Assembly Standing Committee on Public Safety

Good morning everyone. Welcome to the First Committee on Public Safety for the California State Assembly for the year of 2026. Welcome back everyone. And before we get started, I just want to thank our very hard working staff. They often don't get a great deal of credit but they've been working through holidays to prepare for today.

So I just want to publicly thank the staff for all of your contributions over the last few weeks. Today we will be hearing two year bills referred over to the Committee last year in the year 2025. Just a couple of reminders before we get started today.

First of all, I'll note that we're still waiting on one Member to establish a quorum. So we'll begin today as a Subcommitee and once we have quorum we will call the roll to facilitate today's legislative hearing as we proceed with bill author presentations, witness testimony and public comment.

I want to ensure that everyone understand the Assembly has rules to ensure that we maintain order and run an efficient and fair hearing. I will not permit conduct that disrupts, disturbs or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of today's legislative proceedings.

Please be aware and on notice that violations of these rules may subject you to removal or other enforcement actions. I will note that we have six bills on calendar today and we will proceed in sign in order.

As a reminder, authors will have five minutes to present as will your main witnesses in support, as well as five minutes for the opposing side. That is the Committee standard practice. Again noting that we do not yet have a quorum. We will proceed as a Subcommitee and we will start with our first agenda item.

This is item number one on your agenda, colleagues. This is Assembly Bill 256. I see that Assemblymember Dimaio is present. Assemblymember, are you ready to go forward on 256? Great. So come on down and your time doesn't begin until you start speaking. Sir.

Good morning. Thank you for giving us an opportunity to present Assembly Bill 256 which deals with the issue of mass shootings, gun violence. This has obviously been a controversial topic. There's a lot of dividends. Some of us believe in the second Amendment, the right of self defense.

Others believe that if we make it harder for an individual to have a gun that we would reduce gun violence. I think though what is missing in this debate is more information.

I personally believe that we are focusing on what's in their hand, which is perhaps the wrong focus when we should be really looking at what's in their head or their heart. What is driving the wave of violence in our country. Is there a chemical component to this? We don't know.

Because when a mass shooter commits a crime, we don't always see a toxicology report. Were they on pharmaceutical drugs? Were they on illicit or illegal drugs? We haven't been given that information. Assembly Bill 256 is designed to provide a legal avenue to get answers for the public. And I don't think anyone should fear the truth. Transparency.

If we find that illegal substances or pharmaceuticals are not a major component, then we can settle that element of the debate and move on to areas that would be more productive in preventing violence. And so Assembly Bill 256 would simply provide a one year enhancement in a punishment for a mass shooter.

In order to determine whether this enhancement is applicable to a criminal, we would have to have a toxicology report done and that would therefore provide the public with transparency. We believe that this approach will satisfy any concerns about enforcement and whether this is constitutionally permissible.

We believe that by providing an enhancement, you would actually require that a prosecutor do a toxicology report to determine whether the enhancement would be applicable. And that is why I asked for the committee's consideration and support for Assembly Bill 256 to get greater information out to the public on what is fueling gun related violence.

Thank you very much, Assemblymember DeMaio. Next we'll hear from any primary witnesses in support. Is there anyone, anyone here to testify in support of the bill today? Okay, we'll take the me-toos. Now, is there anyone else who'd like to be heard in support of the bill?

Okay, are there any witnesses here to testify in opposition to the bill? Okay, I do see some folks coming forward. So once you are seated, you will have a total of 5 minutes to address the Committee. And while you're actually getting seated, I see that we now have a quorum.

So if we can take just a momentary pause in proceedings. And let's call the roll.

[Roll call]

All right, we have a quorum. Thank you everyone. Back to our opposition witnesses. Again, you'll have five minutes to address the Committee. Thank you very much.

My name is Mano Raju. I'm the elected public defender of San Francisco and I've served in this role for six years. I've been a felony trial attorney for a couple decades, both in Contra Costa County and in San Francisco.

And I'm testifying in respectful opposition to AB256 as a public defender, I'm deeply invested in the health and safety of all people. AB256 does not contribute to the health and safety of community members. Rather, it creates a duplicative sentence enhancement and serious privacy violation. Current law already addresses the conduct described in this Bill.

Under existing law, a person armed with a firearm during the commission of a felony is already subject to a one year sentence enhancement in addition to any punishment for the underlying felony. Adding a new enhancement that can already be punished under California law will not deter future crime or make our communities any safer.

It's strange credulity to think that a one year enhancement is going to deter someone who is a mass shooter. There's many other issues going on there. Automatic sentence enhancements are an ineffective use of taxpayer dollars and disproportionately harm communities of color.

This bill further expands the warrant statute by allowing for the extraction of a person's blood to identify whether they are under the influence of a controlled substance. AB256 dangerously erodes privacy rights without any evidence, any evidence that doing so would make communities safer. For these reasons, please reject AB256.

Danica Rodarmel of Holt Consulting on behalf of Initiate Justice in opposition. I echo the sentiments of my colleague and former boss and just wanted to add and really stress that the idea that this bill will somehow be part of the solution of the truly massive, terrifying and complex issue of mass shootings is frank beyond straining credulity.

I would say it's offensive if things like taking somebody's life, many people's lives, risking getting life without the possibility of parole or facing the death penalty don't deter somebody. How could we possibly believe that a one year sentencing enhancement would do that when we already know sentencing enhancements really don't deter crime to begin with?

So I just really wanted to stress that what we need to do is find some real upstream solutions and figure out why people are committing these crimes and make sure that they have access to what they need before they take dozens and dozens of lives in a matter of moments. For those reasons, we urge a no vote.

Thank you.

Thank you both for your testimony. Next we'll hear from the me-toos. Those hoping to be heard in opposition to the bill, please come forward. Name, organization and position, please.

Good morning. Happy New Year. Natasha Minskir, Smart Justice California, opposed.

Good morning. Leslie Caldwell-Houston, for the California Public Defenders Association in opposition.

Good morning. Amelia Rogers on behalf of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in opposition.

Good Morning. Shivani Nishar on behalf of Initiate Justice in opposition

Aubrey Rodriguez with ACLU California Action in vehement opposition.

Melanie Kim, San Francisco Public Defender's Office in opposition.

All right, final call for any other witness testimony. All right, seeing none, we will turn it back to the dais. Colleagues, any questions or comments for the author or any of the witnesses? I'll lead with just one.

Mr. DeMaio, I appreciated your opening comments and I do understand what I what I understand is your intent of the bill is to address the issue of mass shooters. But I did want to be clear. You are aware that the bill is drafted, is not limited to mass shooting incidents.

It would actually apply to any felony filed in the state of California involving the use of a firearm and with the defendant under the influence of a controlled substance. So it could be in addition to mass shooting, many other felonies, is that correct?

Yeah, I mean we see gun related violence be a focus of attacks on the second amendment rights of citizens who are law abiding, who need the second amendment to defend themselves from criminal misconduct. But no one seems to be focusing on what's motivating these evil acts, what's motivating violent crime, gun related crime.

And so now today we have a laundry list of people showing up to oppose investigations into gun related violence. I am absolutely appalled.

But more importantly, I guess it's important to have the transparency of the various groups who hoot and holler about gun related crime, showing up on a gun crime related bill to try to get the truth, to get information out to the public.

And today we hear people saying that they want to defend the privacy rights of murderers over the second amendment rights of self defense for law abiding citizens. Let's be crystal clear, that is the choice that has been laid out with this bill.

And the opposition says that the privacy rights of these individuals, criminals who have killed people using guns, outweighs the privacy rights of criminals outweighs the second amendment rights of self defense.

I think that this illustrates really the deep divide in this topic and I believe that common sense individuals and I think most people don't want to see gun related violence, they want to get to the bottom of it. And if there's common sense reforms that can be put into place, they would support that.

In order to get to the bottom of it though, we need truth, we need facts. And I think that we have not been looking at the potential impact of illegal and illicit substances as well as pharmaceutical drugs in these crimes. And perhaps there is no connection.

But we will be able to settle the debate in California with the implementation of AB 256.

Thank you, Mr. DeMaio. Colleagues, any other questions or comments? All right, Mr. DeMaio, I'll give you the opportunity for a brief close if you'd like.

Not necessary. I would respectfully ask for support so we can get this important data and better understand what's fueling these evil acts by individuals with. With firearms.

Thank you very much, Mr. Dimaio. Colleagues, my recommendation today is no. And I have a relatively lengthy statement, but I'll try to keep it concise. I'll just note out the gate. Mr. DeMaio. That boy. I would love in this Committee to see us deal with the prevention of crime rather than responding to crime.

And if there's any common link I see here today, I think we could do much more in building a robust mental health infrastructure to prevent violent acts from happening in the first place. So if that's truly a point of interest for you, I'd love the chance to work with you on that, sir.

But your bill today, AB 256, proposes a one year enhancement for committing a felony while armed with a firearm and under the influence of a controlled substance the person is, quote, not supposed to possess. I will note that this conduct is already sufficiently covered by existing law.

It's currently a felony punishable by up to four years in state prison to possess a specified controlled substance while in possession of a loaded and operable firearm. Significant enhancements are already available for conduct covered by this bill, to cite just a few examples. And I want to emphasize these are just a few available tools to prosecutors.

There is an enhancement for committing or attempting to commit a felony with a firearm. There's an enhancement for personally using a firearm in the commission of a felony. There's an enhancement for discharging a firearm during the commission of a felony.

There is an enhancement for possessing a controlled substance for sale or selling a controlled substance while in possession of a firearm. Simply put, this bill. I'm sorry.

Separately, this bill would allow law enforcement to seek a warrant for a blood sample to show that the person was under the influence of a controlled substance when committing the felony while armed with a firearm. You claim, sir, that this is needed to understand the link between controlled substance use and mass shootings.

And I do believe that that is something you genuinely want to study. However, if your primary purpose is to understand the relationship between controlled substance use and mass shootings, there are already proven methods of collecting this data that don't require an additional sentencing. Enhancement. The bill's application, in short, is overbroad.

I fail to see, for example, how authorizing a blood draw for a person who, appearing intoxicated, is arrested for presenting a false claim to a public official while in possession of a firearm avails us of any meaningful information on the link between controlled substance use and a mass shooting.

Lastly, the enhancement covered by this Bill applies only to someone under the influence of a controlled substance they are not supposed to possess, presumably because the combination of intoxication, firearms and felonious conduct increase the risk of violence.

But surely the risk of violence isn't abated because someone committing a felony while armed with a firearm is under the influence of a controlled substance for which they have a valid prescription. This limitation, in my view, is impractical and it is confusing.

I will note that you've received no official support for your bill, and I cannot support it either today. With that, I recommend a strong no. Is there a motion. Is there a second motion by Alanis, second by Lackey. Please call the roll.

[Roll call]

That. That motion will remain on call for additional Members to vote. Mr. DeMaio, are you. Thank you, everyone, for your testimony on 256. Mr. DeMaio, while we have you here, are you ready to go on AB 1281?

Yes.

All right, sir, your time begins once you start speaking.

Thank you. I'm here to present on Assembly Bill 1281, which really we're calling Austin's Law. About two years ago, I met a beautiful mom, Aubree Pinkston, who has three children, but she lost her husband in a tragic accident in my district. At age 26, Austin Spirz lost his life on Thanksgiving night 2023, while riding his dirt bike down Campo Road. He was the victim of a hit and run driver.

Police the next morning arrested Gary Baker. In his vehicle, they found several open and unopened bottles of alcohol, but they could not determine whether he was driving under the influence of those substances. He had, however, four previous DUIs in the state of Texas.

Ultimately, Gary Baker pled guilty, but only received a five year and four month sentence because of the limitations under California sentencing guidelines. More concerning, the four previous DUIs in Texas were not allowed to be presented in court.

Just a few weeks ago, we learned that Mr. Baker was released after serving only one year and eight months of his sentence for killing a 26 year old father of three. This is outrageous, and it calls into question whether we have a problem in our laws.

When someone gets involved in an accident and they know that they are under the influence of a substance, the incentive for them to flee the scene so that you cannot administer a test to determine that they were under the influence, that incentive is greater.

Assembly Bill 1281 is designed to give prosecutors more tools in the toolkit to deal with this. It would enhance sentences for individuals involved in hit and run accidents where someone is either killed or they suffer a permanent serious injury.

I ask this committee to provide these extra tools to prosecutors so that we can deal with individuals who are intentionally leaving the scene of an accident because they know that they are under the influence of controlled substances. I ask for your support.

Thank you for your presentation, Assembly Member DeMaio. Do you have any witnesses testifying in support? Okay, we'll take the me toos at this point. Anyone else want to be heard in support of the bill? I think we have one coming forward. Okay.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Cory Salzillo on behalf of the California State Sheriffs Association in support.

All right, thank you very much. Final call. Anyone else hoping to be heard in support? Okay, let's take the witnesses in opposition. Do we have... Yes, we do. Come on down. Once you begin speaking, you will have five minutes to address the committee.

Good morning, Chair and Members. My name is Simelia Rogers. I'm a policy associate at the Ella Baker Center and here today in respectful opposition to AB 1281. While we understand the author's attempt to address this type of conduct, AB 1281 is not an appropriate or community centered response.

AB 1281 would increase the maximum sentence for the offense of vehicular manslaughter from the existing four year requirement to up to a nine year mandated term in state prison. As mentioned in the committee analysis, research shows that imposing longer prison sentences does not effectively deter future criminal behavior and can also increase recidivism while reducing public safety.

AB 1281 is unnecessary. Current law equips prosecutors and judges with the tools to punish severe cases, including an existing five year enhancement for vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated. Additionally, California has among the most severe sentence enhancements for prior convictions nationwide with more than 100 separate enhancements based on individuals' current offense and or record of prior convictions.

Increasing mandatory sentencing as AB 1281 seeks to do does not add to judges' unique set of tools to determine what's just. It limits them. Such mandated higher sentencing will most disproportionately affect black and brown communities. People of color are systematically arrested and convicted at higher rates than their white counterparts.

Once convicted, black and brown defendants are more likely to face harsher and longer punishments. Lastly, this bill is costly. Costly to families, costly to communities, and costly to taxpayers.

The cost for a single year of incarceration, as identified by the LAO, is $127,000 a year, meaning that AB 1281 would cost the state between 400,000 and and 600,000 per person sentenced. Increased incarceration drains California's budget and in turn deprives communities of critical funding to support education, housing, and key safety initiatives.

If the author is interested in addressing this conduct, this money would be better spent on prevention, safe streets initiative, clear traffic planning, and funding community supported victim services, among other interventions. For these reasons, the Ella Baker Center respectfully opposes AB 1281 and urges your no vote. Thank you.

Excuse me. Good morning, Mr. Chair, Members, Mr. Vice Chair. Ignacio Hernandez. I'm here on behalf of the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice. We are a statewide association of criminal defense lawyers and private practice and working in public defender offices, and we are respectfully opposed to the bill.

The stated intent of this bill had to do with a case in which there was some suspicion that someone was under the influence during a traffic accident that was tragic and somebody lost their life. But this bill isn't focused on that.

What this bill does is actually take away tools from prosecutors and judges by eliminating a misdemeanor option and increasing penalties. We have to keep in mind that fleeing or hit and run as we talk about it is focused on the actions not related to the causation of the injury or the death.

It is focused simply on the actions after the accident occurs, which means this crime right now can punish and under the as bill is drafted, can punish somebody who was not the cause of an accident or cause of the injury, but simply because they fled. There's a, I checked in with one of our attorneys in Central Valley.

He just had a case in which the individual tragically at late at night hit someone on the freeway. Truck driver. He stopped, didn't see anybody because it was so dark. Turns out there was somebody who had been hit and went into the side of the road. He couldn't see it. He was charged with a felony.

Under this bill, there was no option for, there would be no option for a misdemeanor. Ultimately, they settled that case for a misdemeanor because they determined the driver was not at fault and he did stop even though he didn't take all of the actions required by the vehicle code, he did take some action.

This bill would take away that option of a misdemeanor. It would take away the ability for prosecutors and judges to get it right, to make sure that the actions in the case are supported by or match the offense. So we have to keep in mind this is not about causation of injury or death.

This is about what happens when somebody, what somebody does afterwards. If you want, perhaps there needs to be a bill we can debate about what happens if somebody's evading specifically because they want to avoid a DUI, as was mentioned. But that's not what this bill does. Current law has to be flexible because there's a wide variety of facts where we're talking about hit and run. For those reasons, we are opposed to the bill.

Thank you both for your testimony. Now we'll hear the me toos. Anyone else hoping to be heard in opposition to the bill? You know the drill. Name, organization, and position, please.

Natasha Minsker, Smart Justice California, opposed.

Melanie Kim, San Francisco Public Defender's Office, opposed.

Lesli Caldwell Houston for the California Public Defenders Association in opposition.

Shivani Nishar on behalf of Initiate Justice in opposition.

Aubrey Rodríguez with ACLU California Action in strong opposition.

Final call for any other folks hoping to be heard on the bill. Okay, no affirmative response. We'll turn it back to the dais. Questions, comments from any Members of the Committee. This would also be a proper time for motions, if there are any. Okay. Motion by Alanis, second by Lackey. Any further discussion, colleagues? Seeing none. Mr. DeMaio, I'll give it back to you for a brief close.

I just ask for your support.

Thank you very much, Mr. DeMaio. Colleagues, I will be recommending a no, and I would like to offer a brief explanation as to why. In many cases fleeing the scene of an accident, we know this to be hit and run under California law, deserves felony punishment.

After an accident, people are in need of help and may require immediate life saving medical assistance. And as a former prosecutor, I take this very seriously. This bill, however, creates inconsistent criminal punishment under California law by punishing hit and runs more harshly than other arguably more serious vehicle related crimes.

The bill proposes to increase the maximum punishment for a hit and run resulting in serious injury or death from a wobbler to a straight felony punishable by up to nine years in state prison. I will note that a hit and run does not require that the defendant actually caused the accident.

Gross vehicular manslaughter on the other hand is an offense that requires both death and culpability. But that is only punishable by up to six years in state prison, three years less than what the author proposes for a hit and run resulting in death or serious bodily injury.

In fact, this bill makes the minimum prison term for a hit and run resulting in serious injury higher than the maximum prison term for someone for killing someone while driving unlawfully and with gross negligence. Moreover, if a defendant kills someone while driving negligently or while intoxicated, they can be prosecuted under other provisions of California law.

These inconsistencies cannot be ignored. The committee attempted to work with the author, and as you know, Mr. DeMaio, we offered you an amendment to increase the criminal sentence for hit and runs resulting in death. Unfortunately, you rejected that amendment. As such, I'm unable to support this bill in its current form.

The approach that you champion is incongruent with existing law and excessively punitive and creates irregularities in the law. But I will say this, Mr. DeMaio, if the bill does not advance today and you are serious about tackling this issue, those amendments still stand. And I'd be happy to work with you on that in the future. With all that said, colleagues, I recommend a no. We have a motion and a second. Let's call the roll.

Item number five, AB 1281. The motion is do pass to Appropriations. [Roll Call]

That will remain on call, Mr. DeMaio. Colleagues, we're going to take a very brief five minute recess. I will note that if you're a Member of the Committee and have not checked in already, if you could find your way to Capitol Room 126. We have two items to present and then one up for vote only. So we are nearing the end of our agenda. Please make your way to Room 126. We're in recess for five minutes.

Thank you. Ultimate. That. So.

It'S not leaking. It's.

It's from the label. Was it in an Ayes bucket? It was.

And then when it thawed, it started.

I just don't want to take.

We're going to solve the problem, but. I couldn't do it when we.

No, I just want. It.

What's going on, man? Wait, you're not allowed to have labels on your bottles. Zero. He'S not allowed to support a brand. Zero, yeah. You never know.

The Assembly is a power each up. Yeah, yeah.

Power each shop.

All right, welcome back, everybody. Thank you very much for your indulgence in the brief recess. I see that we have Assembly Member Patterson here to present items number three. This is Assembly Bill 292. Mr. Patterson, I'll just repeat this part, so I don't know if you heard the beginning of the meeting.

You will have five minutes to address the Committee, as will your witnesses in support of the Bill. And then opposition witnesses will also have five minutes. Colleagues, I will just say out of the gate, though. I understand we have a Bill to present. I will be making the motion on this one today.

I will be moving the Bill as amended. I will note that Committee amendments have been distributed to all Committee Members and are available to the public. They've been made available by Committee staff at the appropriate time. I'll ask for a second, but with that, Mr. Patterson, you have five minutes to present to Committee. Great. Thank you, Mr.

Chair and Members. Happy New Year. It's kind of crazy to think to get the party started again. Appreciate the opportunity to present AB292, which is maybe my third attempt at increasing penalties for felony domestic abusers. As we all know, when Proposition 57 passed, the entire premise of it was to.

By the proponents of it were to make sure that nonviolent and non serious felonies were eligible for, you know, good conduct credits and things like that. And much of the messaging centered around that the most violent and serious acts would not be eligible for early release. That was the messaging.

I have a lot of quotes here which I won't bore you with. But what really concerned me actually was a few years ago during COVID when there was a.

You know, I live in Plaris County, near here, obviously, and there was a shooting in downtown Sacramento, which an individual released after serving half, less than half his prison sentence. And he had been convicted of felony domestic violence. He unfortunately took the lives of six people in a shooting right here in Sacramento.

And it kind of struck me how as an individual that is not only willing to put their hands on, you know, loved one, but do so violently get out of prison after serving less than half their sentence.

And that is as a result of Proposition 57 and the discretion of CDCR to issue good conduct credits to essentially every other crime. Now, I would say again, the premise of Proposition 57 was you can be rehabilitated in prison and for doing certain things, you can be let out early as a result of your conduct.

Well, this individual was the crime that he had committed that sentenced him to prison was not some kind of, you know, hey, this was a one time offense type thing. This was an individual who had committed several crimes in the past.

And the actual felony in which he was convicted that put him in prison, he had, you know, dragged his partner out by her hair and punched her in the face multiple times. And still, even after that was let out after less than half his prison sentence.

And so because of that, I felt compelled that the most violent domestic abusers should not be released early from prison. And so we came up with AB292, which would seek to ensure that that wasn't the case. And we've obviously had conversations since then, and we'll talk more about that later.

But I think my goal at the end of the day is again to make sure that those committing the most violent domestic abuse crimes, you know, serve a sentence that is commissary, you know, commensurate with the crime that they have committed. And I have two witnesses here with me to talk about the legislation.

Corey Salzillo with California State Sheriff's Association. They are the sponsor and also my good friend Annabelle Velazquezquez, who is a victim of crime and a good friend who I've gotten to know over the years. So thank you both for being here. And Corey, we'll turn it over to you first.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members Corey Salzillo, on behalf of the California State Sheriff's association, we are the sponsor of the Bill, as in print, adding felony domestic violence to the list of violent felonies. We understand that amendments are being taken.

We're appreciative to the author for his efforts, which are long standing and sincere in attempting to address what he described as what sometimes becomes a failing of the system where those who perpetrate a very violent and often very traumatic or an offense that often results in very traumatic conditions for the survivor to ensure that the punishment fits the crime and that the response from the government is duly appropriate when it comes to recognizing the choice that the person has made to commit this very violent act.

The violent felony list is a very limited list of crimes of the most egregious behavior. There are crimes that involve far less violence on the violent felony list. Again, I understand the bill's being amended.

We look forward to efforts that could spring from this Bill to more meaningfully address than statute currently does the realities of what government response is available for those who commit a very violent and serious crime against someone with whom they cohabitate or have a domestic relationship. So, Mr.

Chair, we appreciate your efforts and ask for your aye vote thank you.

Hello and thank you. Thank you everybody. Thank you for allowing me this platform, especially to Assembly Member Joe Patterson and our Placer County District Attorney, Morgan Guyer and their respective offices for providing this platform and the opportunity to share my testimony.

My name is Annabel Velasquez, and I am a survivor of human trafficking, sexual assault and domestic violence. Many of you have seen me here before and testify on other issues, but today I am here to speak specifically about domestic violence and why AB292 must pass. My primary abuser was taken into custody on multiple occasions.

And during those brief moments, I felt something rare. I felt safety. But that safety disappeared when he was released early for the system for what the system called good behavior. From a survivor's perspective, that logic is deeply flawed. Domestic violence is not about losing control. It's about exercising control.

My abuser's ability to follow rules while being watched did not mean he was rehabilitated. It just meant that he was calculated. He was manipulative and strategic. That is not a reason for early release. It is a reason for caution.

And so if you're on the fence about this Bill, I want you to think about who your vote affects. I was a teenage mother when my collarbone was broken. My child was left in the street while he tried to shove me into a stolen vehicle to stop me from screaming in pain.

And when he couldn't, he left us there. And he still went on to commit even more crimes. When I was shoved into an oven, my child was screaming watching all of this unfold. This does not affect only survivors. It affects the children that are forced to witness the violence.

Children who carry the trauma because their abusers are allowed to go home early under the guise of good behavior. When my abuser was released early, the punishment did not end. It transferred to me and my child. Survivors and their children live with lifelong consequences while offenders are rewarded for short term compliance.

It was only through law enforcement and the district attorney's intervention that I was finally able to get away and put some distance between us. AB292 is not about being punitive. It's about being honest about the danger, the manipulation and the risk. It is also about choosing the victim and children's safety over performative behavior.

Please help us pass this Bill, and I respectfully urge you to vote yes on AB 292. And I. Again, thank you for your time and this platform.

Thank you both for your testimony. And, ma', am, thank you very much for the courage to share your story with us today. I can't imagine it gets any easier, but thank you. It's important information for the Committee.

I appreciate that.

Thank you. Before I go on, Mr. Patterson, I would just like to state for the record, the amendments that have been distributed do two things. Number one, they would increase the term of incarceration in state prison for a second felony domestic violence conviction.

And separately, it would quadruple the mandatory minimum jail sentence for a person granted probation with a prior domestic violence conviction, regardless of whether probation is granted for a misdemeanor or a felony. Is that your understanding, sir, of the proposed amendments? Yes. And do you accept the proposed amendments? Yes. Thank you.

We'll next go to the metoos in support of the Bill. Please come forward at this time. Name, organization and position, please.

Good morning. Thank you. Kim Stone, Stone Advocacy on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association. In support.

All right, anyone else hoping to be heard in support of the Bill? Okay, we'll now take the opposition. Witnesses. Do we have witnesses testifying in opposition today? We do. Once you begin speaking, take your time getting down here. You will have five minutes to address the Committee.

Good morning again. My name is Mano Raju, the elected public defender of San Francisco. Our office has represented many clients who have been survivors of domestic violence and intimate partner violence. So my office is greatly invested, ensuring that all people are safe from violence.

And I want to acknowledge that a survivor has spoken earlier and that all survivors deserve safety. All survivors deserve whatever stability can be provided. The criminal legal system currently has escalating punishments for domestic violence depending on the severity of the circumstances.

Felony domestic violence that causes a traumatic condition is punishable by state prison for 23 or four years or time in county jail. A second offense within seven years is punishable up to five years in prison.

If great bodily injury is inflicted, a person can be subject to an enhancement, adding up to five more years in state prison. If a DV incident involves an assault with a deadly weapon or results in great bodily injury, a person can be charged with a strike.

Under California's three strikes law, the criminal legal system already provides punishment according to levels of harm caused. These escalating punishments are intended to provide penalties proportionate to the conduct. In this case a traumatic condition. We've seen situations with very slight redness to the arm from holding someone.

We've seen accidental scratches to the ankle being things that are filed under 273.5 that qualify for traumatic condition. Here we must strive together to ensure the system is fair and accurate. And AB292 is antithetical to those goals Overall.

As someone who's had many years of experience seeing the impact of lengthy incarceration sentences, penalties for this or another offense like this actually deter from real solutions. What actually deters people from committing crime is opportunities for education, for counseling, for housing, and for job. Longer sentences destabilize communities and particularly harm the children of people who are incarcerated.

I suggest that the Legislature prioritize approaches that address the root causes of the crime so we can prevent incidents like this on the front end rather than going backward and using failed carceral approaches. For these reasons, I respectfully urge a rejection of AB292.

Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chair. Mr. Vice Chair. Committee Members, Ignacio Hernandez again, on behalf of the California Attorneys for Criminal justice. And we are. Respectful opposition. We are opposed to the Bill in print and have had a few minutes to digest the amendments. I'll just make a couple of comments going forward.

First, I want to thank the author. I deal with the author in a different policy context for different client, so I always appreciate testifying on his bills and also appreciate the witness testifying both professionally and personally.

I have friends and colleagues who have been involved in domestic violence both as victims and all and just part of really toxic relationships. So we've seen I've seen it from a lot of different angles. Our concern, I think with the amendments as we've seen them is that it seems to take away some flexibility.

Domestic violence is always problematic, but we also understand there has to be enough flexibility to ensure that the law matches with the facts of the underlying case. If I reading this correctly, I think it may take away a misdemeanor option in certain cases.

And I'm also reading that the mandatory 60 days would apply if someone has a prior felony, but not within seven years.

So it could be a felony conviction for domestic violence 10, 15, 20, 30 years ago and then there's a subsequent allegation and arrest and would be eligible for a minimum of 60 day mandatory without a seven year restriction.

So I think for me, if I'm reading it correctly, those are the things that I believe my client myself would have some concerns about. But you know, assuming the Bill moves forward, be willing to engage both with the chair and the author going forward in discussions on that.

Thank you both very much for your testimony. Now we'll take the #MeToos. Come on down. Name, organization and position, please.

Natasha Minsker, Smart Justice California opposed to the bill in print. We will review the amendments. I will note we generally have opposition to mandatory minimums which the amendments appear. To impose, but we will review them. Thank you.

Samelia Rogers on behalf of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Leslie Caldwell-Houston, for the California Public Defenders Association. We remain opposed even with the amendments.

Shivani Nashar on behalf of Initiate Justice in respectful opposition.

Danica Romel of Holt Consulting on behalf of Vera California and opposition.

Aubrey Rodriguez with AC California Action and strong opposition. And we will remain in opposition with these new amendments.

Grace Glazer on behalf of the California Partnership to End Domestic Violence and respectful opposition.

Christian Beauvoir with the Alliance for Boys and Men of Color in opposition.

Melanie Kim, San Francisco Public Defender's Office in opposition.

Final call. Anyone else hoping to be heard on the Bill? Okay with that, we'll turn it back to the dais. Colleagues, are there questions or comments from Members of the Committee?

Assemblymember Nguyen.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Ms. Velasquez, for speaking. And I know it's always hard to share those stories and relive those again. You know, I think I could speak for everybody here when I say that when it comes to domestic violence, human trafficking. Every single person on this dais here wants to protect the victims.

And when this bill came across the desk, I had a hard time because I ran an organization where a domestic violence organization came out of my organization. So when it comes to protecting victims of domestic violence, that is a really big part of me.

And I was leaning towards supporting this bill until I saw the letter from California Partnership End Domestic Violence come across. And it talked a lot about how this bill goes too far, to the point where it can also run a risk of incarcerating survivors of domestic violence.

I know you said this is your third time running the bill. Third time's a charm. And I'm pleased to see. Pleased to see that you've worked with the Chair and the Committee Members on the amendments and that you're accepting these amendments. I think this bill makes.

With the amendment, makes it stronger, makes it to the point where we can have real conversations and ensure that we're not in any way coming after those that were victims of domestic violence. I want to thank you for working with the Committee staff and the chair and that I will be supporting this bill today. Thank you.

Thank you. Assemblymember Nguyen. Are there other questions or comments from Members of the Committee? Mr. Alanis. Mr. Vice Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opposition. The San Francisco Public Defender had a question about your. You mentioned something that this would deter from real solutions. Can you maybe deep dive a little bit more into that? Sure.

Anytime that there's more resources put into extra punishment, I think that deters from the underlying resources, the family therapy, the resources that can be put on the front end. Education, therapy, access to jobs, access to those things that create. Create the stresses in relationship.

And what I'm suggesting is that more money put in that area can actually prevent it on the front end. And I say this after talking to, representing and talking to cases where we're talking to complaining witnesses and victims and talking to people who are victims of domestic violence, many of whom we represent.

And that's the thought that just focusing more on incarceration when there's already so many penalties and so many years of incarceration under existing statutes, would deter from the underlying crime that would actually help solve and prevent these types of offenses on the front front end.

Thank you. You also made a comment about all survivors deserve whatever support we can give them. And I would say that probably does the opposite of what you just said. As a prior domestic violence detective, I found that my survivors lived better, felt better, could thrive better when their abuser was still incarcerated.

That was the biggest phone call I would receive from my survivors as a detective that were in fear that they would release early, did not do their full time, as mentioned by the author. And I just. I find it hard to believe that those that truly want to help survivors will.

Would want the abusers to make sure they get their time. Because if they're not in custody, if they're not incarcerated, getting the help that they need there, they're not gonna get it when they're out.

Another point that I wanna make is there's been studies that show that over 75% of domestic violence abusers are most likely to harm and kill law enforcement. I was a cop prior to this, so that was a big thing that we did on domestic violence calls. And that's why we do a lot of trainings with domestic violence.

Cause it could turn really quick. But if you have somebody who's not getting rehabilitated because they're not doing all their time that they should be doing, then that also, in my opinion, leads to why they continue doing what they do. Chair, I move the bill and I look forward to voting on this.

Well, technically I moved it, but I'll construe that as a second. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. Any other questions or comments for Members of the Committee? Mr. Lackey?

I think it's already been said that we all have sympathy towards victims of domestic violence. And I think unfairly, we often characterize offenders as victims. And to me, that's somewhat offensive because I can tell you. Excuse me, I've been involved with the reporting of domestic violence. And I'll just share with you a story. I received a text.

Actually not a text, a photograph sent to my phone of a woman who had suffered mistreatment. She had been hit in the face. And the discoloration that existed in her face was very disturbing. And she'd asked for help.

And of course I called law enforcement right away and they came to take action because I'm mandated reporter and I had to take that action. This particular person I had no relationship with, but they knew that I was. Had a leadership position within the community and I was a sworn officer. What happened after that?

This happened to be during the holiday period. And I responded to a subpoena because he actually broke the auricle or this part of the eye. He hit that hard that he actually broke the bone that protects the eyeball. That victim asked me to not testify. She pled with me to let this go. She did not understand.

All she wanted was her. Her spouse back that was her spouse. And I had sympathy for her in the deepest sense of the word. But of course, I had a responsibility, and I didn't bend to what she had requested. But what I'm trying to do. That's when I really understood the dysfunction in this particular offense. The.

The perpetrator does need help. Certainly needs help, and there's no argument there, but he's not a victim. He is not a victim in any sense of the word, folks.

And I was very upset with this individual that he would actually be able to strike somebody in the face with that much force and then try to absolve himself of any accountability. I find this. This proposal and. And how we. We say that instances like this don't meet the criteria of violent felony. Wow. It's called domestic violence.

It defies just common understanding. I. I felt like this is the opportunity I have to ventilate. And so I'm sorry that you had to hear that story, but I'm telling you, folks, we have misplaced sympathy. Not all victims of domestic violence fit this criteria or this story. But those that do, they are not victims.

They are people that are misguided and have problems, and they need help, but they need to be in custody and not free to act on their malfeasance and their condition. And so I clearly will support this effort to try to address this.

Thank you, Mr. Lackey. Any other questions or comments from Members of the Committee? I'll just note that Mr. Ramos is with us. Thank you for being here. Assemblymember Ramos, we are on AB292. All right. Seeing no other questions or comments, Mr. Patterson, would you like to give a brief closing?

Yeah, sure. You know, I just want to say. Just address some of the points here. I believe we should do more to create conditions where the crime doesn't occur in the first place. I mean, I'm involved in all sorts of committees where that's something, you know, I feel very invested to.

It protects the victims at the end of the day, not even becoming victims. And once a person is incarcerated and commits a crime, I've always. And when I was on the Budget Committee, I always advocated for as much resources as we can, because most individuals that are in prison are getting out, bottom line.

And we want to make sure that there's no re. Victimization and no additional crimes committed. And what's great about these amendments, Mr. Chair. Is I think maybe they make nobody exactly happy.

But what it allows is for us to continue the conversation on something that we both recognize needs more work and I think when some rational minds come together and have discussions about an issue that we see in the law, I'm willing, I think we're willing to take each other at our words that this is an issue that we want to work on collaboratively to accomplish a goal.

And so maybe we're not quite there yet, but I think continuing the conversation is much appreciated, and I look forward to doing that. With that, I ask for your Aye vote.

Thank you, Mr. Patterson. Colleagues, I do have a little bit of explanation to provide today, especially since we had amendments that were proposed today. So I'd like to give some background. But, Mr. Patterson, I just want to sort of break the fourth wall, if I can, for a moment. I think there was the potential today for.

For this bill to devolve into a conversation where you saw partisan split. And as we talked about last night, we wouldn't be centering the victims of domestic violence in this conversation.

I think this is a banner moment for the Legislature because we're putting aside partisan rhetoric, and I think we're trying to do something meaningful to address the epidemic of domestic violence in our community.

And I know I don't need to tell anyone in this room, whether you like the Bill or not, I think we can all agree domestic violence is all too common, and it's probably one of the most, if not the most underreported crime in the state of California.

It is prevalent, and I would respectfully submit that we have a broken system that doesn't fully address it. The question is how we land this plane and do it more. More tactfully. So I look forward to those continued conversations with you and with those who will be opposed to this bill.

I think everyone needs to be brought to the table on this one. But I would simply submit I don't think the status quo is working. Your bill is proposed. Just a little bit of history here would have added felony domestic violence to the violent felony list.

And I'd like to explain why the amendments don't move that portion of the Bill forward. Now, as noted in the Committee analysis, there are a broad array of circumstances under which someone guilty of domestic violence can already receive a violent felony.

Domestic violence resulting in gross bodily injury, for example, is already a violent felony in the state of California. So what we're talking about today, specifically this bill is not about the. The most egregious conduct that is covered, that is already subject to the violent felony list.

What we're talking about are situations in which a defendant's conduct causes an injury not amounting to great bodily injury, or as defined in existing law, what we call a traumatic condition. A traumatic condition under the penal code's definition includes minor injuries. For example, bruising is a traumatic condition.

In fact, according to the California District Attorneys Association, quote, very faint and quote, not very visible bruising can be sufficient for finding a traumatic condition. And in fact, very minor injuries can result in a felony domestic violence conviction.

Cdaa, the District Attorney's association, confirms that, quote, prosecutors across California are reporting successful felony domestic violence prosecutions with only minor injuries. All of this can be found if you'd like to learn more in their publication entitled Investigation and Prosecution of Domestic Violence Cases from the year 2020.

Indeed, CDAA notes that felony convictions have been won even when there are no visible injuries. That's good. Let me be clear. That is good. It is often appropriate for a felony conviction when there are minor, even no visible injuries. What's not appropriate, in my view, is classifying domestic violence in that circumstance as a violent felony.

And here is why. Domestic violence resulting in very minor injuries should not be classified the same, given equivalent status as domestic violence resulting in great bodily inj. It's about proportionality. It's not to say that one conduct is okay and the other is not.

All of it is wrong and all of it should be punished and accounted for in our justice system. But there is a distinct, there is a distinction in my view, between a laceration or a bruise and a potentially traumatic, potentially fatal brain injury. We have to account for that in this, in the penal code.

And I think that for that reason, the amendments that proposed today do land us a little bit closer to perhaps where the right balance should be. I believe domestic violence is a chronic issue that deserves our steadfast attention. And I do want to close with this.

The amendments that we talked about today, number one, increasing the term of incarceration in state prison, and for those granted probation, quadrupling the minimum sentence that must be served from 15 days to 60 days in both instances. These are for folks that are repeat offenders.

These are folks that already have a prior, within the last seven year prior felony domestic violence conviction. So, and again, speaking from my background as a prosecutor, oftentimes you will see someone with a misdemeanor on their first interaction with the justice system. On the second, they may get that felony domestic violence probation grant.

So in many cases we are talking about people that are repeatedly engaging with abuse of their spouse or their partner, and the law has to account for escalating consequences for those who simply the treatment is not working Sufficiently for, or perhaps just aren't getting the message. So, Mr. Patterson, I will wrap with this. I think you're right.

If we can all agree today on one thing. It's probably that you don't love this solution. But I think at the end of the day, thinking back to my legal career, a solution where everyone can walk away thinking that something was done and we can live with it, even if it's not everything that we wanted.

But that is often the hallmark of good compromise. I look forward to continuing the conversations with you, sir, and with those who remain opposed to the bill. And with that, I recommend an Aye vote. We have a motion. We have a second.

Let's call the roll item number three, AB292. The motion is due pass as amended, to Appropriations. [Roll Call]

All right, that bill is out, but it will remain on call. For those seeking to add on later. Colleagues, we have two. I apologize. Three more items. I'm just going to make this call for Assemblymember Sharp-Collins and Assemblymember Haney. If you can make your way to the Capitol room, that would be great.

Colleagues, while we get ready for the next bill presentation, which will be from our vice chair, I note that we also have one consent calendar item. This is Assembly Bill 277 by our Vice chair, Alanis. Is there a motion for the consent calendar? Okay, we have a motion by Harabedian. A second by Nguyen. Let's call the roll.

Item number two, AB 277. The motion is do pass to appropriate. I'm sorry. Due pass to Human services. Schultz.

Item number two, AB 277. The motion is do pass to appropriate. I'm sorry. Due pass to Human services. Schultz.

Aye.

Schultz. Aye. Alanis. Aye. Alanis. Aye. Gonzalez. Gonzalez. Aye. Haney. Harabedian. Harabedian. Aye. Lackey. Nguyen. Aye. Ramos. Ramos. Aye. Sharp-Collins.

Okay, consent calendar passes. It'll remain open for those to add on later. That brings us to our final bill presentation today. Mr. Alanis. Welcome down, sir. We are hearing Assembly Bill 767. We have a motion by Haribedian. Is there a second? I will second. All right, Mr. Alanis, the floor is yours.

I'm sorry, we'll give the second to Mr. Ramos there.

Thank you, Ms. Ramos. Well, thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to start off by thanking the Committee for working with my office to strengthen this bill and make it better to protect children.

As a former law enforcement officer and crimes against children's detective, I deeply am committed to protecting California's most vulnerable and am proud to bring this bill before you today. AB 767 ensures that private and home based schools are explicitly covered under existing school protections as it relates to conditional releases of sexual violent predators.

And it extends those same restrictions to daycare facilities. Currently, California lacks a clear definition of what constitutes a private school for SBP placement purposes, which has led to inconsistent interpretations by the courts. I'll rest with that. Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. Now for your witness.

I'm just here for technical support.

I should have looked up. Is this just trying to punk on the chair or what? Mr. Alanis, I didn't like you so much, I'd have more to say. Okay, so no witnesses in support. We'll hear the me-toos. Anyone else hoping to be heard in support of the bill? Come on down.

Thank you. Nathan Pierce, Private Home Educators of California. We appreciate the clarity of the bill changing the. The. The code that. That does deal with specifically the private school issue and we're grateful for that. So thank you to the Committee for working on that and to the author. Thank you so much.

I presume you support is amended? Yes.

Okay.

Thank.

You.

Good morning, Chair Members. Sam Nasher on behalf of the Los Angeles County Office of Education in support, thank you.

Hi. This is my first time. Am I able to provide a brief comment?

Ordinarily not, but it's your first time, so I'll give you 30 seconds.

Okay. I'm Dr. Lawanda Wesley. I'm with Child Care Resource Center and we are in support of the bill. We provide services to over 60,000 children in San Bernardino and all of northern Los Angeles. So we're in your district.

And I just want to say as a former early educator now working on the policy end, that my organization is in full support of the Bill. We want to make sure that sometime we have families that conflate schools, including childcare, as one.

And so this will provide further protections in congregate places like childcare facilities, both family home settings as well as center based programs. So thank you for your support.

Great.

Thank you very much and welcome to the state capitol. Always nice to see a new face. All right, do we have witnesses in opposition to the Bill? We do. All right, come on down. I will be listening as I refill my coffee cup. I assure you. And you will have five minutes to be to present.

Time doesn't begin until you start speaking.

All right, well, here's an old face. Chair and Members, my name is Aubrey Rodriguez and I'm a legislative advocate at the ACLU California Action. I want to start by acknowledging that this proposal is coming with good intentions.

However, there are many problems with this bill that relegate an individual to a lifelong sentence after properly serving their time and in court finding that they are no longer a danger to the health and safety of others.

It is crucial to remind everyone that existing law already imposes severe restrictions on those committed under the Sexually Violent Predator Act. Vastly expanding exclusion zones to nearly 35,000 homeschools and 36,000 daycare facilities is untenable. Which begs the question, is the objective of this bill to ensure anyone with an SBP history can no longer live around any children?

Should they be allowed to live in a neighborhood with families nearby that have children? Does a parent keen on homeschooling their child drastically change the calculation for safety risk? But more importantly, do the policymakers in this room actually believe people hold the capacity to change and rehabilitate themselves?

Or is rehabilitation just a meaningless concept tacked onto the end of CDCR and that anyone who has ever made a mistake in their past life will always be defined by that moment and can never redeem themselves?

At the ACLU, we believe any human being, regardless of the crime they have committed, holds the capacity to learn, change and grow. We cannot punish people for their growth and render them unhoused simply because we deplore their past. We must view them as they are in the present.

And if a court determines a person is no longer a threat to their community, they have a right to exist and start a new chapter. This bill undermines rehabilitation and constitutional due process and indefinitely confines Californians who pose no threat to the public. For these reasons, we respectfully urge your no vote on AB767. Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Leslie Caldwell-Houston. I'm a retired Solano County public defender. I spent my 40 year career in indigent defense here in respectful opposition to AB 767.

This bill makes it even more difficult to place individuals who have been found by experts in the field and the courts to be safe to release under intense supervision to the community. Our concerns are twofold.

The expansion of the placement prohibition to daycare facilities means that most of these individuals will be banned from any of the urban or suburban community in our entire state. The amendments are no bar to the intentional manipulation of establishing homeschools as obstacles to community placement.

To be registered with the Department of Education as a private school, AKA AKA Home school, in this case, one needs only to fill out an online form. Filling piling in this manner can bar community placement.

In other words, one parent can register one child attending virtual or online classes as a homeschool, thus banning an individual found by the court to be safe from being placed in that community. I'd like to note well that the courts do not willy nilly find individuals safe to be released to the community.

I have never seen a judge willing to take a risk in 40 years and I don't think it's changed since I've retired. Individuals who are found to be safe for community placement have gone through extensive treatment in custody.

Conditionally released individuals are closely supervised, continuously monitored and subject to reconfinement if they fail to comply with all of the requirements and conditions of their release. Potential placements are subjected to lengthy meticulous assessment processes designed to ensure both the feasibility of monitoring and the safety of the community.

I urge you to be sure you have reviewed the law and the requirements regarding these placements before you vote to further constrict the ability of the experts to place individuals in the community.

We do not want to restrict the placement so severely that the conditionally released individuals are only released as homeless to live under the overpass or kept on an indeterminate unnecessary confinement in violation of our laws and Constitution. I urge your no vote.

Thank you both very much for your testimony. Next we'll hear from others in opposition to the bill.

Natasha Minskir, Smart Justice California, opposed.

Danica Rodarmel of Whole Consulting on behalf of You California in opposition.

Shivani Nishar on behalf of Initiate Justice in respectful opposition.

Anyone else hoping to be heard on the bill? Okay, we will turn it back to the dais. Are there questions or comments from Members of the Committee? Seeing none. Mr. Alanis, the floor is yours for a brief close.

Thank you Mr. Chair. And I want to thank those in opposition that came up. Points are well taken and I understand but the big question is who's going to protect our children? Right? There is a lot that's been happening over 40 years and I respect that.

With your time and unfortunately we're having more and more issues with SBPs that are most likely going to be in your guys districts as well as I know as it has in mind most recently.

But if we can find ways to protect those kids, those that are vulnerable to these SBP's then I want to do whatever I can to make that happen and with your help we could do that. I urge your aye vote.

Thank you. Before I give the recommendation I should ask is there a motion for the bill? We do. zero, I see. Thank you very much. See you're on top. Why do you even need me here? You really don't. Mr. Alanis, I appreciated your working with the Committee staff on this bill.

I still think there are some concerns to be addressed, and I know that you will continue to work with opposition to address those concerns. I think the amendments do improve the bill substantially. So I appreciate your work there. I agree. Thank you. I just wanted to. I generally don't.

But I did want to respond to one question, if you will, that was posed by one of the opposition witnesses. I can't speak for any other Member of the Committee, but I'm a big believer that there is nobody beyond redemption. I believe anyone can be rehabilitated and they can be saved.

The question is whether we allocate the resources to allow them to do so. And with all due respect, Mr. Alanis, I think we all want to protect our children. I agree with Ms. Caldwell. Houston.

In all my years in the court, I have never seen a judge take with anything other than absolute seriousness what's going to happen with the placement of an SBP in a community. I've never seen otherwise. And I think that as a Committee and as policymakers, we need to strive to do both.

We obviously want to protect everyone in our community, especially our most vulnerable. And we have to provide true, meaningful, realistic pathways for rehabilitation and reentry. And we woefully fail in doing that in the state of California.

I look forward to working with all of you to actually have real reentry pathways that allow for those second chances that are just as important. With that, I recommend deny.

[Roll call]

Okay, that is out with seven votes. It'll remain open for others to add on. Thank you all. We're not done with business just yet. Colleagues, we have one more item. This is for vote only. This is reconsideration that was granted last year. Assembly Bill 1092 by Assembly Member Castillo. Just want to confer with staff.

I don't believe she was planning to attend. I assume we've had no contact. Okay. She is not attending today. I will just note, colleagues, this Bill was voted down in Committee. It remains in its original form from last year. It has been unaltered. For that reason, the chair continues to recommend A no on AB 10922.

It technically does require a motion. Is there a motion to move the Bill. All right. Is there a second? So there is a motion by Lackey and a second by Alanise. Again, chair recommends a no for reasons stated last year. Let's call the roll.

Item number six. AB 1092. The motion is due. Pass to the floor. Schultz. No. Schultz. No. Alanis. Aye. Alanis. Aye. Gonzalez. Gonzalez. No. Haney. Arabidian? No.

Carabidian? No. Lackey. Yep. Lackey. I. When? I'm sorry, I didn't hear you. When. No. Ramos, Ramos. No. Sharp, Collins.

Okay, that bill has been defeated. It will remain open for a little while longer. So for all of you who have been here and voted on all your items, thank you. Okay, those of you who have voted for everything, thank you very much. We're now going to go through Members who showed up later to do add ons. So if we can run through the agenda, please.

Item number one, AB 256. [Roll Call] This is item number one, AB 256. [Roll Call] Item number two, AB 270. This is the consent item. Item number two, AB 277. [Roll Call] Item number three, AB 292. [Roll Call]

Item number four, AB 767. [Roll Call] Item number four, AB 767. [Roll Call] Item number 5, AB 1281. [Roll Call] This is the vote only. Item number six, AB 1092. [Roll Call] Item number 1, AB 256. [Roll Call] That's it.

All right, just to recap, the following bills will not be advancing out of committee. Item number one, Assembly Bill 256 by DeMaio. Item number five, Assembly Bill 1281, DeMaio. Item number six, Assembly Bill 1092, Castillo. My understanding, correct me if I'm wrong, is the following bills have received sufficient votes and are heading out of committee.

That would be Item number two, AB 277 by Alanis. Item number three, AB 292 by Assembly Member Patterson. And item number four, Assembly Bill 767 by Alanis. Okay. All items have been dispensed with. I will note that we are waiting... We are waiting for Assembly Member Haney. So we will wait for him to arrive.

To all other Committee Members, which I think is just you, Mr. Ramos. Thank you so much for being here. You're welcome to stick around and hang out with me. You don't have to. We don't. Not yet. Not yet. Matt will be mad about that. So thank you.

All right. Matt Haney is in the house from the great City and County of San Francisco. Mr. Haney. Thank you. Some might say one of America's finest cities. All right, Mr. Haney. When you're ready, we'll go through the items starting with item number one. Okay.

Item number one, AB 256. [Roll Call] Item number two, AB... This is the consent item, AB 277. [Roll Call] Item number three, AB 292.

Chair is recommending aye as amended, Mr. Haney.

[Roll Call] Item number four, AB 767. [Roll Call] Item number five, AB 1281. [Roll Call] And vote only. This is item number six, AB 1092. [Roll Call]

Thank you very much, Mr. Haney. I'll see you soon. Before we wrap for business for the day, Madam Secretary, could we go through each item and list the final vote on each item?

Item number 1, AB 256. The final vote is 2-7.

That fails.

Item number 2. This is the consent Item, AB 277. The final vote is 9-0.

That passes.

Item number 3, AB 292. Final vote is 8-0.

That passes.

Item number 4, AB 767. The final vote is 9-0.

That passes.

Item number 5, AB 1281. The final vote is 2-4. I'm sorry. 2-5.

2-5. That fails.

Item number 6, AB 1092. Final vote is 2-7.

That fails. All right. I believe that concludes all business for the committee. Thank you all for being here. We'll see you next time on this channel.