecca Marcus, on behalf of my colleagues. At Everytown for Gun Safety and Giffords, thank you. In support.

Thank you for the clarification. Anyone else? All right. We'll next take witnesses in opposition. Do we have anyone here testifying in opposition? We do. Please come forward. Once you begin speaking, you will have a combined total time of 5 minutes to address the Committee.

Morning, Chair and Members. My name is Adam Wilson. I'm here on behalf of Gun Owners of California, California Rifle and Pistol Association and the National Rifle Association. We oppose 704. It's built on speculation, not evidence, and it targets the wrong people. The author claims this bill will stop ghost guns by regulating firearm barrels.

But California's own DOJ ghost gun report makes it clear that the vast majority of privately made firearms recovered by law enforcement are built from complete kits purchased online kits that already include barrels.

Meanwhile, SB 704 imposes strict requirements on the sale of individual barrels, including background checks and dealer transfers, yet admits that the DOJ cannot retain the buyer's information. So even under this new system, there's no way to track these barrels once they've been sold. Barrels also aren't serialized. It creates paperwork, not prevention. This bill doesn't stop criminals.

It impacts the law abiding hobbyists at home trying to improve the accuracy of their rifle or someone swapping a warm barrel on a legacy firearm. It turns simple legal acts into criminal liability, not because of misuse, but because the state wants to micromanage gun ownership through regulation of parts. Constitutionally, it still crosses the line.

The Supreme Court has affirmed that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep arms in functioning condition. While SB704 doesn't outright ban barrels, it imposes barriers that make it harder and riskier for lawful citizens to maintain, repair and upgrade their firearms. And that undermines the right itself. SB704 is symbolic, not effective.

It burdens the wrong people and solves a problem that California law already claims to address. And again, if criminals can't be tracked and barrels can't be tracked, then what's the point of this bill? We urge a no vote.

Mr. Chairman, Members, forgive me. It was an adventure coming in here, putting my belt on. While I'm here at the table, I want to echo the comments of my colleague here, Sam Paredes, representing Gunners California National Rifle Association and the California Rifle and Pistol Association. The the.

The focus on barrels as opposed to the focus on criminals is is misguided. I believe that this Legislature, this Committee, should look at the successes of Oakland, Baltimore and many other communities that have switched their focus from gun control as the solution for the criminal misuse of firearms.

As a matter of fact, we have Oakland that has seen a 45% decrease in criminal misuse of firearms. Baltimore has seen a similar decrease. Cities throughout the country that are prone to firearms violence 35% decrease.

And it is because they have switched their focus from gun control to crime control and focusing on those who are most willing or apt to commit a crime with a firearm that works. This bill will serve no purpose in reducing any sort of misuse of firearms.

Criminals, as you well know, can access anything they want, anytime they want. Period. All of the laws in the world are not going to prevent them from doing that. This Bill only affects law abiding citizens who want nothing more than to upgrade or repair their guns.

And now they have to go through another hoop and which we believe to be unconstitutional. For these reasons, we are strongly opposed to this measure.

Thank you gentlemen. Thank you both for your testimony. Will he take any other metoos in the room? If you're opposed to the measure, please come forward. Name, organization and position please.

Leslie Caldwell, Houston California Public Defenders Association. When I think the author, the Senator. Thank you and the Committee, we are withdrawing our opposition.

Aubrey Rodriguez, with ACLU California Action. Just real quick want to say that. We appreciate the Senator and his staff. For working with us and we hope. To eventually remove that wobbler and then hopefully remove our opposition. But right now, as in print, we are opposed. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Final call. Anyone else hoping to be heard on the matter? Seeing none. We'll turn it over to the deus for any questions or comments. Any questions or comments from Committee Members. Okay. Seeing none. Senator, would you like to close and perhaps I'll pitch you a question for aid of closing.

You heard some concerns raised by the opposition. If you have any response for the Committee, this would be the appropriate time.

I just want to clarify that this bill is not intended to burden law abiding citizens who go through the background process. Illegally purchase of a gun. We have exempted law enforcement, military in person. They're going to background check. And this is a real issue. And this is a solution to solve a real issue.

As I said, 592% increase in ghost guns recovered in California, which represents 70% of the guns recovered by law enforcement. And so the more we can try to make it more difficult for people to construct these illegal guns, we can reduce the harm that's being inflicted on our communities in California.

With that I respectfully asked for an Aye vote.

Thank you very much. Senator, colleagues, the Chair is recommending and I appreciate the work of the author. We do not yet have a quorum forum, so we'll let you know the outcome. Senator, thank you everyone for being here. We'll take the motion vote later. Next.

I see that Senator Wahab has arrived, so we'll be moving to item number six. Colleagues, this is Senate Bill 258. I will note that I also see Senator Umberg in the room. So as soon as we're done with Senator Wahab, we'll move to Senator Umberg. After that, I believe Senator Hurtado is the next in the queue.

If you have not yet signed in and you're an author, please come on down. Senator Wahab, when you're ready, the floor is yours.

All right. So, Chair and Committee Members, I want to thank you all for your patience. SB 258 closes the last spousal rape loophole in California law. This Bill is a Legislative Women's Caucus priority bill. Currently, our law permits the rape of a spouse who is unable to consent due to a disability, while the same act of rape committed by an unmarried partner is a crime.

Disability can impede people's ability to consent, whether it's because of an intellectual or developmental disability or an age-related disease like Alzheimer's or dementia.

Anyone who knowingly takes advantage of a person when they are unable to consent to sex because of their disability is a rapist, which is why no other part of the penal code regarding sex crimes against people with disabilities exempts spouses from the definition. Rape is rape.

We need to make sure we're protecting the most vulnerable among us. 42 other states have already eliminated spousal rape exceptions, and California is long overdue to follow suit. This Bill would ensure that perpetrators who rape their spouses when they are unable to consent because of a disability would face justice.

Here today in support of SB 258 are Terry Harmon, Assistant DA at the Santa Clara County District Attorney's Office and Head of their Sexual Assault Case Unit, and Tony Anderson, Associate Director of the Association of Regional Center Agencies, or ARCA, a network of 21 community organizations that support over 400,000 individuals with developmental disabilities.

Good morning. On behalf of District Attorney Jeff Rosen, the Santa Clara County DA's Office is in support of SB 258. My name is Terry Harmon. I'm an Assistant DA. I oversee our Sexual Assault Unit. There can be many defenses to an allegation of rape. I am married to the perpetrator, I am married to the victim should not be one of them.

Far more people are vulnerable to sexual assault because of this loophole than if we get rid of it. The Legislature has already determined that it is unlawful to have sexual intercourse with someone who cannot consent, which is why we have this section in the first place.

Why does being married make this illegal act legal? The ability to consent is not a permanent label for any of us. It is not static or unchanging. It is fluid. People can be born with disabilities and people can become disabled through age—Alzheimer's, Lou Gehrig's, people can suffer a traumatic brain injury due to a car accident.

Whether someone is capable of consenting to sexual intercourse must be evaluated in conjunction with the event itself and the surrounding circumstances. This Bill does not criminalize consensual sex. This Bill allows disabled people to have agency over their lives and to have sex when they want and not to have it thrust upon them when they don't.

Because part of sex life control is the right to say no, regardless of whether you are married to that person. We prosecute acts of rape stemming from all sorts of situations and within the confines of different relationships: stranger, dating, life partner, spouse. Rape is an act of violence. It often leaves physical wounds and always inflicts emotional trauma.

And rape is rape regardless of the marital status between the two parties. And it is time that California law reflects that. Thank you.

Morning. Morning, Chair. Morning, Members. Tony Anderson, Association of Regional Center Agencies. For over 54 years now, Regional Centers have served Californians with developmental disabilities throughout their entire lives. Our central charge of the Regional Centers is to help people with developmental disabilities to become full participants in their communities, free of segregation.

The Center's fight on a regular basis for the human and civil rights of people with developmental disabilities to have access to every facet of a person's life like anyone else without a disability. While it is true that people with developmental disabilities have unique needs, they also have the same needs as anyone else.

And this includes the need to have friendships, intimate relationships, and marriage. Unfortunately, if they choose to get married, current law, current law makes them more vulnerable to spousal rape and sexual assault, and this is not fair or equal treatment of people with disabilities. If any group should have additional protections, it should be people with developmental disabilities.

It has been well established for decades that people with developmental disabilities are victims of rape and sexual assault at rates 4 to 10 times higher and more frequently than the people without disabilities. There are many factors that contribute to the higher rates.

Some are the perceptions by perpetrators that the victim will not be a good witness in court, they're more trusting, and that sometimes they're in a power position where they're dependent on their food, health, medicine, and housing, just to name a few.

The biggest challenge of sexual assault against people with developmental disabilities is that the criminal justice system does not pursue the justice population for this population equitably. Somebody has to stand up for victims with developmental disabilities and force the justice system to grant them the protection they deserve.

In closing, California has a long standing, strong commitment to people with developmental disabilities, and there's no reason why we should be among the last remaining states to carry a Bill like this. An exception, a crime exception on the books today, is clearly a crime to commit rape against an unmarried person with a developmental disability.

And the victim is afforded additional considerations to correct inequities, injustice, that have existed for people with developmental disabilities throughout time, throughout history. However, this consideration is not provided to persons with developmental disabilities if the victim is the spouse of the offender. So, SB 258 declares rape is rape. Clear and simple.

And it is—and that any spousal exemption should be removed. Thank you. And we are obviously in support of SB 258.

Thank you, Senator, for the presentation. Thank you both for your testimony. Before we proceed, I see we now have a quorum. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay, two present's, three here's, we have a quorum. Before I go on, we may need one of you to move over to that other seat right there. We may have some opposition witnesses for those two seats. But now we'll take the me toos. If you're here in support of the Bill, you know the drill.

Please come forward at this time.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee. Robert Brown, the San Bernardino County District Attorney's Office, and on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association, in support of the Bill.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Usha Mutchler, on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association, in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Josh Gauger, on behalf of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, in support. Thanks.

All right, thank you all very much. Seeing no one else, we'll now take any witnesses in opposition to the Bill. Do we have any witnesses with us today? We do. Perfect. Come on down. Once you take your seat and start speaking into the microphone, you'll have up to five minutes to address the Committee.

I think another witness may be coming in.

Good morning. My name is Claudia Center, and I'm Legal Director of Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund. For more than 45 years, DREDF has been led by people with disabilities and family members of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. I am both a person with a disability and such a parent.

I am here in strong opposition to SB 258 unless it is amended to address the concerns of the disability organization. And so far, no one has been interested or will talk to us about our amendments in any good faith.

Too often, those in power, including family members, prosecutors, and judges, presume that individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities lack the capacity to make their own choices, including choices about dating and sex based solely on their disabilities.

As we have told everybody's staff on this Committee, the California Code does not include a definition of capacity to consent to sex and requires no expert testimony on such capacity. Instead, prosecutors, judges, and juries rely on an 1897 case called Griffin.

And under that standard, appellate courts affirming Section 261 convictions readily find that people with even mild or moderate intellectual and developmental disabilities lack capacity to consent to sex. As one appellate court noted, the state has restricted the ability of developmentally disabled people to have consensual sex.

SB 238 would not update these outdated understandings of capacity to consent to intimate choices but would instead expand them to married disabled people. I want to emphasize that this Bill is not about situations in which a person with IDD says no to sexual contact and reports rape.

It is not about situations in which a person with IDD is sexually abused by a staff member or someone with power over them. We have other criminal codes that criminalize this, conduct codes that the disability community supports.

And as part of our protection and advocacy systems, which Disability Rights California helps enforce, we are talking about the rights of married and unmarried people with disabilities to have intimate relationships of their own choosing. It's frustrating to be here with this Bill that is about disabled people.

Every disability-led organization wants this Bill to be amended or opposes this Bill. So, it's very frustrating. It's been a terrible month for all of us and this is just one more example of us not being listened to in public policy. So, we urge no unless the amendments that we've asked for are considered and implemented. Thank you.

Thank you very much for your testimony. And ma'am, you're not required to, but if you'd like to remain seated, we do want you to feel heard today. There may or may not be questions from the Committee.

Absolutely.

Thank you very much for being here. With that, do we have anyone else who'd like to be heard in opposition to the Bill? If so, come forward. Name, organization, position, please.

Gwen Gunheim, on behalf of LA County Public Defenders Union Local 148 and La Defensa, strongly opposed.

Before we go on, is the speaker working? Okay, thank you.

Leslie Caldwell, Houston for the California Public Defenders Association, in respectful opposition.

Aubrey Rodriguez, with ACLU California Action, in respectful opposition unless amended. Thank you.

Allis Withim, on behalf of Initiate Justice, in respectful opposition unless amended.

Jeff Tartagia, an advocate, Disability Rights CARA, and a few other organizations. Opposition.

Tessa D'Arcangelew Ampersand, on behalf of Smart Justice California, opposed unless amended.

Marco Ramos, on behalf of Camp Fro, opposed.

Tramell Washington of Volupair with Disability Rights California. We stand in opposition to this Bill. Thank you.

Joshua Stickney, on behalf of The Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, in opposition.

Robert Copeland, member of...fight with disability rights organization, oppose unless amended. Thank you.

Wonderful. Final call for anyone else hoping to be heard on the Bill. All right. Well, thank you all very much for your testimony today. We'll now turn it over to the dais. Would anyone like to get us started? Mr. Lackey.

Yeah, I think this is a very, very critical topic, and it's one that I feel very attached to. And one of the very delicate issues but deserves further discussion, is the opposition has indicated their concern over the capacity consent, and it is a very, very critical issue.

I don't know if any of you have ever seen the program Love on the Spectrum. It talks about people on the spectrum who are engaging in relationships. And if you haven't seen it, I highly recommend you watch at least a couple episodes. You'll probably get hooked. But I would tell you that this is a real thing.

And I think a lot of times people who are unfamiliar with people that have disabilities do not understand the fact that there are certain things that are evidence of impairment and there are certain things that prove that there is no impairment.

And emotion is one of those measuring pieces that often have limited to no impairment, and they link the ability to consent with their other disability. And I think that that's a very, very dangerous pathway. If I could have the author kind of clarify this capacity to consent and how her Bill addresses that.

Definitely. So, and I appreciate that. I appreciate all the concerns that were raised. First and foremost, this is a very narrow, tightly targeted Bill that simply removes a sentence from the penal code in order to eliminate the spousal rape exception, right?

Any amendment to the definition of consent, including a presumption that everyone is competent over 18, could create problems for cases involving alcohol and unconsciousness. That is one of the reasons why we are concerned with capacity. No state in the United States has the kind of capacity criteria that the opponents are seeking here.

All other states use some variant of California law, which is understanding the nature of the act, although the opponents claim that establishing a definition of capacity is different from consent, in fact, they are one thing with one test.

Lack of capacity means inability to do the things in 261.6 that are required to consent: understand the nature of the act or transaction, and act voluntarily. The proper way to handle this is with a definition in 261. There is no reason to touch the other statutes since those laws do not have spousal rape exceptions.

Presumably, the reason we are adding some things to the Bill is that they are responsive to the concern with the Bill regarding the exception. These other offenses do not have such an exemption, so there's no reason to touch them. This is, again, a very narrow and tight Bill, specifically to remove the spousal exception in rape.

California would be the only state with such a law, so there are no models we can look into in order to see their experiences. Spousal rape exceptions are an archaic legacy of the 17th century English common law that have no place in modern penal code.

Whatever problem the opposition is trying to solve, the spousal rape exception is not the answer. And I'm also happy to say that we—this Bill—came about from our district from individuals that are disabled that were raped by their spouse. They are too afraid to come up and testify.

But they shared their stories and they told me to mention that because these are real life people with these experiences that were not able to go after their spouse.

They eventually divorced their spouse with a lot of help and support from community, but they were not able to get the justice that people get when they're not married and somebody rapes them.

Every single case law that was in conversation with opposition about spousal rape and all the potential harm that it could do if we remove this exception is not accurate. Every single case law that they showed was a paratransit driver that raped their client, was a caregiver that raped their client. Again, nothing to do with marriage.

And we have professionals that have worked and clearly show that in the judge's discretion and much more that we are, again, just trying to provide more support for victims in marriages. That is all. And for the legal aspect and technical definition, I'd love to defer to my witness here.

Yes. Good morning. Calcrim defines the ability to consent that a person must act freely and voluntarily and know the nature of the act. And a person may initially consent, and they can withdraw their act consent. If a suspect of a sexual assault reasonably and objectively believes that this person is consenting, there is no crime.

So, the law has built in across many penal codes, the definition of consent and the application of consent and built in protections for those who are accused of sexual assault. And the law looks at what were the nature and circumstances, what was going on that day? What did that incident entail? What happened to that victim?

What was said? What did she do? What did he do? I'm assuming these are not same sex couples for purposes of this hypothetical. And the law will also look at if someone has a disability, how did that disability affect that person in that moment? There are no labels that are permanent.

And the opposition has expressed numerous times to us a concern that a third party or a family member of the IDD individual will have strong feelings like, oh, this person should not be engaging in sex. This is wrong and therefore, that person has taken advantage of them and they must be punished.

And they voiced a concern that that scenario is going to lead to a prosecution. But that's not how it works. We don't have someone come off the street and say, hey, I want the person who's dating my daughter to be charged with rape because she's IDD, and then that person is charged with rape.

That's just not how it works. We need to look at what happened in that incident. What does that person with the IDD, alleged IDD, say? What was their experience? What do they want to have happen? So, the belief that this law will harm people is really absurd.

More people will be harmed by not getting rid of this loophole. This loophole legalizes rape and under no scenario is that okay.

No, I don't think anybody here is trying to defend the rapist. I think what we're trying to do is define the will and consenting and having that being misinterpreted as because they have a developmental disability that they don't have the capacity to consent. I think that's clearly a concern because we had—I know that this is not a new concern.

On May 23rd, when you had the Senate Public Safety hearing, I know Senator Wiener asked if you would work with our opponents here in the disability community.

And I've been told since that time, you've had one meeting and they proposed amendments, especially the one listed in the Smart Justice opposition letter. And is there a specific reason you could help us understand why you rejected that amendment?

Yes. So, it's not exactly accurate. We have been having conversations long term, and we have had conversations even before the Senate hearing. First and foremost, you know, we asked for amendments early on in the Senate and we were met with, we don't want to give amendments, we're going to be in opposition.

Then, it came back that it was in the Assembly and asked for things that were patently unreasonable, including sex ed. That was asked. This is not a sex ed Bill. This is purely remove spousal rape exceptions, right?

We provided a counter proposal that addressed all of the concerns they had previously raised, explaining why we couldn't accept the amendments they offered. They were too broad and enormous potential to cause even more wide ranging, unintended consequences. Mind you, we have multiple lawyers that support this Bill, including Stanford Law professors and much more.

In response to our offer, the DRC specifically told us, and there is clear, you know, track record here, that they were no longer interested in engaging in amendments when we said that we will not put a sex ed bill into this particular piece and that was one of the many items that they asked for.

We were also told that, you know, in the counter proposals, the back and forth, that to create a capacity definition, which we explained why we cannot create a capacity definition. Our legal experts exhaustively searched other states penal codes asking for anything similar and were unable to come up with anything.

In all 50 states. We asked for Smart Justice to provide examples of other states with similar language and there was no response to that as well. So, when we were met with we are no longer interested in engaging, you know, we continued moving the Bill forward.

Mr. Lackey, I'm sorry to interrupt your line of questioning. I will note that our second opposition witness did arrive on your best available time. At the Chair's discretion, I'm going to go out of order, allow her to present her testimony for 2 and a half minutes. I'll then turn it back to you, Mr. Lackey.

Hi. Thank you so much for your grace. My name is Carolyn Garrig and I am the disabled survivor of spousal rape who met with many of your staff this spring while working with Senator Dr. Wahab's office and the NWPCC to tell part of my story and ask you to sign on in support of SB 258.

It is obviously very strange, or should be very strange, that I'm here now asking you to oppose it. So, I'm going to explain why. In February of 2018, I wrote an essay called Time's up for Me Too. It is widely available and as of this morning, it was even posted on SB258.org's website.

It's taught in disability studies classes worldwide. And in February of this year, I was contacted by the Senator's office and a representative of the NWPCC because they had read that essay and wanted me to testify on behalf of the Bill. I said yes. Immediately, yes.

Because who wants a loophole in a rape law, especially one that impacts the other disabled people. That essay explored disability, spousal rape, lateral ableism, and our exclusion from representation. In that Bill, I mentioned it was focused on media representation, but really, it's about representation everywhere.

More specifically, I wrote about my ex-husband who repeatedly took advantage of my disabilities to rape me over the course of our marriage, documented it extensively, and confessed it to the LAPD before the DA told me he would not be prosecuted. It's been 14 years since that happened, and I still have the charge sheet.

Every time the essay is published or reprinted, I receive DMs from people disclosing their own assaults. I also receive threats, stalking and harassment. It is not—I put myself at risk to be here, just to be open about that.

Early this spring, as I spoke with staff from nearly all of the members of the Senate Public Safety Committee over Zoom, identifying myself as a disabled advocate and survivor.

30 seconds.

Okay, sorry. I'll go—I'll just skip ahead. Late this spring, I learned that the Bill would not fix the loophole created by its parent Bill without removing the civil liberties of part of the disability community.

This is not a Bill that can be wholly fixed by amendments because the language that allows for the discriminatory practices is housed in another part of the state law. To create another Bill to address the issues created by this one would be an unnecessary Herculean task.

At this time, I was also told I would not be needed to testify. Back to the essay, in that essay, I also wrote about my intellectually and developmentally disabled aunt who experienced multiple sexual assaults at her sheltered workshop and day centers.

I wrote about her enthusiastic expression of romantic desire and how hard it was to understand everything, even.

I'm sorry, we're at time. I'll give you a sentence to wrap up, but we're at time.

Okay. I shouldn't have to point out that it's wrong to give nominal justice to some of the disability community at the expense of disabled people whose freedoms less valuable. This Bill is supported by disabled people—is opposed by disabled people—who have been active in the community for a long time.

And this Bill would not likely have changed the outcome of my case if it occurred today.

I'm going to stop you right there. No, it's okay. We may have more questions for you. I just, on a personal note, want to thank you for being here today. Thank you for taking the time to come up here. I cannot imagine that telling your story gets any easier with time.

And I want you to know that we appreciate, all of us, appreciate you being here to be part of this important conversation. So, thank you. We may have more questions, but with that, Mr. Lackey, I want to turn it back to you.

Well, thank you. I, I think that that witnesses—witness—shows how complex this issue is. And we need to really focus on this concern about the capacity to, to consent, because I don't think there's anybody up here that supports rape. Rape is clearly an unacceptable pathway.

But what we want to make sure is that it's not charged when it shouldn't be. When there is consent, it needs to be seen as such, but when it's not, it needs to be seen as not. And although that sounds very simple, when you have a challenge in how to communicate, that becomes very, very complex.

And so, I, I'm clearly going to support this today because I need to send the message that rape is never acceptable, ever. But I wish and I hope that you will continue to work with the opposition to help them understand that that's what your intention and what the outcome will be of your proposal.

And with that, I'm done.

Thank you very much, Assemblymember Lackey. Would anyone else like to go forward with a question or comment from the dais? Mr. Vice Chair.

Make this real quick. Mr. Chair, thank you. As probably, few Members who can actually say they've worked on rape cases here in this building. It is hard to prove, and an investigation does need to be done. And it's.

It's in the hands of the investigators, district attorneys also, to prove all that and the burdens and everything else that go along with it. So, I want to thank you for bringing this along as well and I will be moving the Bill.

We have a motion. Is there a second? Okay, we have a second by Nguyen. Any other discussion? Dr. Sharp Collins, is that a mic up? Okay. Okay. It's just up. All right. Anyone else?

Are we allowed?

No. Only if a question's posed. I'm sorry. If with no other questions or comments from the dais, Dr. Wahab, I'll allow you to have a brief closing if you'd like.

Thank you. First and foremost, I really do want to thank the opposition. I also want to thank all of those that have actually shared their story with our office, our staff, and me personally.

I will say, even as former Chair of Public Safety, sexual assault crimes are one of the worst that leaves a mark for a lifetime on an individual. And what we are trying to do here, and I wholeheartedly believe that we are trying to help vulnerable community Members and remove these loopholes.

We are committed to working with, you know, opposition on future efforts to kind of find a way to address some of their other concerns, but I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Senator. And I want to say thank you to all of the witnesses who are here today. I know there is much more that could be said, and I appreciate you taking the time to be here. I am recommending an aye, Colleagues. I agree with sentiments from my colleague from the Palmdale, Lancaster area.

Rape is rape. It is never acceptable. And we need to send that message very loud and very clear. With that said, I agree with your comments, Mr. Lackey. Threading the needle. Hearing the concerns of the community that very much wants to engage. I have full confidence that Senator Wahab will do that moving forward.

I know that many colleagues, as it approaches a potential floor vote, will be hoping to see those conversations continue. And I know you to be a thoughtful and detailed officer, so I have no doubt you will, when you say engage with them, that that will, in fact, happen.

So, with that, colleagues, we have an aye recommendation, motion, and a second. Let's call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay, that Bill is out. It'll remain on call for other Members to add on. Thank you, everyone, for being here. We next go to Senator Umberg. Senator, I see you have three measures up today. Did you want to start with SB 27?

I'd like to start with SB 398. File number eight.

Got that. Okay. So, colleagues, on the agenda, we're showing this is item 10, SB 398, by Senator Umberg. Senator, you'll have five minutes. Whenever you're ready.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members, I'm going to try to model behavior because Senate Judiciary starts in 13 minutes. Thank you very much to the staff, particularly Dustin Weber, for the work on this Bill. SB398 closed a loophole.

Making a crime for a person to knowingly or willingly pay, or offer to pay other valuable consideration to a person to induce them to either vote or register to vote. I would urge an aye vote. With me here is Mr. Trent Lange. He's also going to be very short.

Yes. Good morning, Chair and Members. President of the California Clean Money Campaign. We're proud to sponsor SB398 and grateful to the leadership of Senator Umberg and the Committee. One of the cornerstones over democracies, the. Principle that no one should be allowed to buy votes.

There currently is a loophole to offer cash in lotteries as long as people do not explicitly ask to vote. This Bill closes those loopholes. So we respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you.

All right. Thank you both. I think that's record time. Senator. Nicely done. MeToo's next. If you're in support of the Bill, come forward at this time. Seeing no one. Anyone here to testify in opposition to the Bill. Any show of hands? Nope. Any other MeToo's? Oh, we have one. Okay. Ah, yes. Come on down.

I'll be quick. My name is David Bolog. I noticed that the legislations legislators have tried in vain to try to get people to come out and vote more and more. I question though, if this was done by another person who supports the Democratic Party, such as the Soros. One of.

The tribes or the Pritzkers, if the Senator would have had a problem with this or if it was done in support of his former seatmate who's just been on his podcast recently. So that's my question. Would this actually have happened if it was somebody from the other party to try to get people to come out and vote?

But most importantly, I just want to say, Senator Umberg, it's important to listen to your constituents. You've had people come out for the last two weeks yesterday, specifically in Fullerton to talk to your office. Be great if you listen to them. Thank you so much. I appreciate you acknowledging me.

Thank you for your testimony. Colleagues. I will treat that as opposition testimony. Anyone else hoping to be heard on the Bill? Okay, we'll turn it back to the deus. Questions or comments? A second motion by win. I think I heard the second from Dr. Sharpe. Collins. Senator Umberg will give you a chance to close.

Thank you. The answer to the opposition is yes.

I had no doubt. And with that, Senator Umberg, I am recommending an aye with a motion. And second, let's call the roll on.

[Roll Call]

Okay, that bill's out. Remains on call. Thank you. Senator, would you like to go to item one or two next?

That is. That is item number one to my colleague. Senate Bill 27 by Senator Umberg. When you're ready. Senator, five minutes for you and for your witnesses.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. And thank you to Ms. Choi for your help on this measure. Care Court was originally introduced several years ago at the basically at the instigation of the Governor. Senator Eggman and I carried a bill that established the Care program and Care Court.

What Care Court does is it focuses on those who are schizophrenic or have schizophrenia like conditions. What this bill does is it cleans up some of the issues that we're trying to address in terms of making care court more efficient and addressing the population it was intended to address. And those are with schizophrenia. Schizophrenia like conditions.

This bill has been triple referred. It's been through two previous committees. For this Committee, I think some of the most pertinent parts are the issue surrounding those who are charged with misdemeanor but are incompetent to stand trial.

Current situation is those who are charged with a misdemeanor and incompetent to stand trial are simply released back to live under a bridge if that's where they were originally found. And sadly, that doesn't help either them nor the public.

What this does is it allows them to be, in essence, enrolled in care court so that they can be treated for their conditions. It also provides a bit of an expansion of the population for which care court can be used. And that would include those with mood disorders with psychotic features.

It's important to note that this expansion is a very small expansion of the population that may be treated, maybe basically enrolled in care Court. It also combines hearings to make it more efficient for both participants as well as for the courts.

With me here to testify in support is Dr. Aaron Meyer, a behavioral health officer for the City of San Diego, and Merid Rasool from Judicial Council. Thank you very much, Mr. Or Ms. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And with that, I ask Mr. Meyer and. Or Dr. Meyer. Excuse me. And Mr. Rasool to testify.

You both have five minutes.

Good morning, Members of the Committee. My name is Aaron Meyer. I'm a practicing psychiatrist and assistant clinical Professor of the University of California, San Diego.

While I'm not speaking on behalf of the University of California, I am here today as the contracted behavioral health officer of the City of San Diego, proud supporter of Senate Bill 27.

According to a 2011 NIMH study, the 12 month prevalence of bipolar I disorder in the United States is 0.6% with a lifetime prevalence of 1.0% consistent with other severe mental illnesses. However, bipolar I disorder is overrepresented in prison populations with prevalence rates between 2% and 7%.

But we can reverse this trend by prioritizing individuals with severe mental illness in the behavioral health continuum of care. Bipolar I disorder with psychotic features is a subset of those with bipolar I disorder and different than bipolar I without psychotic features.

This subset of has more lifetime hospitalizations and involuntary commitments, higher rates of substance use disorder, and greater unemployment. This Bill acknowledges that this subset requires prioritization. In a study conducted by UC Davis researchers, 59% of patients with bipolar I disorder were psychotic at the time of their arrest.

Sadly, 62% of inmates with bipolar disorder had received inpatient treatment in the three month period preceding their arrest. With SB27, individuals who need help the most have a greater chance of linkage to stabilizing treatment. According to the February 2025 report to the LA County Board of Supervisors, 59% of care court referrals came from diversion.

But it is unclear how many of these referrals actually resulted in petitions. SB27 clarifies that referrals can be counted as petitions. The hope of the CARE act program was to prevent avoidable psychiatric hospitalizations, incarceration and conservatorships. By offering a structured path to recovery and stability through a new civil court process, SB27 moves us closer to this vision.

To this vision. Thank you very much.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee.

Marie Rasool on behalf of the Judicial Council of California, although we do not have an official position on the bill, we would like to express our thanks to the author's office for his constant willingness to listen to technical feedback from courts that are implementing the CARE program on the ground.

We would also like to thank Committee staff for continuing and engaging with us in conversations to reach the agreed upon Committee amendments. The two suggestions from the Judicial Council that are relevant to this Committee here. First, what courts were finding in terms of individuals who are incompetent to stand trial in misdemeanor proceedings.

Currently, Penal Code 1370.01 first requires the court to do an evaluation to see if the individual would enter into mental health diversion before moving on to other options, including care. What courts were finding were that there would be some individuals for which, you know, it maybe more or less clear that perhaps they weren't suitable candidates for diversion.

However, they would there would be time that they would have to spend languishing while the courts undergo that diversion assessment. And so part of our suggestions were to move the care eligibility portion up so that a person can be both evaluated for mental health diversion and care proceedings at the same time.

And to that end, in terms of our second suggestion relevant to this Committee was we believe that when it comes to the referral and petition process, we saw that there was a little bit of lag time in terms of the time from when the criminal court would refer a case to the care court.

And so what our amendments do is clarify that if a court is referring an individual over to care that if the referral meets the requirements of a petition that it could be treated as a petition for care purposes in order to help expedite the process and get the individual the resources that they need. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else in support, please come up to the mic. Name, organization.

Chair Members, Jonathan Feldman this time on behalf of the Big City Mayors Organization Coalition in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Jacob Brim, with the California Retailers Association in support.

Good morning. Moira Topp on behalf of San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria. In support.

Ethan Nagler on behalf of the City of Bakersfield. In support.

Ben Golombek, on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce. In support.

Danny Offer with the National Alliance on Mental Illness, also known as nami California, in support.

Anyone else in support? Okay, seeing none, opposition? Please have a seat. Welcome. You both also will have five minutes to share. Excuse me.

Good morning, Vice Chair Members Michelle Cabrera with the County Behavioral Health Directors Association of California. And we are in respectful opposition of SB27. From the vantage point of County Behavioral health directors, who have been involved in the implementation of care court since October 2023.

This Bill is much more than a mere cleanup of the provisions of the CARE Act.

And in fact, by blurring the lines between Care Court, which is intended as a voluntary civil court process, along with the criminal proceedings that take place under an incompetent to stand trial referral, we are concerned that this will lead to altering the very nature of Care Court from a voluntary to a coercive measure by providing both carrots and sticks.

And I'll explain this. What this Bill does is it says that if a person is IST and they're referred into CARE Court within six months, CARE can refer that individual back to criminal proceedings. It doesn't provide guidance on when, why, nor how we would establish this re referral back to the court. To be clear, in addition, we also appreciate that the goal of closing these loopholes and allowing people to come directly into Care Court is the intention.

We think that the way that this language is structured, it actually leaves us and the clients that we're seeking to serve more vulnerable to them facing exactly the fate that the Senator is trying to avoid.

Currently, in our experience, we're working closely with the courts to develop sort of a pre petition process and to get that in place prior to the individual's release. Under the language in this Bill, it would speed up certain elements and still leave those people vulnerable to being released without our knowledge and frankly, without the information we need.

Currently, when we get a quote unquote referral from a criminal court, it is a minute order. It includes the defendant's name and the facility that they're being discharged from, little else. So we are very concerned with the language in this Bill.

I will note that county behavioral health directors and the practitioners who have been implementing Care Court have not been consulted. And we really would appreciate an opportunity to inform the language based on our direct experience.

I think that we share again the goal of making sure that individuals with significant mental health conditions are not criminalized and that when possible, they are sent to treatment instead of incarceration. Thank you.

Thank you, Honorable chair and Public Safety Committee Members. My name is Leslie Napper. I'm a mother, grandmother, aunt. I'm an active community Member in proud Sacramentan. I also live with bipolar 1 disorder with psychotic features. I work with Disability Rights California as a senior advocate and I urge you to oppose SB27.

SB27 would massively expand Care Court eligibility, putting tens of thousands of Californians like me at risk of being pulled into the system. Counties estimate that SB27 would increase the numbers of people swept into an ineffective Care Court program by eight times. Care Court is not evidence based. There's no data that it proves that it helps people recover.

However, it can have dire consequences for people like me. If we don't comply with the Care with Care Court, we risk being placed in conservatorship and losing our rights to choose where we live or have informed medical decision making, how we spend our money, or even whether or not we can vote.

As a person of color, I am deeply alarmed. In some counties, black and indigenous communities are over twice as likely to be petitioned. The data shows the significant. There are significant racial disparities and who it impacts and that people are getting the services they need through it.

Care Court does not pay for real care like treatment or housing. Instead, it funnels hundreds of thousands of dollars into the legal process.

Care court costs over $700,000 per person. That could be better sent spent on community Responsive services, behavioral health services, peer support and Proven Committee based services like full service partnerships with Fidelity to Act that also provide wraparound services for those of us that benefit. Thank you, sir. Am I over? May I close?

Yes.

Thank you so much. I appreciate your time and grace. I am one of thousands of Californians living with bipolar disorder with psychotic features. We are your neighbors, your co workers and your loved ones. What we need is real care and it's not found in a courtroom.

Please protect us and keep us safe from the harms SB27 may impose. Thank you. Please oppose this Bill.

Thank you. Those also in opposition, please give me your name, organization, your position please.

Clifton Wilson. On behalf of the Board of Supervisors. For the counties of Fresno and San Joaquin, both in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Mel Ron with Cal Voices in strong opposition.

Hi, my name is Vincent Vieguez with Cal Voices in strong opposition.

Hi, I'm Asia Nicht with Cal Voices. I oppose.

Alexis Trujillo with Cal Voices. I also strongly oppose.

Nicole Chilton with Cal Voices. I strongly oppose.

Jocelyn Farrell with Cal Voices. I strongly oppose.

Nicole Rosendo with Cal Voices. I strongly oppose.

Karen Vacarry, Mental Health America of California in opposition.

Marco Ramos, former Care Court assistant at a Superior Court, strongly opposed.

Danny Thirakul with the California Youth Empowerment Network. In opposition.

Desiree Alarcon, Cal Voices. Opposed.

Joe Guzman with Cal Voices. Opposed.

Savannah Mitchell with Cal Voices. I strongly oppose.

Jacqueline Guzman with Cal Voices. I strongly oppose.

I'm James H. Xiao, Cal Voices. Strongly opposed.

Oriana Cantor with Cal Voices. I oppose. Thank you.

Zana Nurubates with Cal Voices. I strongly oppose.

Elizabeth Kim, on behalf of Initiate Justice. In opposition.

Jamir Watson with Disability Rights California in strong opposition.

Nedrick Miller, all of us or none. LSPC. Strong opposition.

Rainer Apostle, on behalf of Drug Policy Alliance. In opposition.

Molly Mallow, on behalf of the California Association of Public Administrators, Public Guardians and Public Conservators. In respectful opposition. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Keely o' Brien with the Western Center on Law and Poverty in respectful opposition.

Katrina Ozier, Cal Voices. I oppose SB27.

Christiana Zamora, Cal Voices. I oppose SB27.

Trixie Smith, Cal Voices. And I oppose SB27.

My name is Keith Bursons, Cal Voices. And I oppose SB27.

Ayanna Albrecht, Cal voices. I oppose SB27.

Lizette Flores with Cal Voices. And I also strongly oppose.

Robert Copeland. Dogfight. Strong opposition.

Olga Bereznik, Cal Voices. I oppose to SB27. Thank you.

My name is Thelma Carver, and I strongly oppose SB27. And I'm from Cal Voices.

I'm Alicia Gutierrez. I'm the Cal Voices, and I oppose. You know the SB27.

I'm Grace Gallagher with Cal Voices, and I also oppose.

I'm Virginia Robello. I'm with Cal Voices, and I strongly oppose.

I am Blair Cha with Cal Voices, and in opposition.

I'm Allison with, Allison McGovern with Cal Voices. And I strongly oppose Bill 27.

Kelsey Rosenberg, Cal Voices. And I'm in opposition of SB 27.

Maxim Thimble with Cal Voices. And I oppose.

Dan Okenfuss, representing the California foundation for Independent Living Centers. In opposition.

Good morning. Amber Glasser with Cal Voices. I strongly oppose.

Judy Kanay, Cal Voices Strongly opposed.

Candace Godfrey, Cal Voices. I strongly oppose.

Howie Namara, Cal Voices. I strongly oppose.

Patricia Garcia with Cal Voices. I strongly oppose.

Emma Martin with Cal Voices. I strongly oppose.

Okay. All right. We'll bring it back to the Committee. Any questions? Comments? Mr. Lackey.

Once again, we have an awkward reality that we're trying to manage. What we have is we have people with extreme disability. And I admire the opposition for fighting for liberty. I understand that it's very natural to understand that piece. But there's another part of this that needs to really be admitted to.

And the system we have now is what criminalizes people. Having wore a badge. I know when we take people for 5150, it's a form of custody. And no matter what we do, we have to help these people, sometimes protect them against themselves. And as difficult as that sounds, that really is the truth.

We all have seen the disheartening circumstances and reality of people who have, quote, unquote, chosen to live the way they are living. I don't think people understand the gravity of how bad it is. Maybe you do, but if you understand the gravity of how severe these conditions are, you would want to show care.

And that's why this has been labeled as such. A lot of people misinterpret taking control of somebody who is out of control as uncaring as criminalization. And I find that to be misguided because I'm telling you, my life experience is one that is opened my eyes to this problem very, very loudly.

And it continues to be a deep concern of mine. And what we got to remember is the diagnosis has to be severe. And because of that, we have to try to improve the circumstances that people have, quote, unquote, chosen.

I don't think anybody chooses to live on the streets scavenging through any pathway at all just to get food. I've seen it. People rifling through dumpsters, rifling through trash. That's not humane. That's not caring. What's caring is trying to take control and offer assistance. And I understand that the voluntary admission, it's worthy of debate.

We need to debate this. We need to discuss it and make sure that this is a last resort of taking control and robbing people of their liberty. But I tell you, there are many, many, many circumstances where this is in demand. We've got to understand that although it feels lousy, we have to help them.

We have to help them, man. And we're not helping them by letting them just stay in that condition. That's not help. It's something much different because it's outcome based. So there's studies, there's data, and there's reality. We all know the reality, folks. It is broken. And we need to do better.

And I think that this is a step to try to do better. It's not without debate, it's not. Not without engagement. But let's be honest, let's be honest with each other and let's show what real care is. And I believe that this is a step in the right direction. So that's why I'll support it.

Thank you, Mr. Lackey. Anyone else? All right, Seeing none. The chair has a ruck of an eye you can close.

Thank you. Mr. Chair. In order to model behavior, I simply urgent I vote.

Any motion a second. Collins.

On SB27 by Senator Umberg. The motion is do pass as amended to the Appropriations Committee. [roll call] That measure passes.

The measure passes. We'll go to now file number two, SB 36.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Zur, for your assistance. I accept the Committee's recommended amendments. This bill simply provides that particularly in the wake of the fires in Los Angeles, that price gouging is illegal and unacceptable. And I urge an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator. Do we have anybody else testifying on on your behalf?

Just me.

Just you. Okay. Anyone else in the room?

Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Ms. Tucker from the Consumer Attorneys of California this year. She stepped out. I'm sorry. Just me.

Gotcha. Just you again. All right, anyone else in the building, please step up and support. Name, organization, your position, please. Last call for support. All right. Anyone in opposition, please come up to the table. Thank you, ma'. Am. You have two and a half minutes.

Good morning. Couldn't hear anything so loud in the hall. Good morning, Leslie Caldwell Houston; I'm a volunteer with the California Public Defenders Association, in respectful opposition, unless it is amended to delete the portion of the bill that expands the ability to obtain a search warrant for yet another misdemeanor. The portion of the bill that we object to is new section subset subdivision 23 of the Penal Code, Section 1524 which covers the issuance of search warrants.

Subdivision 23 would expand the issuance of a search warrant yet again. There are already 21 subdivisions describing when search warrants may issue. Effective January 1st, a 22nd will be added. This further expansion is unnecessary. Price gouging is a misdemeanor, and it's unlikely that the scarce resources of law enforcement agencies will use search warrants to investigate misdemeanor offenses.

It's likely that the bad actors who are committing the serious price gouging in the wake of the LA wildfires and elsewhere will venture into felony grand theft territory. Under existing law, a search warrant may issue for evidence relating to a felony. Further, there are quite a few cases that have already been charged alleging price gouging.

There are no convictions as the case are still winding their way through the system. It should be noted as well that according to your committee's analysis, no letters from prosecutors or law enforcement organizations citing the need for search warrant expansion has been received by the committee. This is very telling.

For these reasons, on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association, I urge your no vote.

Thank you. Anyone else in opposition, please step up. Name, organization, your position, please. We have a late support. I was told. Come on up. It's okay. It's really loud. It's been a lot of people in here tomorrow.

Tomar Tokat on behalf of the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office, in support.

Thank you. Anyone else want to add on? All right. Seeing none. We'll give to the committee, any questions or comments? Collins with the bill. We'll get to Nguyen. All right. No others. Okay. The chair has a recommendation of an aye. Senator, you may close.

Thank you very much. I appreciate the assistance of various committee members on my various bills. And I urge an aye vote. Please.

On SB 36, by Senator Umberg; the motion is do pass as amended to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call].

Senator, that bill will be on call.

Thank you.

Senator, I'll find out about that one. While I'm finding out, I'm going to have Senator Archuleta come on up.

Senator. Just to get things going, we. We. We have some technical difficulties we're trying to figure out. We're going to go to item 15, SB571. Senator Archuleta, you have four. Thank you, Mr.

Chair. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen of the Committee. I would like to thank the Committee and the chair and staff for their work on this bill, and I will be accepting the Committee's amendments. And I thank you for that hard work and participation with me.

Senator Arreguín and I have worked closely with our Assembly counterparts to strike a balance between this bill and Assembly Bill 468. By Assemblymember Gabriel, could we split the bills?

During the horrible January 25th fires in Southern California, we saw reports of criminals attempting to take advantage of victims who were displaced by the evacuation orders due to the fires. And we saw it on TV. We heard it on radio. It was tragic. They disguised themselves.

Many of these individuals disguise themselves, can you imagine, as firefighters, FEMA workers, and even law enforcement to gain access to the fire damage areas, looking for anything they could find of value and to the detriment of those who lost their homes and lost their possessions.

These abusers engaged in looting and property theft, rampaging through the ashes of victims in their homes and personal belongings. How terrible it must have been for the families to find out that this had happened to their homes and to their personal properties.

The damage caused by impersonators and looters far exceeds the monetary losses to communities and the victims of personal property. Communities can't trust the directions of public safety and the officials if they are unsure who to trust, who's wearing the uniform?

Who truly is our representatives, or have no way of knowing if their cherished belongings are safely left behind and protected by lawfully authorized individuals. These abusers and their actions undermine evacuation orders, officials with authority to move the victims and to move the individuals that were victimized by some of these individuals because of the fires.

We've got to give these victims peace of mind. Tragedies will happen again. Let's make sure that impersonators aren't involved at all. Ensuring that the public can trust first responders and local public safety officials is crucial in keeping communities safe, especially during the State of emergencies when victims are in their disarray.

Again, the States of Emergency Senate Bill 571 is a clear sign. California has zero tolerance for criminals who take advantage of wildfire. Other natural disasters and to victims.

With me today, I have Jonathan Fieldman with the California Police Chiefs Association, Julie Manowiczi Ball with the California Firefighters Association, and Tamar Tukat with the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office for technical questions. And with that, I respectfully ask your aye vote.

Thank you, Senator. You both have five minutes.

Thank you. Julie Malinowski Ball, on behalf of the California Fire Chiefs Association and the Fire Districts Association of California, pleased to be here in support of SB571. I don't need to tell you California's fire seasons have become more severe and destructive, displacing residents, overwhelming resources and placing first responders under tremendous pressure.

In these moments of vulnerability, bad actors have exploited victims through looting and by impersonating first responders to gain access to evacuated areas, these actions not only delay recovery, but endanger public trust and the safety of legitimate emergency personnel.

Cal Chiefs and FDAC support SB 571 as a targeted and thoughtful measure that reinforces public safety during emergencies and protects the integrity of emergency response officials. We appreciate Senator Archuleta's thoughtful approach to this. We appreciate the Committee's feedback and amendments, and we urge your Aye vote.

Morning, Chair and Members. Jonathan Feldman, again with the California Police Chiefs Association in strong support of the bill. Just want to say that our penal code is supposed to differentiate between the severity of crimes and the punishment created therein.

And obviously, as you've heard from the author and witnesses and as I've talked to the chiefs, the severity of these crimes committed in the aftermath of the fire, the looting, the impersonating the officer, the damage it causes not just to the agencies, but to the individuals whose property is stolen and the trust that is lost to the community in the moment of an emergency like this is much, much more severe than the current penalty system that we had in place when we reviewed this after the fact.

And so we think that increasing the penalties in the ways that these two bills are doing this year are important, meaningful and appropriate. Again, given the severity of the crimes that we saw and the seriousness of those actions, we would strongly urge your aye vote. Thank you. Thank you.

Anyone else in support, please come up. Name, organization and position.

Good morning. Tamar Tocott, on behalf of the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office, in support.

Morning, Mr. Chair. Brian Shermer with the Riverside Sheriff Association and the Arcadia Police Officers Association and Palos Verdes Police Officer Association. Both were impacted by these and the other associations listed in our letter. Thank you. Thank you.

Go. Mr. Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Robert Brown of the San Bernardino County District Attorneys Office and the California District Attorneys Association. And support.

Julina Vorus on behalf of League California City is in support.

Aaron Reed with California Association Highway Patrolman support.

Randy Perry on behalf of Poor Act and support.

Thank you. Anyone else in support, please come up. Seeing none opposition, please come up to the table.

Thank you, sir. You'll have two and a half minutes.

All right. Chair Members, My name is Aubrey Rodriguez and I'm a ledge advocate with ACLU California Action. I want to start by thanking the author for taking amendments that did address many of our concerns.

However, we still continue to have very serious concerns with the amendments that you're accepting and what's in print. It is important to remind everyone that existing law already imposes severe penalties for the false impersonation of emergency personnel as a misdemeanor. And strong evidence indicates that longer criminal sentences has failed to promote deterrence.

This notion is supported by the Federal Department of Justice, which discourages increasing existing punishments, noting that longer sentencing does little to deter crime. Other findings have concluded that the certainty of punishment, that someone will be punished for a particular crime has a greater deterrence effect than the severity of the punishment itself.

I implore every Member in this Committee to follow the evidence and to not move forward with the tired and failed carceral solutions of tough on crime policies that have ravaged our communities.

It is no coincidence why this nation has the highest incarceration rate in the world, making up less than 5% of the world's population, but nearly a quarter of its prison population. And it's because we continue to pass policies that contradict evidence and lock people up for an egregious amount of time.

Rather than focusing our energy on the root causes of crime, we have to honestly ask ourselves what the purpose is in increasing criminal sentences when there's so much evidence that it does nothing to deter crime and cost taxpayers roughly $130,000 to incarcerate each individual a year. Can this sort of public investment be better spent elsewhere?

In conclusion, given the absence of a compelling reason for increasing these penalties, the fact that evidence indicates increasing these penalties does nothing to deter crime, and the state's history of prison overcrowding, we do not believe this Bill is necessary. For these reasons, we respectfully urge your no vote on SB571. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in the room for opposition, please step up. Name organization. Your position, please.

Leslie Caldwell Houston, for the California Public Defenders Association. We want to thank the author for taking the amendments. Thank the Committee for Your work with the author and we will withdraw our opposition.

Thank you.

Gwen Gunheim, on behalf of LA County Public Defenders Union, Local 148, Vera Institute and La Difensa, we'd like to thank the author for working with us. We're still reviewing the amendments, but believe we'll be moving to neutral.

Good morning. Joshua Stickney, on behalf of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights. We're still reviewing amendments, but remain opposed.

Elizabeth Kim, for Initiate Justice. We're also reviewing the amendments and we want to thank you for working with us, but we're still in opposition. Thank you.

Ariana Montez, on behalf of the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice and opposition.

Wonderful. Anyone else hoping to be heard on the Bill? Okay. Seeing none, I will turn it back to the deus. Questions or comments? Assemblymember Lackey, you can begin.

Yeah, just a quick comment. I. I find it alarming, actually, that dismissing accountability for such a deceptive, hurtful practice, bewildering to me. And we have, you know, when we talk about justice and the scales of justice and the balance that's required, I think it's important to understand that penalty is part of justice.

And there are many people who want to completely dismiss the punitive nature of laws. They're part of justice. And so to dismiss and to discount deceiving the public during a time of crisis, that you're a public official, if that doesn't alarm you, we're in trouble. I. I clearly support this measure. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Lackey. Other questions or comments from the dias? We have a motion by Alanis, second by Wynn. And the other discussion, seeing none. Senator Archuleta, would you like to provide a brief closing?

Yes, I think, Mr. Chair, normally I would just quickly ask for an aye vote and walk out, but I've got to share with you that I walked the streets of Altadena, the Palisades, as things were smoldering.

And the SWAT commander, a friend of mine, allowed me to jump in his unit and we toured the area, and I literally saw families crying. And in the midst of it all, believe it or not, I witnessed an individual walking by with a yellow vest in a Highway Patrol unit, pulled him over.

He did not belong in the area. He did not work for a utility company, and he certainly didn't work for a construction company. And they called backup and they took that individual away. What audacity at that moment to be there. And this is what we're trying to do, help those communities that need help.

And I think the State of California and Every one of us elected have got to band together to protect our citizens. And this is a good way to start. So with that, I do urge for your.

I vote. Thank you very much, Senator. Thank you, everyone, for your testimony today. Colleagues, the chair is recommending an eye.

And I want to thank the Speaker, Senator, and all of your co authors for working so closely with our office to strike the right balance and land this plane, I think, in a pretty good spot, notwithstanding ongoing questions or concerns that there might be. With that, we have a motion and a second. Let's conduct the roll.

On SB571 by Senator Archuleta. The motion due pass as amended. To the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

Okay, that measure is out. We'll keep it on call so people can add on. Thank you, Senator Archuleta. Next, I see in terms of sign in order, we have Senator Wiener, and then we have Senator Durazo next in the hopper. Senator Wiener, would you be willing to start with item number 16? That's Senate Bill 627.

Yes.

Okay, perfect. That'll be the order. Your time begins when you're ready, sir.

Thank you for coming. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm here today. Excuse me. Thank you. Mr. Chair, I'm here today to present Senate Bill 627. First, I want to thank the committee for working with us, and we're happy to accept the committee amendments. So, thank you.

Senate Bill 627 prohibits law enforcement at all levels from engaging in extreme masking, with some exceptions. This bill is not about preventing law enforcement from engaging in their typical work. It is about preventing extreme masking that is causing terror in our communities.

Just to put it really simply, when someone is engaging with you, you should be able to know the difference about whether that person is a law enforcement officer or whether they're a guy with a ski mask robbing a liquor store.

And right now, we have law enforcement officers, particularly ICE agents, who are running around effectively with ski masks on or something approaching a ski mask, unidentified, grabbing people out of bus stops, out of people's front yards, out of work sites, and throwing them into unmarked vehicles and taking them, God knows where.

And because you can't even effectively track people in the system anymore, we don't even know where people are. Whether they're at this Alligator Alcatraz or at a gulag in El Salvador or now in Libya or South Sudan. The level of terror being inflicted on communities in California is extraordinary.

Law enforcement officers have an obligation to be actually building trust with communities and not running around with ski masks on. And it is absolutely terrifying for so many people, and it is tearing communities apart. It is tearing families apart. And SB 627 will help put a stop to it.

SB 627 does not categorically ban all masking, still allows for medical masking or masking to protect yourself against smoke. It doesn't do anything to stop officers from using face shields that are transparent, as you might have in a riot situation. It allows for SWAT team members to use masking to protect their faces.

And it has an exception for undercover work. But the situation that we see now with this extreme form of masking grabbing people on the streets, it is completely unacceptable. And it's time to for California to take action. We are in an unprecedented time in this country and in California.

The fact that a federal court felt the need to issue an injunction saying that ICE should not be detaining and arresting people because they are Latino or because they're speaking Spanish, I never thought I would see such a court order in my entire life. And yet that's where we are, and they're appealing that order.

So, we need to take steps here in the legislature to protect the safety of Californians, and that includes putting a stop to this extreme form of masking that is doing nothing other than generate terrorists in our communities. I respectfully asked for an aye vote.

And with me today to testify is Christine Soto DeBerry, the Executive Director of the Prosecutors Alliance, and Lina Alfaro, a volunteer for the Inland Coalition for Immigrant Justice and a legal observer for the Rapid Response Network for the Inland Empire.

Good morning, Chair and members. Thank you for hearing us here today. My name is Christine Soto DeBerry. I'm the Executive Director of Prosecutors Alliance Action, where I have been after completing a decade in the San Francisco District Attorney's office.

And we're proud to be a sponsor of SB 627, a critical piece of legislation, as you just heard, to protect both the public and law enforcement across California. Immigration raids that we've seen across our state by masked, anonymous federal agents have shattered public trust, and they are making every community less safe.

When a federal agent shows up in our communities in plain clothes or in a generic vest with no name, no badge, and a covered face, the public has no way to know if they are dealing with a federal, state, or local law enforcement officer or even an imposter. That confusion does not just erode trust in federal officers.

It undermines confidence in every officer that serves us. When communities don't trust law enforcement, they don't report crime, they don't cooperate with investigations, and they don't seek help. That puts everyone, including officers, at greater risk. California has not only the right, but the obligation to set baseline protections for our residents.

That means ensuring no officer, federal, state or local operates masked and anonymously in our communities. SB 627 establishes critical guardrails now and for the future, while also carving out appropriate exemptions to ensure officers can continue to protect their faces when needed for health and safety reasons.

This bill is a proactive measure made to ensure that California never slides into a reality where secret police tactics become normalized. In California, we don't do secret police, we don't do secret arrests, and this legislation will take that principle and codify it in law. We ask for your aye vote.

Good morning, assemblymembers. I first want to thank Senator Wiener and all the co-sponsors of SB 627 for bravely addressing the fear of our communities. My name is Lena Alfaro. I have been a resident of Riverside for over 30 years. Riverside is my community.

It is where my husband and I are raising our 5-year-old son, and it is where I've been a teacher for the past eight years. Since the second Trump Administration, I have seen loved ones and neighbors terrorized by unlawful and inhumane immigration raids.

I knew I had to do more, so I decided to volunteer for the Inland Coalition for Immigrant justice, who manages the Rapid Response Network in the Inland Empire. I am now a legal observer trained to respond to immigration enforcement sightings and connect community members to resources.

On Father's Day, my family and I stopped to fill up at a gas station in Riverside. It was there where I saw four unmarked vehicles and five masked immigration agents who had two scared individuals handcuffed.

I began recording and informed the detainees of their rights, telling them not to answer any questions and not to sign any documents without consulting a lawyer. The agents wore gator and balaclava masks with hats and sunglasses to disguise their identities. As I recorded, a mass agent told me to stand back.

I moved farther back to comply, but the officer was still aggressive, and he even pushed me. I was scared for what these mask agents may do to me for simply documenting their behavior.

This is just one example of many unlawful operations happening across the state in which mask agents disguise their identities in order to abuse their powers and mistreat people. Disguising their identities makes these operations more hostile and less safe for everyone, including local law enforcement; it raises the question of who is a legitimate agent or an impersonator.

Overall, I hear directly from our community that this has led to fear and mistrust of all law enforcement. For those reasons, I hope this committee will support this bill and unmask these abuses.

Thank you very much, Senator, for introducing the bill and thank you both for your testimony here today. We'll now take the me-too's. If you're in support of the bill, please come forward. Name, organization, position, please.

Good morning. Hector Villagra on behalf of MALDEF; we are proud to co-sponsor this bill and we strongly, strongly urge your aye votes. Thank you.

Cassandra Whetstone, gun violence prevention activist representing myself today, in support.

Gwen Gunheim on behalf of La Defensa, in support.

Good morning. Nicole Kurian with the Office of Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, in support.

Good morning. Joshua Stickney on behalf of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, in strong support.

Leslie Caldwell Houston for the California Public Defenders Association, in support.

Taina Vargas with Initiate Justice Action, in support.

Aynan Harris with Initiate Justice Action, in support.

Jaime Gonzalez, Initiate Justice Action, strong support. Thank you.

Aubrey Rodriguez with ACLU California Action, in support.

Tessa D'arcangelew with Smart Justice California, in support

Elizabeth Kim on behalf of Initiate Justice, in support.

Ed Little on behalf of Californians for Safety and Justice, in support.

Thank you all very much for your testimony. Just confirming - it looks like we have a couple more.

Thank you. Jim Lindbergh on behalf of the Friends Committee on Legislation of California, in strong.

Good morning. Carlos Lopez with the California School Employees Association, in support.

Honorable Chair and members, Amy Hines-Shaikh for UNITE HERE Local 11 and their 32,000 members and UDW AFME Local 3930 and their 200,000 members in strong support. Thank you.

Ariana Montes on behalf of the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, in support

Good morning. Keely O' Brien with Western Center on Law and Poverty, in strong support.

Rainer Apostol on behalf of Drug Policy Alliance, in support.

Good morning. Brittany Stonecifer with Kaiser Advocacy on behalf of Electronic Frontier foundation, in support.

Sydney Fong from Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders for Civic Empowerment AAPI FORCE, in strong support.

Morning. Kathy Van Osten on behalf of American Association of University Women California, in support.

Julie Nielsen, National Union of Healthcare Workers, in support.

Monica Madrid with the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights CHIRLA, in support Also on behalf of PICO California in support. Thank you.

Eric Paredes with the California Faculty Association, in support.

Doug Smith with Inclusive Action for the City, in support.

Hi, good morning. My name is Rosalba. [Foreign Language]. Thank you.

Hello. Arturo Palato from Vision y Compromiso, who received 500 letters to support SB 627. Thank you.

Good morning. Kristin Heidelbach here on behalf of UFCW Western States Council, in support.

Good morning, Chair and members. Carol Gonzalez as an individual, as a daughter of immigrants with a daughter working construction around the Southern California region. Here on behalf of him and my family, thank you.

Good morning. Rene Bayardo on behalf of SEIU California.

All right, that completes our me-too's. We'll now take opposition witnesses. Come on up. Once you begin speaking, you'll have a combined total time of five minutes to address the committee.

Mr. Chairman, Members, thank you. Randy Perry on behalf of PORAC. I had notes here, but I'm not going to speak to those. So, the bottom line is this bill makes it now makes it a crime for an officer to wear a mask. I want to be very clear about that. What's happening in California is unfortunate.

We just, PORAC themselves, I won't speak for other groups, has put out to the public that a lot of the tactics are occurring in California by the federal government and federal agents is inappropriate.

Also, PORAC was part of a letter that went directly to the US Attorney General, previously said that we do not and will not enforce immigration laws. That that's federal government. They're not it's not the job of local law enforcement and they are not trained to do so.

The things that you're seeing on TV, the stories here today by the author and the sponsors are tragic, but they are about federal agents. If the author wants to go after the federal agents and try to do something about what is occurring here in California, the bill should do that.

The problem is the bill and in the testimony from the author and the sponsors, they talk about these incidences, yet they use the term law enforcement. Law enforcement's doing this, law enforcement do that: California law enforcement are not wearing ski masks and grabbing people out of churches, synagogues and their homes. They're not doing it.

The only time you will see them out there is if they are being called by the federal agents for officers who are in trouble or in danger. They have to report to that just like any other person in this room or in the state makes that same call, they're going to, they're going to come out.

So, I just want to be very clear. Our officers are part of this bill. We are being swept into this issue when we do not want to enforce immigration, and we have been publicly clear about it. We're hoping that this bill doesn't move.

We're hoping that we can sit down and work on people who are imitating peace officers, people who are illegally enforcing some immigration rules, people who are being hired as bounty hunters. Let's go after them. PORAC is going to support a bill coming up today, SB 805, that does a lot of those things.

We are going to support the bill. So, we are asking this bill not move. This is the wrong way. And it's going after our officers with a crime instead of talking to us about mandate that all agencies have to have policies.

And if those policies have to be followed and if an officer does something and wears a mask illegally per those policies, they'll be disciplined. And that's the reality. We're adamantly opposed to the spill.

Thank you. You have about a minute and 40 seconds.

I'll be quick. Don't need to repeat a lot of what my colleague just articulated, but we share the same sentiment and do want to talk to the specific policy in the bill.

I mean, there are exemptions in the bill for when you can mask, but they're too narrow and they don't account for a lot of the different reasons that an officer would legitimately want to protect themselves from extreme elements, sandstorms, windstorms.

There's a narrow exemption for certain smoke only in declared states of emergency, but obviously there are fires outside of those types of situations. But as the representative from PORAC mentioned sitting here, we know that this is not about local state law enforcement.

And if it is, there's better ways to address that than creating crimes that actually threaten officers with jail sentences. And I do acknowledge that the first violation under the bill would be an infraction, but the second would be a misdemeanor. And that's wholly inappropriate in our mind.

And even if, again, if we work through all the different exemptions that would have to be included, you know, creating a crime to place officers in custody over legitimate reasons for covering their faces, not what we're talking about, not the federal officers that are out there causing the issues we think is unfitting at best.

And as colleague had mentioned, we are working to try and address some of these issues. Ton of empathy with what the author brought up and the witnesses today.

We understand it is why Cal Chiefs worked on our original sanctuary state bill in 2016 to create that balance, to really define local state law enforcement's role and the boundaries between collaborating with the federal government in these type of situations. And we'll continue to work to try and address some of the concerns and fears from the communities.

We are part of the community. We feel it, too. But unfortunately, the policy here is something that we can't agree with. So respectfully ask for a no vote.

Gentlemen, thank you both for your testimony. Don't go too far. There may be questions. Let's take the metoos. Next.

Ryan Sherman with the Riverside Sheriff's Association, California Narcotic Officers Association, the other groups in our letter; opposition. Thank you.

Good morning. Chair and members. Usha Mutschler, on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association, in opposition. Thank you.

Good morning. David Bullock, on behalf of the members of the LA County Chapter of Moms for Liberty, and all those in favor of AB 956. Facial masks are not just for respiratory but for mental health purposes. Thank you, sir. I'm on opposition.

This is an opposed, correct? Okay. All right, everyone just limit it to position, please.

Good morning, Chair and members. My name is Lt. Julio De Leon. On behalf of the Riverside County Sheriff's Office and Sheriff Chad Bianco, in opposition.

Good morning members. Nadia Moshirian Binderup on behalf of Sheriff Kelly Martinez from San Diego County, in opposition.

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

Good morning. Shane Levine, on behalf of the California Statewide Law Enforcement Association, the Fraternal Order of Police and the San Bernardino Sheriffs, all in opposition. Thank you.

Aaron Reed with the California Association of Highway Patrolmen. I would just say that our President. Of the Association was at the riots. In his more than two decades with. The Department, he said he's never seen it more dangerous. Position is opposed. Yes, thank you.

Sorry to be a hard ass, everyone, but just trying to make sure everyone plays by the same rules. Thank you all very much. We'll now turn it back to the dias. Other questions or comments, Assembly Member Nguyen?

I just have a question.

I'm sorry, Assembly Member Nguyen, followed by Assembly Member Lackey.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I spent over 10 years working with immigrants, refugees and undocumented community. And what's happening right now is a tragedy. It's heartbreaking, it really is. And I understand the bill and I listened to both of your testimonies and what I heard a lot of was agents, federal agents.

And I see that not only do I see it on social media, on the news, but also I get to hear every single day, almost on an hourly basis about these devastating stories that are happening right down the street from where I live in the communities and where I live in.

But your testimony, again, talked about federal agents. And what we're trying to do is dispel a lot of the misinformation that's out there in our community, stating that our local law enforcement are engaging in a lot of these raids.

I can't tell you how many times I've had to let folks know that local law enforcement does not, does not engage in raids. They do not go into synagogues and churches and community based organizations and shelters and arrest and find those that are undocumented.

I spoke to many of our local law enforcement agencies just to clarify that, just to make sure that I hear it directly from them. While I understand the bill and wanting to be able to identify individuals, I go back to this is more at the federal level and it's not at the local level.

And we have tried for many years to build distrust with our local law enforcement, done many things like community outreach, making sure local law enforcement is there.

I feel like this bill is actually pushing that aside and making folks think that our local law enforcement engage in such things while we're trying so hard to ensure that, that they understand that that is not the case mentioned earlier is SB 802, which I feel like is one that is going to definitely identify with a name, a badge, whatnot.

Right. And that's what we're trying to go after is ensuring that we get to identify these individuals. And 805 is that which is one that I will be supporting.

I just think this one here is really making it difficult for us to continue to let our communities know that our local law enforcement is not a part of this. Now, as mentioned, they may be called to assist in a situation where it is dangerous, like in any other situations.

But in this situation, as we are enforcing this, it really makes it seem like we are hitting local law enforcement in a situation in which they are not there. They are not there. This is at the federal level.

I believe this is an area in which we need to attack at the federal level, not here at the state level. Senator, for that reason, I will be laying off today. I understand what you're trying to do and I commend you for what you're trying to do because we want to be able to identify folks.

But I believe that 805 really, truly does do something where name, agency, face everything. And I'll leave it at that because I'm sure there will be others that want to speak as well too.

Thank you very much, Assembly Member Nguyen. And at long last, Assembly Member Lackey, the floor is yours.

Very quickly and very simply, I just have a question for the author. Have you reached out to ICE to ask for an explanation or justification for this max usage?

I have certainly heard what ICE has said, what Secretary Noem has said, in addition to all the other incredibly despicable and offensive things that she and the Administration have said about immigrants, about broad brushing 10/4 million residents of this country as criminals and then running around grabbing mothers so that their kids don't know where their moms are sending people, Alligator, Alcatraz, all the other just disgusting things that they are doing.

So no, we've not spoken to ICE, but I've heard what they have said and it does not in any way excuse sending people with effectively ski masks on into communities to grab people and put them in unmarked vehicles. Doesn't excuse it.

But I just want to confirm the fact you have not personally reached out. That is correct.

We have not spoken with ICE.

Thank you.

All right. Thank you, Assembly Member Lackey. Next we'll go to Assembly Member Haney.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I want to thank the author for taking this issue on and the sponsors.

I know that you know, even in some of the responses to, you know, you coming forward to try to come up with solutions on this issue that there have been just a wave of threats and hate and just discussing things said to you directly. And I want to recognize that.

And it's really reflective of the, I think, the conversation around this issue that is happening in our state and in the country where it immediately goes to, you know, a level of division and hatred and labeling as opposed to what we should be doing to make sure that we have trust and effective law enforcement.

This what we're seeing in our communities right now, where people are coming out in cars that are entirely unmarked, you know, minivans, entirely unrecognizable as law enforcement, fully masked, no badge visible, no name visible. It goes against everything we know about how law enforcement should be operating in our state. It, as you said, violates trust.

It puts not only individuals who are being pulled away in ways that make it look like they're being kidnapped in danger. It puts those officers in danger. It puts our local and state law enforcement in danger. How are they. How are our local and state officers supposed to know that, that these folks are actually federal law enforcement?

It's inevitable that there's going to be people who get hurt because mistakes are made and misunderstanding is built in by design when people are not identifying themselves as law enforcement. Not to mention, of course, most importantly, the absolute terror that it is bringing around our communities.

People who just want to go to work, just want to live their lives and are being attacked with no understanding. And that this is even a law enforcement action or a federal immigration action. So what I wanted to ask you and, and first of all, commend you for taking this on.

It is critically important and really terrifying reality that we're facing. You know, I think that this question of how we get at what is happening and what the actual concern is around the federal immigration actions that are entirely despicable and unacceptable and how we separate that from what state and law enforcement are doing.

Is this, in terms of how this is written now? Are there concerns about this sort of behavior and this type of engagement around masking among state and local law enforcement as well?

Are there examples that we are trying to also prevent or gaps in the law and if you could speak to that, and also the ways in which we will even be able to apply this to federal law enforcement?

Will this law be enforceable against what we're seeing, which is the awful examples that we truly need to prevent in our state?

Yeah, thank you for that. I, first of all, I want to acknowledge this is an incredibly hard time for state and local law enforcement to have to deal with a bunch of fascist thugs coming into our communities and engaging in this just truly vile behavior.

It gives a black eye to all of law enforcement and it causes a lack. It destroys trust in law enforcement.

So I, for our state and local law enforcement, who work so hard every day to build community trust and try to do the right thing, to have these thugs come in and do this, I can only imagine how demoralizing that is for our own officers, who we all support.

This Bill is not about saying we're somehow lumping in state and local law enforcement and claiming that they're, or insinuating that they're doing what Ayes is doing right now. This is about setting standards that we expect of any law enforcement officer. ICE was not.

Ayes agents, as far as I know, were not wearing ski masks until they were wearing ski masks. And so now we have to deal with that. And I don't want to even envision a future where that becomes somehow normalized or acceptable for law enforcement to ever even consider operating in that way.

And so if we're, if we're setting standards, as I think we should, whether it's in Senator Perez's Bill, which I fully support, which I'm a joint author of, or in this bill, we should set it for all law enforcement officers, we have put exemptions in the bill. We have welcomed additional feedback.

Obviously, we're on a shorter time frame. We did not anticipate having to do this legislation in January. I did not anticipate the scale of what they were going to be doing in parts of the state and the extreme disguises that they're effectively wearing. So I do think it makes sense for the standards to apply to everyone.

And we also know that Donald Trump and his Administration want to conscript local law enforcement to do immigration enforcement.

When they talk about going after sanctuary jurisdictions or defunding sanctuary jurisdictions, that is that what they're saying is they want to be able to coerce cities and states and local law enforcement into participating in immigration enforcement, which they don't want to do. Some do, but most don't. But that's what they want to do.

And so let's get ahead of this and let's set clear rules in terms of the federal issues. And this is in this bill and also in Senator Perez's Bill. We've heard some of the opposition talk about the federalism issues. First of all, we have a responsibility to protect the safety of Californians. I wish Congress would do it.

I know there's a. Our own amazing Senator Alex Padilla has introduced a bill. I, I hope at some point that that can become law. I'm not going to hold my breath that that's going to rocket through this particular Congress. So we need to step up and protect Californians.

Being a federal employee does not exempt you from every state law. And I know this will be an issue, and that's why we have the courts to adjudicate these issues. But I do think that we are not in a normal time.

We're at a moment in time where we have the rise of a authoritarian regime that's trying to just upend our democracy, and we need to stick up for Californians, and that's what we're doing.

Thank you.

Thank you, Assembly Member Haney, Assembly Member Gonzalez.

There's a lot. Okay. So look, I want to thank the author for being here today and for presenting. First, I want to just thank the opposition. I know that being here today is not easy.

Porak did take, has sent a letter, has taken a stance and has been there on day one to address the fact that they are not coordinating, they're not part of this. And we have to be very clear about that as well. The bill is not an attack on law enforcement whatsoever.

It's a safety net for our communities who are hurting the most. There are people who are. And we've heard these stories every single day taken by a hostile overreach of the Federal Government against our immigrant communities. I in my particular district, and Senator Raza I know, is in the audience as well.

All of our districts, Macarthur Park, Little Tokyo, Koreatown, PICO Union, Westlake, every single part of our district is targeted every single day, every hour. And the issue here in the conversation has been about trust. When somebody.

And I'll read from what happened for my team yesterday, 8:15am today, 7:14 near Garfield and via Campo at the Calaveras restaurant parking lot, ICE agents masks surrounded an employee in their car. They broke the window and forcibly detained the individual. Nearby preschool staff began recording the incident, but stopped when Ayes agents aggressively and masked approached them.

That is not normal. And so the issue here, again, is not an attack on law enforcement. It's an attack on those who are taking advantage of brown communities. And we have to call it what it is. It's racist.

And we've been through this path before in this house and this Sacramento has created laws in place that have protected black and brown communities who have been victims of bad cops. And we've addressed those issues when we went through George Floyd and other issues as well. And there are bills in this exempt.