Assembly Standing Committee on Public Safety

Good morning, everyone. I hope that woke you up. Woke me up, too. Thank you very much for coming to the greatest show on Earth, the Assembly Standing Committee on Public Safety. My name is Nick Schultz; pleased to be back as your chair. I will note a couple things as we start today.

First of all, Dr. Lashae Sharp-Collins will not be able to join the committee today. I have a correspondence from our Speaker, Robert Rivas, appointing Assembly Member Lori Wilson to replace Dr. Sharp-Collins for today's hearing only. We anticipate Assembly Member Wilson's arrival shortly. Second order of business, I note that we do not yet have a quorum.

However, we will proceed as a subcommittee. And lastly, I just wanted to make a couple of staffing announcements. I'd like to share that we are-- I'm pleased to be joined on my left today by Samarpreet Kaur, who's assumed the role of lead committee secretary. We know that she's going to do an absolutely fantastic job, and even in spite of myself and the vice chair, I know you'll keep us on track.

I also wanted to welcome Jason Rich, wherever Jason is, as a new committee--hey, Jason--for being our new committee secretary, and some of you will see Mr. Jaleel Baker in the room. He's a legal extern with our office for this year, so hope you'll treat them with the same degree of professionalism as you would me. So thank you, everyone. I'd like to begin by mentioning there are some general rules of conduct as we start our proceedings today.

Please note that in order to facilitate the goal of conducting a legislative hearing, and as we proceed with witnesses and public comment throughout today's hearing, I want to ensure everyone understands that we do have rules to 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 proceedings. I have no worry, we're not going to have to do any of this, but should it come to pass, be aware that violations of the rules can subject you to removal or other enforcement actions.

I will note that we have one item off calendar today. Assembly Bill 1647 by Assembly Member Isaac Bryan has been pulled by the author. Noting that we do not yet have a quorum and proceeding as a subcommittee, we're going to start with the presentation of our first item. First item is by Assembly Member Laurie Davies.

This is Assembly Bill 1535. Assembly Member Davies. All right. So, Assembly Member, just as a reminder and for all the authors to follow, you'll have five minutes to present to the committee, as will your witnesses in support, as will the opposing witnesses. Your time begins as soon as you start speaking, ma'am.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members, today I'm here to present AB 1535. I would like to start off by saying a personal thank you to Mr. Chair and committee staff. When I first came to you in January to discuss this bill, you did express some reservations about the original version of the bill but committed to working with me on finding a path forward to address the heart of this issue, and I really appreciate that.

That spirit in working together is what AB 1535 is all about: lowering the political temperature in this state and country and finding out that it's okay to disagree when we use civility. We produce good outcomes.

As a result of that commitment to work together on a version of AB 1535 that accomplished both goals, I am proud to accept the committee's amendments. Members, under the new version of AB 1535, if after an individual is convicted of a felony offense, and during the course of the trial it is found that the political affiliation played a part in this crime during sentence, a judge may use that when determining the sentencing length.

Again, I want to stress this bill preserves judicial discretion when deciding how long a sentence to be. There is no mandate in this bill. Members, I think we can all agree no matter what side of the aisle you're on, the political temperature in this state and country is out of control. In 2025, Minnesota House Speaker Melissa Hortman and activist Charlie Kirk were both murdered. Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro home was damaged as an arson attack.

In 2022, right here in California, Paul Pelosi was attacked because of his relationship to the former speaker. I want to give you some sobering statistics. In 2025, according to the U.S. Capitol Police, they investigated a whopping 15,000 concerning statements, behaviors, and communications directed against members of Congress, congressional staff, and family.

That is a 57% increase from 2024 alone. In January, near my district in San Diego, a man was convicted of trying to use explosives on individuals partaking in a No Kings rally. Members, I'll close by saying this bill is not about protecting elected officials.

This bill is about making sure that every Californian has the right to either peacefully protest, peacefully express their political beliefs, and allow everyone to partake in our democracy process without fear of being targeted. With that, Mr. Chair, I respectfully ask for your aye vote and to help show Californians that political violence prevention knows no political party. Should members want, I'd invite anyone to be a co-author of this measure with me. Thank you.

And do you have a witness in support?

No.

Okay. All right. Are there any MeToos? Anyone want to be heard in support of the bill, come forward at this time. Okay, we have one. As a reminder, please confine your comment to your name, your organization, and your position, please.

David Bolog, SFB Alliance. We originally-- may I continue? We originally had a opposition letter in for this, but because of the analysis including AB 889 as showing that that's hateful, I oppose it-- I'm in support of the bill. It demonstrates it's needed.

Great. Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. Are there any opposition witnesses? Okay, I see that there are. Please take your time coming on up. Once you begin speaking, you will have five minutes to address the committee.

All right. Chair and members, my name is Aubrey Rodriguez, and I'm a legislative advocate with ACLU Cal Action. Our organization is in respectful opposition to AB 1535, which would allow courts to increase criminal punishment with a new aggravating factor.

At the ACLU, we consistently oppose legislation that would punish the expression of thoughts, opinions, or beliefs, including expressions with which we vigorously disagree, such as the advocacy of racial supremacy or religious bigotry.

Although we are thankful to the author for accepting the committee amendments to remove the language out of the hate crime statute, many problems remain. As defined, the term political affiliation is far too vague and may encompass a wide range of activities or statuses when the courts consider it as an aggravating factor.

This may include formal party registration, informal ideological leanings, past political associations, attendance at political events, involvement in campaigns, or perceived alignment with a certain cause or party.

This would mean that the court can impose this new aggravating factor on a defendant if the victim is one of the state's 23.2 million registered voters, or if they are simply perceived as aligning with a certain cause, which seems highly subjective. This is untenable and allows the courts to impose longer sentences on virtually any felony criminal case before them.

We understand the author's intent in pushing forward this bill and share the belief that in order to have a thriving democracy, people must be able to speak their mind without fear of being shot at their home or in the public for expressing those opinions, regardless of what they may be.

However, it is important that if a person is found guilty of committing a crime, they will be punished, and both suspects accused of murder towards the two individuals for which this bill is named after will be charged for murder if they are convicted.

Providing yet another tool for a judge to impose longer sentences does nothing to deter crime in the first place, as countless studies and data show, for which every policymaker in this room should be aware of because I bring attention to it every time I sit up here. Given that enhancing these criminal penalties through an aggravating factor does nothing to deter crime itself, we respectfully urge your no vote on AB 1335. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair Schultz and members of the committee. My name is Shivani Nishar, and I'm the policy associate with Initiate Justice. We are in respectful opposition to AB 1535 as amended.

Rather than addressing gaps in existing law, this bill would authorize courts to treat a defendant's alleged motivation related to a victim's, quote, 'actual or perceived political affiliation' as a circumstance of aggravation at sentencing. In doing so, it shifts the focus from conduct to speculation about political motivations, which is inherently subjective and prone to broad overreach.

This bill defines quote, 'political affiliation' to include belonging to a political party, endorsing a political party or its platform, or endorsing a politician or a politician's platform. As amended, the bill would allow a prosecutor to argue for longer criminal sentencing in any case by asserting that the defendant was motivated, even in part, by the victim's political identity or perceived ideology. This raises serious concerns for us about fairness and proportionality in sentencing.

Courts would be invited to parse statements, associations, or assumptions about political beliefs when considering sentences. Without a more specific definition, an endorsement is simply a public statement of support. I asked the committee, does an Instagram like or a retweet meet that standard? What about attending a rally or political event to understand issues that affect any daily voter?

These are all areas that are deeply intertwined with constitutionally protected speech and association, and even if these actions do qualify, should they justify adding years to a sentence someone is already facing for a felony conviction? Disagreement, criticism, or heated rhetoric are commonplace in a free society and do not inherently reflect a heightened level of culpability.

Expanding sentencing enhancements based on subjective determinations risks the politicization of criminal prosecutions. For these reasons, Initiate Justice respectfully opposes AB 1535 and urges your no vote. Thank you.

Thank you both very much for your testimony. Next, we'll take any other MeToos. Anyone hoping to be heard in opposition? Name, organization and position, please.

Matty Hyatt from Capitol Axis, representing California Civil Liberties Advocacy. CCLA would like to work with the author on amendments, but we are in opposition until amended.

Nicole Joens, on behalf of the Local 148-Los Angeles Public Defenders Union, in opposition.

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

Good morning. Ignacio Hernandez, on behalf of the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice. Appreciate the direction, Assembly amendments, but we're still in opposition.

Simelia Rogers, on behalf of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, in opposition, also registering opposition for Californians United for a Responsible Budget, CURB. Thank you.

Leslie Ortega, on behalf of the San Francisco Public Defender's Office, in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Giuli Mello with Felony Murder Elimination Project. We oppose.

I'm Dave Marriott from Orangevale, and I stand in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you all very much for your testimony. We'll turn it back to the dais now. Are there any questions or comments from committee members? All right, I'll lead us off. I have two questions. The first would be for Mr. Rodriguez. Not to put you on the spot, but I do think it's an important conversation to have.

One of the things that you mentioned in your opposition testimony was that this committee should not support the bill because it wouldn't necessarily deter crime, and I actually don't necessarily disagree with you. My question is, aren't there other purposes for crimes and sentencing other than just deterrence? I mean, do you feel there's any other purpose other than just deterring new crime to have a criminal sentencing structure?

Well, I would say that we currently have a criminal sentencing structure for those who do commit crimes and that extending that crime wouldn't necessarily do anything to deter the crime in the first place, where I do view that when you try to enhance a penalty, I think the motive behind that--and I'm not trying to make assumptions on behalf of the author here either--but a lot of the members in this room will introduce crimes or to extend penalties to try to deter it.

I believe that is the motivating factor, and I'd love to learn more about what may be a motivating factor for the policymakers in this room, but if that is the ultimate goal, enhancing these criminal penalties, extending it, doesn't do anything to achieve that goal and there could be other ways and venues for us to try to address the root causes of crime that will take a different track than trying to extend the crime itself.

Thank you. The only thing I would add in response is I think deterrence is obviously a major goal of our justice system. So is rehabilitation, and the independent value of saying this is not conduct that's appropriate in a civilized society. So I just think that-- you made a good point, but I do think there are multiple goals the committee should consider in evaluating every legislative proposal. Ms. Davies, I have a question for you. I want to just make sure your understanding is clear.

California law recently changed, an aggravating circumstance must now be pled by the prosecutor and it must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in order to impose the upper term. Is that your understanding of what would be required under this bill, meaning that a prosecutor would have to plead and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the intent, the motivation of committing the crime, for example, was because of political affiliation and not any other plausible reason?

Absolutely.

Okay. My last comment is I do think the definition of political affiliation, while much improved, could be a point of continued collaboration between both sides, so--

We're open to that, too.

Wonderful. That's what I wanted to ask. Any other questions or comments? Okay. Assembly Member Davies, I'll give you a chance to close.

Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you for your work, Assembly Member. I am recommending an aye. Is there a motion? Oh, I'm sorry. We don't have it yet, so never mind. See, I'm getting ahead of myself. So, Assembly Member Davies, when we have a quorum, we will hopefully take a motion and we'll let you know the outcome.

So thank you all very much.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. Next we have, oh, Assemblymember Davies, item number two. This is Assembly Bill 1656.

You're not done with me yet.

All right, Very good.

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members, today I'm here to present AB 1656. I would like to start off by thanking committee staff for working with my staff on this measure. I will be accepting proposed amendments. Members, AB 1656, the common sense victim protection bill that expands the crimes, which are included in the definition of good cause for a continuance of a criminal trial to include human trafficking.

Survivors of human trafficking frequently experience severe trauma, coerce control and psychological harm. Some are under debt bondage, immigration, currents, or family threats.

It is very hard for survivors to trust persons with authority, such as prosecuting attorneys who work overtime to establish trust and communications with the victim. Continuous preserved continuity of counsel, which is particularly important where victims rely on a single trusted point of contact.

Forcing victims to proceed with a substitute attorney due to scheduling conflicts may undermine victims cooperation, increase anxiety and lead to delay or incomplete testimony. Under current law, good cause is already defined to include cases in which the prosecutor has another court appearance.

Parents to make for cases involving murder, stalking, domestic violence, hate crimes, or case that is being handled through the career criminal prosecution program. Again, AB 1656 simply adds human trafficking to this list. With me here today to help answer any questions is Dan Owens from the San Diego District Attorney's Office. Thank you so much.

And I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Good morning Chairman Schultz and committee members. I am the Assistant Chief of the Sex Crimes and Human Trafficking Division for the San Diego District Attorney Attorney's Office.

And as the author just noted, I'm here today urging you to vote aye on AB 1656 to add human trafficking to the list of good cause continuance offenses in penal code 1050.

In human trafficking, just like stalking and domestic violence, which are already included in that list of offenses, it is essential to have a single vertical prosecutor working alongside a victim from start to finish throughout all stages of a court case. Vertical human trafficking prosecutors are motivated to support victims as they confront their trafficker in court.

And Deputy District attorneys who work in our division receive specialized training in this area regarding the manipulative tactics and the modus operandi of traffickers to control victims both psychologically by instilling fear and physically by using force.

AB 1656 ensures that vertical prosecutors can use trauma informed approaches to assist survivors throughout the court process, many of whom of course have a deep distrust of the criminal justice system based upon their lived experiences.

So, having prosecutors who could work alongside them throughout the court process allows them to participate in the prosecution without feeling abandoned or passed off to another prosecutor. It also respects the dignity of human trafficking survivors and enhances vertical prosecutors ability to support them. Prosecutors are often overburdened by heavy caseloads and heavily impacted court calendars.

And AB 1656 can help prevent the unfortunate circumstance of transferring hearings from one prosecutor to another midstream, which negatively impacts victims, but it also can negatively impact the community at large by risking unjust outcomes if the prosecutor most familiar with the unique dynamics of the case are unavailable to handle it in court due to other scheduling conflicts.

There are numerous examples where this unfortunate circumstance has occurred, both in San Diego and throughout our state. And these examples illustrate that AB 1656 is just a simple practical solution to a real life problem. District Attorney's offices have partnered with human trafficking task forces in throughout our state in order to address this issue.

And it can only be in those prosecutions can only be successful if the vertical prosecutors are able to see those cases throughout. So, with that I'm asking for an aye vote.

Thank you for the presentation and your testimony. Now we'll take the me-too in support. Please come forward: name, organization, and position please.

Good morning. Patrick Espinoza, on behalf of the San Diego County DA's Office, in support.

Morning, Mr. Chairman. Carl London, on behalf of Crime Victims United, in support of the bill. Thank you.

David Bullock, SF Fees and Victory Alliance; we are in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Garrett Hamilton, with the California District Attorneys Association, in support.

Good morning, Chairman and assembly members. Saskia Perks with Capital Access on behalf of California Civil Liberties Advocacy in support.

All right, thank you all. Do we have any witnesses here in opposition? Okay, it looks like we do. Opposition? No? Going once, going twice. Okay. Any other me-toos? Anyone else want to be heard on the bill? Okay,

I'm sorry. I just wanted to make sure that the author accepted the amendments. Yes, this morning. Thank you. Leslie Caldwell, Houston, on behalf of California Public Defenders Association, thank you for accepting the amendments, and we will withdraw our opposition.

Nicole James, on behalf of the Local 148 LA Public Defenders Union; we do appreciate the amendments. We do need some time to review in order to determine whether or not we withdraw our opposition, but we are very appreciative. Thank you.

Shivani Nishar, on behalf of Initiate Justice, in respectful opposition.

Simelia Rogers on behalf of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights. We will also review the amendments and also registering opposition for Californians United for Responsible Budget Curb. Thank you.

Okay, thank you, everyone. Turning it back to the dais, I see we're joined by a few more colleagues. If you don't see your face up here, please come on down so we can get a quorum. Does anyone have a question or comment for the author or any of the witnesses?

Mr. Vice Chair, you want to bail me out? Anything? Okay. Very good. Assemblymember Davies, you have a chance to close.

Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

No. That was quick. Colleagues, the Chair will recommend an aye at the appropriate time, but we still don't have a quorum. So, thank you; we'll let you know the outcome.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Of course, that - so, that was item - that was item 1656 on our agenda. Colleagues, we're now going to take... Assemblymember Chen here? Ah, yes, he is. Okay, so we have Assemblymember Chen. This is Assembly Bill 1587. Sir, you'll have five minutes to present. Do you have any witnesses with you today?

I do, Mr. Chair.

I'm sorry: 1589. Sorry, this is 1589 on your agenda. My apologies. All right, sir, you can begin when you're ready. Your witnesses will also have five minutes when they begin speaking.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I really appreciate your time for giving me the opportunity to present AB 1589, which is sponsored by the LA County Sheriff, Robert Luna. Also want to thank Dustin and your committee staff for their incredible work in analyzing this bill.

AB 1589 closes an existing gap in state law by allowing level one reserve officers to use firearm silencers while on duty. This change will only apply to level reserve officers, the highest rank. They have the same training, education, arresting authority, and weapon authorization as full time officers.

Current law creates a fourth scenario where two officers who have the same training, work for the same department, carry the same weapons and sit in the same swat car -

Assemblymember, I'm so sorry to interrupt you. I'm being told we're having a little challenge hearing you on the mic. Could you pull that just a little bit closer? And you can continue; we stopped your time. We'll resume when you begin.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. My apologies, but only one of them is authorized to utilize a silencer. This creates an unknown equal standards and protections for law enforcement; authorization should be based on training, certification, safety, not job title only.

Our bill does not allow for off duty utilization, it does not legalize oppressors for civilians, and it does not remove agency control. In fact, it simply applies our state's existing exemption to the signs are banned fairly. This bill is small and narrow in scope, helps protect members of our law enforcement and members of our public.

And here with us to testify today, Sergeant Bernie Ojeda, LA Reserve Deputy Trevor Samirajsky, here on behalf of Sheriff Luna.

Thank you, Assemblymember. And I'm really sorry to interrupt your presentation again, but I do see that we now have a quorum before we proceed. Madam Secretary, would you call the roll?

[Roll Call].

Okay, we have a quorum and I see, maybe I can just note Mr. Lackey has joined us. I assume he's going to say he's present. Of course, not here, but present. Okay, gentlemen, you have a collective total time of 5 minutes to address the committee as witnesses in support. You begin whenever you start speaking.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members of the Assembly, thank you for the opportunity to speak before you. My name is Trevor Samirajsky and I'm a Level 1 Reserve and EMT with the LA County Sheriff's Department. I'm an instructor with our weapons training unit and I'm here to testify in support of AB 1589.

In California, a Level 1 Reserve Peace Officer is a sworn law enforcement officer who serves part time or voluntarily and who meets the same standards established by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training as full time officers.

A suppressor or a silencer is a device affixed to the muzzle of a firearm that reduces the harmful overpressure and sound emitted from the muzzle. A suppressor captures the gases exiting from the muffle - the muzzle and baffles the gases, releasing them at a reduced sound level and pressure.

A suppressor is not a silencer as is often portrayed in the movies and does not create a sound barely audible. When training with a firearm that has a suppressor, hearing protection is still required. Suppressors provide several advantages: the first and foremost being the reduction of the sound of shooting and reducing the likelihood of permanent hearing damage.

The use of a suppressor also reduces the overpressure experienced when a rifle is fired within the confines of a structure or near a solid surface. Both can be detrimental to the shooter and those nearby. Suppressors also have the effect of decreasing fire ignition danger from the muzzle.

A suppressor does not increase the speed or lethality of a bullet. Suppressors can reduce gunshot sound by 10 to 30 decibels. Patrol rifles can generate sound levels of around 130 to 155 decibels. OSHA states that impulsive or impact noise should not exceed 140 decibel peak sound pressure.

Currently, California law provides an exemption for full time law enforcement officers, but unfortunately reserve peace officers are not currently subject to this exemption. The passing of AB 1589 would include reserve peace officers in this exemption and enable them to use suppressors as safety equipment as well.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members. Thank you for your time. I don't have much more to add other than what's in addition to what's been said already. Level One Reserve Officers are, as stated, the highest level of reserve officer we have out there.

They have the same training, they do the same job as we do, and not only are they critical to law enforcement operations nationwide, they feel critical shortages at the drop of a dime, without any question. And there certainly are have been an inspiration to me.

And as a young deputy with a few years on patrol, you start to get a little weary, you get run down, a little disillusioned.

And when those feelings crept up and you remind yourself that there's people out there that do the same job, the same ungodly hours that you do on a voluntary basis, those feelings kind of subside and they realize they reinstill that pride you have you should have had by taking on the duty.

So, I just want to thank all reserves, and especially the Level 1's for being an inspiration and a model to strive for. These aren't people who are going to be flippant or irresponsible with the authority or the responsibility they have. These are generally older individuals that have have had a profession.

They've...a lot of them are successful business owners and they really are models and most pillars of their community.

Thank you both for your testimony. Before we go on, I'll note that we will have opposition witnesses, most likely. They might need those two chairs, sir. So, if you'd like to move to the other side of Assembly Member Chen, that'd be fantastic. All right, we'll take the me too's. Come on forward.

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

David Bolog, as an individual, in support.

Okay, thank you. Next, we have opposition witnesses. Yes, we do. All right, come on down and you will have five minutes to address the committee.

Thank you. Good morning, Chair and members. My name is Rebecca Marcus and I'm here on behalf of the Brady Campaign in Brady, California, in opposition to AB 1589. Extending the suppressor possession and use to reserve officers is a is completely unnecessary, inappropriate and can be quite dangerous to fellow officers and the public.

The noise the shot makes alerts the public bystanders of a dangerous situation. In a firefight, it allows officers to know where all the shots are coming from. Absence of this noise can create confusion and possible tragedy. The two officer involved shootings my Brady colleague was witness to both involved suppressors.

The sponsors have stated that they are doing this for hearing loss mitigation. A study by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services states that suppressors alone don't mitigate the harm to hearing caused by gunshots. Public health experts warn that hearing loss can occur at 85 decibels.

Firearms produce explosive sounds more than 140 decibels, with the most effective silencers suppressing the sound of gunfire by only about 28 decibels. This argument has been used unsuccessfully at the federal level to leverage increased sales. Every year, when we are confronted with bills which grant an exemption to our firearm laws, Brady asks how this exemption might further protect the public.

We met with the author, staff, and sponsors and asked them this question. Unfortunately, we aren't satisfied with their answers.

In LA County, the Sheriff's Department has plans to provide all officers with patrol rifles equipped with silencers to use in every situation. And logistically it would just be easier if they had one weapon for full time officers and their reserve counterparts. This isn't a sufficient reason for us.

In fact, it brings up fiscal concerns as well as other concerns outside the scope of this bill. Each time we allow for more exemption to our state strong firearm laws. We create the potential for more of these banned weapons and accessories getting out on our streets.

Or unfortunately, in some cases, those that were given the exemption use them to cause harm. In the wrong hands, the outcome can be deadly. For example, in 2013, a former LAPD officer murdered four people and wounded several others using a gun with a silencer. In 2023 alone, ATF recovered and traced over 400 silencers from crime scenes.

This doesn't protect the public and in fact could hurt them. We ask for your no vote on AB 1589,

Chair and members: my name is Aubrey Rodriguez. I'm alleged advocate with ACLU Cal Action. Our organization has serious concerns with AB 1589, which seeks further to exempt law enforcement from the prohibition on possessing silencers, as it states in the analysis and the language, "Silencers."

At the ACLU, we oppose any effort to more heavily arm law enforcement with dangerous weapons, as it jeopardizes the safety of the public. These types of efforts can exacerbate the epidemic of police brutality in this nation which continues to ravage many of our communities to this day.

If a device is so dangerous that it's mere possession by a law abiding person as a felony, it is logically inconsistent to claim that the same device becomes safe or necessary when held by a government employee. And if silencers are truly dangerous, then their use by law enforcement contradicts their mandate to protect and serve.

Expanding this problematic exemption funnels more tactical gear to police, further blurring the line between domestic policing and military operations. The change in equipment held by police is too often paralleled by a corresponding change in attitude where police conceive themselves at war with communities, rather than as public servants concerned with keeping their communities safe.

We advocate for a return to less dangerous, more collaborative style of policing, rather than trying to equip these public servants with dangerous tactical gear. We should not be able to mistake our officers for soldiers. So, for these reasons, we respectfully urge your no vote on AB 1589. Thank you.

Thank you both for your testimony. Next, we'll take the me-toos. Anyone else hoping to be heard, come on down.

Thank you. Jim Lindberg, on behalf of the Friends Committee on Legislation of California, in opposition.

Thank you. Nicole James, on behalf of Local 148, Los Angeles Public Defenders Union, in opposition.

Hello again. Leslie Ortega, on behalf of the San Francisco Public Defender's Office, in opposition.

Giuli Mello with Felony Murder Elimination Project; we oppose.

Apologies, Mr. Chair; Ryan Sherman with the California Reserve Peace Officers Association in support. Thank you.

Okay. You had me going there. I was gonna say that. That'd be a first. Okay. You sure you don't want to come down and just do it for fun? Okay, very good.

Is there anyone else who'd like to be heard on the bill? Okay, colleagues, I'm gonna turn it back to the dais. Questions? Comments from any committee members? Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair; I was waiting on you.

I'm a little curious with the opposition's comments that were made. One of the things I didn't quite hear. Did you say physical or fiscal concerns?

Fiscal.

Okay. And can you go more in depth on that?

Yes. In our conversation with the bill sponsors, they made it clear that the plan of the sheriff's department is to change out all the patrol rifles for all the members of the LA Police Sheriff's Department.

So, we just think that at a time when they're actually using reserve officers rather than full time officers, that maybe they shouldn't be having plans to outfit all new weapons.

And was it - was that for the reserve officers or is that for the Department as a whole?

For the department at whole.

Okay, so not specifically just the reserves that we're addressing right now?

Correct. I mean, yes. Yes.

And then also you made a comment about how you asked the author, how does this help public safety? And that you guys were not happy with the answer. Could you give me what that answer was?

Yes. So it was - they brought up the hearing loss mitigation, and we debated that back and forth. And then we also discussed outfitting everyone with patrol rifles with the suppressors, and they couldn't give us a sufficient reason why it was necessary to have that weapon with them at all times.

The two examples, one was an example from 1997 in Northridge, and it didn't - they weren't clear whether or not it included reserve officers or not. And then the other example was in Nevada. So, we just felt like that wasn't enough information.

Okay. And you do realize that this is something that's added to the gun, not the gun itself?

Yes, it's an accessory.

Because the way you were talking about it, just the guns themselves having it for the officers.

Yes. Accessory.

Okay. And then for you, Mr. Rodriguez, you were talking about how law enforcement perceives themselves at war with the public. Could you elaborate on that more?

Well, when police are equipped with tactical gear or weapons that are meant for military forces, it can change the culture of law enforcement, where they don't view the community just - it doesn't really help facilitate community policing.

It does shift us into militarizing our police, which then kind of creates a culture of them at war with certain communities, especially when they're suppressing the First Amendment right to protest or whatever it may be in our streets that we're actually seeing today.

So, we don't - we shouldn't be equipping our law enforcement with military weapons or tactical gear of any kind.

So, your comments weren't that you talk to police officers and they perceive that the way that's the way you perceived it?

Well, I would argue that again, if you're giving police military weapons or military Humvees to go into communities and they have - they're basically have barricades with all these different shields that, that is creating a culture of them being at war with our community rather than trying to, again, facilitate community policing.

Okay. Because I was one of those police officers that did receive that stuff and I did never perceive myself at war with public. So, I just want to make sure that was put on the record. I think I will stop there. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Assemblymember Lackey.

Yeah, just a few really quick comments. Once again, the people, who see this much differently than me, miss the point: that it's not the instrument, it's the person behind the instrument that matters here. We're talking about people that are willing to die defending someone they don't know.

They get no credit for that, in some of the minds of many of you folks. And I find that disturbing and I find it offensive that you would use the term at war because they're not at war with the regular public. They're at war with criminality and threats to themselves.

And if you find that objectionable, you think way differently than I do. I would just tell you that I don't think this is an unreasonable ask. I don't think it has a great chance of surviving, but I think it's definitely a worthy ask.

And I would just tell you that it's not the instrument, guys: it's the people behind it that really, really matter. That's why we have a Second Amendment is for self defense.

And I know we can debate this all day long, but I just want to remind everybody that this is not the what but the who. And the people that are asking for this exemption, we're not asking, or the author's not asking, for just anybody.

Highly, highly trained people who have committed to being willing to sacrifice their own life in defending you. And I think that needs to be thought through. Thank you.

Thank you Assemblymember. Any other questions or comments from members of the committee? Okay, Assembly Member Chen, you have a chance to close if you'd like.

Mr. Chair, once again, thank you so much for your incredible consideration for this bill and your incredible staff's work as well as the opposition's comments. I'm a former LA County Reserve Officer myself and and I was level three, I never got to level one.

And I can tell you, here in the State of California, we have 600 approximate law enforcement agencies and 6200 reserve officers that are employed as well as serving in those jurisdictions. Perhaps one of the reasons why I was incentivized to become a Reserve Deputy Sheriff was the incredible paycheck. We got $1 a year and that's pre tax.

Post tax is 45 cents. And as it stands right now, full time deputy sheriffs in LA County are allowed to utilize suppressors.

What confounds me and confuses me is why a person who is Reserve Deputy Sheriff, who is a level one and a full time officer, both in the same car, cannot be utilized to have the same safety precautions, as they go up patrol or if they go out and serve the community.

So, this is a step in that direction. So, again I want to state that this is for health and safety concerns for the law enforcement officer. Additionally, the department has a discretion whether or not that suppressor can be utilized for certain scenarios, in certain situations and who to give it to.

So, with that I thank you for your consideration and I respectfully asked when aye vote.

Thank you, Assemblymember Chen. Colleagues, I will recommend an aye with a very brief response.

My understanding is that at least part of the motivation for this bill comes from the sobering reality that we're down, I think approximately 1400 sheriff's deputies in Los Angeles County and by the way, for all the unincorporated parts of Los Angeles County where I reside, they are the first responders and right now we're seeing wait times through the roof.

And the point I'm trying to make is that we are asking more and more of our reserve deputies and I think we have to grapple with the fact that there are larger structural issues in Los Angeles County that we need to address.

We should not be putting, in my view, reserve deputies in the position to do the services of a full time deputy, but we have to solve that vacancy crisis.

I would also say that while I appreciate the comments of both of my colleagues to my left, I will respectfully disagree in one, in one way.. I do think it's important, as we said on the dais, is to understand the perspective that maybe we haven't lived, but many communities represented in this room have felt targeted by law enforcement.

They have negative experiences with law enforcement. And I simply submit that we can't be blind to that fact. We have to be cognizant of the fact that good community policing is based upon trust and establishing trust and maintaining trust.

I don't offer that to argue with anyone, and I don't mean to suggest that you don't believe that, but I just think it's very important to be said in this room that there are those with a very negative and rightfully justified negative experience with law enforcement. And part of our work here is to rebuild that trust.

So, with that, I do recommend an eye for today. And Mr. Chen, just note, I would encourage you to strongly continue working with the opposition to try to find more common ground.

Yeah, sure. No worry; I will do that.

Thank you. We do have a quorum now. So, we have a motion, and I'm assuming a second by Mr. Lackey. All right, we'll take the roll

For item eight, AB 1589, by Assemblymember Chen. The motion is do pass. [Roll Call].

Okay, that motion passes, but we'll keep it open in case those who are not yet present want to add on. Um, we're also going to go back at this time. Colleagues, I will note that we have...we have previously taken up items 1, 8, and 14 on the calendar. Well, 8, we just did.

I'm sorry, but 1 and 14 were by Assemblymember Davies. Is there a motion on either of those measures? Okay, we'll take that. As to item one, motion by Alanis, second by Nguyen. All right, let's take the roll.

item one, AB 1535, by Assembly Member Davies. The motion is do pass as amended, to the Appropriations Committee. Schultz. Schultz. Aye. Alanis. Alanis, aye. Gonzalez. Gonzalez, aye. Haney. Harbidian. Aye. Harabidean. Aye. Lackey. Lackey, aye. Min. Min, I. Ramos. Ramos, I. Wilson.

That motion passes. Also forgot to note the arrival of Mr. Harabidian. Thank you, Mr. Harabidian. Item 14. I take it you have a motion, Mr. Alanis? Okay. And a second, Mr. Lackey. Thank you both. Gentlemen.

[Roll Call]

Okay, and that motion passes as well. Before we go to our next item, colleagues, we also have the consent calendar for today. The proposed consent calendar includes four items. Item three is Assembly Bill 1541 by Assembly Member Dixon, entitled Human Trafficking data. We have item number seven, Assembly Bill 1583, by Assembly Member Rogers, entitled Criminal Procedure Jurisdiction.

We have item number 10, Assembly Bill 1615, by Assembly Member Wynn, entitled Firearms Unsafe Handguns. And we have item number 11, Assembly Bill 1645 by Assembly Member Mark Gonzalez, entitled Corrections the Hugs act of 2026. Is there a motion? Okay. Is there a second? Okay, we have a motion and a second. A recommendation, of course, is an aye.

[Roll Call]

Okay, that passes. How can you not smile when you talk about the Hugs Act? That's a heck of a name, Mr. Gonzalez. Okay, next. I see that we have Assembly Member Jackson here to present Assembly Bill 1566. Assemblymember. Are you ready to go? I am ready. Outstanding, sir. So you'll have five minutes, as will your supporting witness or witnesses.

[Roll Call]

That measure will remain on call. Thank you all. I'll also note that if Assembly Members Haney and Wilson could make their way to the hearing room, that would be much appreciated. So, staff, please notify them. We'll let you know the outcome of this Bill, Mr. Jackson. All right, next we have, bear with me here.

That measure passes. Thank you, everyone. As we shuffle, we're gonna get Mr. Alanis up here because he has a caucus meeting to run. Mr. Alanis, you'll be presenting your item. Colleagues, this is item six, AB 1568 by Mr. Alanis. Mr. Vice Chair, you can begin whenever you're ready.

Thank you. Mr. Chair. I want to start off by saying thank you and appreciate the efforts by you and your Committee on working with me on this Bill. I'll be accepting the Committee amendments emphasized in the judicial discretion in the critical sex offender review process. California has made many improvements in access to treatment for sex offenders.

But there is more work to be done. AB 1568 helps ensure that courts can more reliably verify whether an individual has participated in or successfully completed a sex offender treatment program. I'm proud to work with my work, my work with my office and the work that my office has done.

Apologize. so far in the meeting with opposition and working to address their concerns is something I'm very proud of and we will continue to do that. They've had multiple meetings, multiple conversations, and the progress that they've made has improved this Bill and I promise that the opposition I plan to keep those conversations going.

The Bill aims to support the Legislature's goal of improving public safety by reinforcing treatment as a factor in the court's decision of whether a sex offender should be allowed to remove their name from the registry.

If the Legislature believes that treatment is necessary to rehabilitate and that the cost in doing so is worth it, then we owe it to ourselves to verify that the mandated treatment has been fulfilled. With me today I have Margot Rowan with the San Jose County District Attorney's Office to offer her expert testimony.

Thank you, thank you Chair and thank you Members. Thank you Chair and thank you Members.

As my role as a Deputy district attorney in my county who is charged with handling the petitions brought by sex offenders who are seeking to relieve the registration requirements, I have experienced firsthand the complications faced by the court placed on the courts through the practical application of the law as it stands today.

For example, the law currently inquires into whether a petitioner completed a Sex Offender Management Board Certified treatment program. This factor fails to account for those cases where convictions occurred prior to the inception of the board certification and where a petitioner may have otherwise engaged in some form of sex offender treatment or counseling.

Verifying such treatment is often impossible due to the age of these cases where records may have been lost or destroyed. This task is made exponentially more difficult for the courts because many petitioners do not attend these hearings.

In addition, with regard to current risk assessments, these are typically not available to courts as they would have been done at the time of conviction. AB 1568 unties the court's hands by allowing it the discretion to verify treatment in a manner it deems acceptable.

It also allows courts of discretion to order current risk assessments and to order petitioners to appear at the hearing if it deems necessary in order to more accurately assess whether community safety would be significantly enhanced by a petitioner's continued registration.

Closing these gaps in the practical application of laws at SANS benefits not only petitioners on their path to reintegration into the community, but better safeguards public safety. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you both very much. Can I get the me to in support of the Bill?

David Bolog, Moms for Liberty and Support

Thank you very much. Are there any witnesses in opposition? All right, come on down. You'll Five minutes once you begin speaking.

Good morning, Mr. Chair Members. Ignacio Hernandez, on behalf of the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice Statewide association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, private practice and also work in public offender offices, we are regretfully in opposition.

First off, I want to thank the author and the sponsors and office, office of the Author for working with us, having discussions with us about this Bill. Three things. Number one, we are concerned that the spill, though well intentioned, can have some very significant problems that undermine the core principles of the law that was adopted in 2017.

And let me remind folks, when we went from lifetime registration to tiered registration, it was a multi year effort with broad stakeholders with academic studies and reports and analysis to put together a very complicated but very appropriate plan to have tiered registration and to have a process and protocol for petitions to get off of the registry.

We are concerned that this Bill, fundamentally, if it's improperly used, can undermine the principle that the DAs have the burden of proof to show that there's a reason for the petition to be denied. Specifically, three things. And I offered amendments in my letter and to the office of the author and we'll work with them.

I think those amendments might narrow the Bill and actually get to what they're trying to do.

But we're concerned that if the judge forces someone by video or in person to show up to court that person because they don't have the burden of proof, if the judge asks them questions and they don't answer or they don't answer in a way the judge likes that that could become a de facto reason to deny the petition that is completely counter to what the law says.

The law says that if you comply with all the terms and conditions, comply with the law and all the other factors for all of those years, you're entitled to have that petition granted. So that's one of our concerns.

The other concern we have is that if someone did everything that they could as far as treatment and they did the best they could to provide that information, and they've otherwise satisfied all of the petition requirements, that now they could be forced to do another study and they have another review of whether or not they should qualify.

Again, we're now bootstrapping something new that was not contemplated when this 2017 law was adopted. And again, there's a lot of stakeholders at the table many, many years to get that balance. So we think there could be a narrow solution. I think I've outlined it in my amendments and we look forward to continuing those discussions.

But otherwise, we hate to have a situation where someone Petitions, they're in court and they're essentially cross examined. And their petition is denied simply because of how they answered, how they look that day, how they feel that day. And that's concerning for us. For those reasons, we're opposed.

Good morning. My name is Janice Bellucci, and I'm here representing the Alliance for Constitutional Sex Offense Laws. I'm an attorney and I've been an attorney for 40 years. And my career actually started out as a lawyer working for NASA. And when I worked for NASA, I learned something really important.

When something's not broken, there's no need to fix it. There's no need to fix the petitioning process under the tiered registry law. It's working well and it's had some results that I believe are quite fair.

For example, and these are statistics from the Department of Justice, so far, 11,979 petitions have been filed in four and a half years. Of that number, 9859 have been granted. 167 have been denied. And we have about 1100 petitions that are still pending. I myself as an attorney have filed 189 petitions.

145 of them have been granted and the rest of them are pending. The system is working. It's not broken. Please don't try to fix it. Thank you.

Thank you both for your testimony. Next we'll take the me toos. Come on down.

Lesli Caldwell Houston, for the California Public Defenders Association. I'd like to thank Assembly Member Alanis for accepting the amendments. We do still have con deep concerns about the cost of risk assessments and who pays for it. So we remain in opposition, but we really do want to keep talking.

Natalie Smith on behalf of Legal Services for Prisoners with Children. And All of Us or None in opposition.

Nicole James on behalf of Local 148, Los Angeles Public Defenders Unit. And respectful opposition.

Mark Judkins from Los Angeles in strong opposition.

Mike Madonia, Outgrove strongly oppose this Bill.

David Marriott from Orangevale and I stand in strong opposition. Thank you,

Charles. Charles Lopez of Outgrove. I oppose.

Shivani Nishar on behalf of Initiate Justice in respectful but strong opposition.

Amelia Rogers on behalf of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights and respectful opposition.

John Baptista San Leandro, staunchly opposed.

Julie Mellow, Felony Murder Elimination Project. We oppose.

Ellie Miller on behalf of the Alliance for Constitutional Sex Offense Laws that on behalf of the registrants in the 20 counties without a case on certified program, I oppose.

Mary Heron, El Dorado county. No vote.

David Aaron, El Dorado County, I encourage a no vote on this unnecessary Bill.

Roger Heinkett, businessman from Modesto, strongly oppose this as bloating the registry.

Aubrey Rodriguez with ACLU Cal Action and respectful opposition.

Joaquin Rodriguez, Sacramento County. I strongly oppose this Bill, and I ask you do the same. Thank you.

Richard Chu, American Canyon. Respectful opposition.

Alexander King of. From Los Angeles, forensic psychologist. And I strongly oppose this Bill. It's totally unnecessary.

James Admik from Sacramento, oppose the Bill.

Mariana Roy, on behalf of the San Francisco Public Defender's Office, in respectful opposition.

Okay, thank you all very much for your testimony. Now we'll turn it back to the dais. Any questions or comments or motions from Committee Members? No questions, no comments. Okay. Mr. Alanis, would you like to close?

Well, thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank the opposition. Ignacio especially, thank you for work with my office. And obviously, we'll continue to work on it as well. So thank you for doing that. I know there was a comment made. If the system's not broken, then we shouldn't have to fix anything.

Well, I wouldn't be here if it wasn't. It's unfortunate. And I do believe in rehabilitation, as most of you do here as well. And I don't think there should be an issue of somebody proving that they did the classes as they were asked to do. What it does is it just makes it really hard to prove it.

So if you did it, you should be proud to show that you did it, and it should be able to be presented on some kind of certification or some way for the DA's office to make sure they do verify that. So I'm not. I'm not fighting that.

I want people to show that, but I want them to show proof that they did that. And with that, I respectfully ask your aye vote.

Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. Colleagues, the chair does recommend an aye. I will thank the author for taking amendments that I do think substantially improve the Bill and scale back some of the concerns that I had.

I will just note that I think that some of the points raised in the letter from the California Attorneys for Criminal justice are very good. And I would strongly encourage the author to take a look at that as you prepare it to hopefully get through Appropriations into a floor.

Thank you, Chair.

With that, recommend. We do need a motion. Is there a motion? Okay, we have a motion. And a second. We'll call the roll

[Roll Call]

That measure passes. Thank you very much, colleagues. Before we break for lunch, we are going to go just a couple minutes over.

I want to note that we have secured this room to resume at 1:30pm we have three items and so if you can't be here right away, please come as close to, say, 2 o', clock, 2:15 as possible so we can adjourn for the day.

The three items that will be up after lunch will be Assembly Bill 1546 by Schultz. Assembly Bill 1595 by Schultz. But we'll start with AB 1662 by Assembly Member Wilson. That will all be after lunch. The last item of business before the lunch break.

We're going to go through what we've done so far today, so those can add on. Madam Secretary, if you go through that

[Roll Call]

That measure passes. Consent calendar was adopted.

[Roll Call]

That measure passes.

[Roll Call]

That measure passes.

[Roll Call]

That Measure passes.

[Roll Call]

That measure passes.

[Roll Call]

That measure passes.

[Roll Call]

All right, everyone, thank you for staying a little over. I'll see you all here at 1:30 or shortly thereafter.

All right, everyone. Welcome back. Hope you had a nice lunch break. I. Well, we have me and we have Assemblymember Wilson. So we will go ahead and resume our. Our work. We're taking up item number 15. This is Assembly Bill 1662 by Assemblymember Wilson. Assemblymember, you know the drill. You can begin whenever you're ready.

Thank you. Good afternoon. I'm pleased to present AB 1662, a Bill that we required the DMV to assess points on a driver's record for point accessible offenses that are dismissed upon successful completion of a diversion program.

According to CalMatters series of articles titled License to kill, since 2019, roughly 400 drivers accused of causing a fatal crash went on to receive another ticket, get into another collision, or both after the date they were involved in deadly collisions.

Additionally, reporters identified about 400 cases in which the driver's convictions weren't listed on their driver's driving records, largely because the courts did not report that information to the DMV. Furthermore, under the misdemeanor diversion program, some people charged with vehicular manslaughter are able to keep the case off of their record.

This series goes on to state that that about three dozen drivers have avoided vehicular manslaughter conviction through misdemeanor diversion programs.

While these programs are useful tools for judges to carry out discretion based on the details of the specific case and whether the incident rises to criminal behavior, it doesn't preclude the fact that a point accessible offense or even a deadly collision occurred. That is why I've introduced AB 1662 to resolve this loophole.

This will ensure potentially dangerous drivers will continue to be held civically accountable to the DMV for behavior that endangers Californians, regardless of whether they are diverted from criminal charges.

While I recognize that points on the record carry consequences in the form of higher insurance rates or even the loss of a driver's license, it also is the primary civil administrative tool we have to ensure we are tracking the a driver's behavior and keeping potentially dangerous drivers accountable for their drivers.

I'd like to remind everyone, driving is a privilege, not a right. I would like to now introduce my witnesses, Jonathan Feldman, on behalf of the California Police Chiefs Association and Justice Fan Justice. That's a good name. Justin Fanslau on behalf of the Safe Road, Safe California Roads Coalition.

All right, afternoon now. Chair and Members Jonathan Feldman with the California Police Chiefs association and strong support of AB 1662, which we believe restores some of the integrity into our traffic safety laws and the State's driver accountability point system.

As the Member had said, when point accessible offenses disappear from a driver's record because of misdemeanor diversion, the system loses one of its most important safeguards. This system is not a crime criminal punishment tool. It is a public safety monitoring system. It allows the state to identify patterns of risky behavior before another tragedy occurs.

And without accurate reporting, repeat dangerous drivers can remain invisible to a system designed to track them. Police chiefs across the state see firsthand the consequences of high risk driving, fatal crashes, families devastated and officers responding to preventable tragedies. Diversion programs may resolve criminal case, but they do not change the underlying conduct that occurred on the roadways.

When conduct is serious enough to be point accessible, the administrative record should reflect that fact. And for that reason, we are in strong support. Again, yield to my colleague, not justice.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. Justin Fans Law. On behalf of the Safe California Roads Coalition, I'd like to thank the Assembly Member for introducing this Bill. You all are used to seeing me here talking about ignition, interlock and DUI bills. Been doing that for the last seven years.

Advocates of our coalition been working on this for close to two decades. In that time, we've heard their stories. We listened to the tragedies that exist there and have been pursuing legislation around that. Calmatters came out last year and said there's more.

And so our coalition has expanded our level of interest to bills that are dealing with distracted drivers, dangerous drivers, repeat offenders. The situations in our road California roadways that are leading to deaths and tragedy for these families. That revelation has come with understanding the loopholes that exist in the system.

Quite frankly, the notion that I could leave here today, run a stop sign, get a ticket and get a point on my record and be done.

But if I run, leave here today, run a stop sign and accidentally kill somebody and qualify for a diversion program, finish that diversion program successfully, there's no points on my record is something we must absolutely fix.

And so I appreciate the assemblymember for putting this Bill forward and we're happy to be supporting it as part of our package this year. Thank you.

All right, thank you, Assemblymember and gentlemen. Thank you both for your testimony. Next, we'll take the me toos. Anyone else hoping to speak on the Bill in support? Seeing none. Do we have any opposition witnesses here? Okay, we do. Come on down. Once you're both seated, you'll have five minutes to address the Committee.

Thank you, Chair Schultz and Committee Members. My name is Danny Munoz. I'm a formerly incarcerated person, a recent master's grad of Goldman School of Public Policy at UC Berkeley.

Danny, can you move the mic closer to you? Thank you.

And I work for Legal Services for Prisoners with Children. As a senior policy analyst, I stand before you today to respectfully and strongly oppose AB 1662 because the Bill simply punishes illegally innocent people for a crime they were never convicted of. I have a family and I have children.

I don't take for granted how transportation is an important part of my life and how it allows me to take care of them effectively and safely.

In the past, I've experienced how either having a suspended license or restrictions to driving severely impacted my ability to handle day to day activities such as getting to and from work, shopping for groceries for my family and maintaining visitation with my children under court orders.

I have been pulled over on my way to work in the early morning and been told to either turn around and go home or have my car impounded and be arrested for driving on a suspended license. Even missing one day of work would take away from putting food on my table and paying bills.

Missing one day of work would cost me over $200, which is significant for someone who is paying for life's necessities, a stable residence and trying to deter from negative behaviors. Restrictions also impose significant hardships on me that strained my relationship with my children.

When I was unable to make the drive to pick my children up from their mother on the days I was court ordered to trust for my kids and their mother suffered. And even now, years later, I'm still working to build back some of those relationships. Small children don't know why you aren't picking them up.

They just know you didn't. I'm here today to highlight how this Bill would place unique hardships on families, parents and and anyone just trying to make a living.

If I complete diversion and my offense is stricken, why should I still have to pay an even heftier price when I can't do the things necessary to maintain a positive way of life and nurture relationships with my children.

My transformation and rehabilitation has relied heavily on the necessities of having independent transportation to attend recovery meetings, to show up for my family and to be able to find a job and maintain work. This Bill would cause great barriers to low income and working class families of color where they have not been convicted of a crime.

It was simply undermined the benefits of the diversion program. Because of these reasons, I respectfully urge Committee Members to vote no on this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. My name is Nicole James. I represent Local 148 the Los Angeles Public Defenders Union we have over 600 attorneys in Los Angeles Public Defender's office. We oppose AB 1662 respectfully because it punishes legally innocent people for a crime they were never convicted of.

The Legislature has intended diversion to be an exit ramp to the criminal legal system, which should minimize people's exposure to the criminal legal system. Pretrial diversion programs allow people charged with crimes to complete a rehabilitation program in lieu of prosecution. And upon successful completion of the program, the judge would dismiss their case.

Diversion is a crucial criminal justice tool. It can clear court calendars and reduce jail and prison overcrowding. Diversion also advances public safety. Research shows that diversion programs cut recidivism by half.

Policies that weaken or remove these incentives to complete this rehabilitation program would undermine these benefits and it would already put strain on an already overburdened criminal legal system and ultimately diminish public safety.

Receiving points on a driving record can have devastating consequences to low income Californians and their families, including increased cost of insurance and even the loss of a driver's license. There has been numerous studies that show including a 2007 study by Rutgers University that show that upon a following a license suspension, 42% of people lost their jobs.

Of those who lost their jobs, 45% could not get a new job. And this effect was most pronounced for seniors and low income people. Of those who are able to find new employment, 88% recorded decreased wages. People who successfully complete diversion programs are legally innocent. They have not been convicted of any crime.

Punishing people who complete diversion cuts against the presumption of innocence that lies at the core of the US criminal legal system. Thank you.

Thank you both for your testimony. Are there other MeToos? If so, and I see there are, come on down and please register your position.

Hello. Danica Rodarma on behalf of Western Center on Law and Poverty and respectful opposition.

Shivani Nashar on behalf of Initiate justice in respectful opposition.

Aubrey Rodriguez with ACLU California Action and strong opposition.

Maddie Hyatt for California Civil Liberties Advocacy and strong opposition.

Hien Win on behalf of Legal Services for Prisoners with Children in strong opposition.

David Bollog as an individual in opposition.

All right, thank you everyone for registering your position with the Committee. Turn it back to the Committee. Are there any questions or comments from Committee Members? Mr. Lackey,

I feel like I. I deserve to speak on this particular issue because I spent 28 years enforcing traffic law and I could tell you the tragedies I have seen because of poor judgment are over the top and it doesn't always include dui. A lot of people show very, very careless judgment for whatever reason.

I don't want to demonize these people because to some degree or another, I think we've all pushed the envelope on what's responsible and what's not responsible in driving. But what I will tell you is enforcement in most cases is toothless. Unless there are consequences. Unless there are consequences, people don't change their behavior.

And I think that's the goal that even the opposition would say that they want changed behavior. And it's my belief that consequences are what the author of this Bill are trying to bring to bear to make people understand the seriousness of what they have done. We can argue the definition of guilty and not guilty.

I don't think that's helpful. I think what's helpful is change a behavior and how do we get that? And I think you'll fight long and hard by saying you change behavior by relaxing outcomes and enforcement. I don't believe that. And I've watched behavior for a long time and I've watched tragedy for a long time.

And I'm telling you, nobody wants the tragic outcomes. Nobody. So let's do what we can to minimize that by bringing consequences. And I'd like to be considered a co author if I could on this particular measure.

Thank you. Happy to add you.

Thank you. Assemblymember Lackey. Anyone else?

Co author?

I think that's a co-author. All right, anyone else? Okay. Assemblymember Wilson, you'll have a chance to close.

Thank you. During my close, I would like to address the two concerns brought up by opposition. One, in regard to not being convicted of a crime. So this still being a punishment as the other one, as the impact that it would have on low income Californians, including those that are could be.

Well, I'll just answer the first one. And so when it comes to completing diversion but not being convicted of a crime, you know, I want to note that points on the record are not a part of a criminal history and they're not permanent in nature. They are a tool for the state to track potentially dangerous drivers.

Additionally, while a judge granting diversion recognizes that an action does not constitute criminal behavior, it doesn't preclude the fact that a collision or dangerous action took place that warrants tracking by the state. Additionally, continue to assign points for those participating in diversion programs, ensures that the state can take effective measures in the case of repeat offenders.

And lastly, diversion requires the defendant's consent and recognition that something took place warranting their need to complete diversion programming If a defendant wants to continue pursuing their innocence to avoid points on the record, that is still an available option to them. And nothing in this Bill takes that option away.

Now, when noting low income or vulnerable populations, so tracking potentially dangerous drivers on the road, it's important to safety and quality of life for us all, particularly for the same low income vulnerable populations who disproportionately are more likely to be killed in traffic and even more likely to be killed while walking.

We want to help identify repeat offenders without sacrificing the discrepancy of diversion programs. Ensuring some level of accountability through points on the DMV record can help improve safety on our roads, particularly for vulnerable communities. The testimony that's been provided by opposition given the personal story I will note is not lost on me as chair of Transportation.

While points on the record can mean increased cost of insurance and loss of license that can significantly impact the ability to hold a job, this only highlights the need to be investing in public transportation infrastructure and funding to ensure that there are still options available for everyone to get where they need to go when they need to get there, no matter what community they live in or what their background is.

And with that I respectfully ask for your aye vote on this important Bill to ensure continued accountability on our roads.

Thank you Assemblymember Wilson. Colleagues, the chair does recommend deny Is there a motion on this second. Okay, motion and a second. Let's call the roll

[Roll Call]

Okay, that measure passes. Thank you everyone. We have the last two items on our agenda today, both of which are mine. So I'll be starting with item number four and then proceeding to item number nine. I'm going to hand the gavel over to our very capable vice chair and I'll take my seat down there.