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.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and committee members. This is AB 1566, which seeks to clarify the definition of severe neglect by aligning it with the definition of severe neglect utilized in the California Structured Decision Making Tool.

The SDM is a set of research and evidence based assessment tools used by social workers to help support accurate, consistent and equitable decision making at key points in child welfare cases.

Aligning the legislative definition with what is already in practice here in California, meaning this is already being done in practice and child protection agencies will enable mandated reporter training to be reflective of of current practice and increase the accuracy of their decision making.

We will continue to work with stakeholders on honing the language to ensure that it accomplishes the policy aims of the bill. This bill comes as one of the recommendations from the Child Welfare Council's Mandated Reporting to Community Supporting Task Force.

With me today is Janae Eustace, President and CEO of the Child Abuse Prevention Center and California Family Resource Association.

Good morning, assemblymembers and thank you for the opportunity to testify before you in support of AB 1566. Thank you to Assemblymember Jackson for authorizing this important bill. As stated, my name is Janae Eustace and I'm the President and CEO of the Child Abuse Prevention Center.

As a prevention leader, the Child Abuse Prevention Center works across California to strengthen families before harm occurs. Our goal is simple: children are safe, families are supported, and systems intervene when necessary and not unnecessary. The problem is over reporting and racial disparities. Black and Native children are disproportionately reported to child welfare.

Approximately half of children of Black and Native children in California will experience some level of child welfare involvement by age 18. Nearly 90% of child abuse and neglect reports are unsubstantiated. In 2023 alone, over 384,000 children were reported and ultimately found not to need the services.

That means hundreds and thousands of children and their families have experienced an investigation systems intrusion, fear, and stigma without findings of abuse. That is that is not natural or neutral, that's trauma. Overrepresenting does not equal better protection. Mandatory reporting is intended to protect children from serious harm.

But broad unclear definitions have turned neglect into a catch all. Poverty, housing, and instability, untreated stress and lack of access to resources are too often mistaken as neglect. When families are over surveilled: trust breaks, parents avoid schools, doctors, and service providers. Children lose connections and system support.

We cannot strengthen families if they are afraid of the systems that are meant to help. Importantly, AB 1566 does not eliminate mandated reporting. It aligns the CANRA definition of severe neglect with the definition used in the structured decision making tool SDM, which all 58 of our counties currently use to help assess risk and safety for vulnerable children.

It clarifies thresholds, reduces unnecessary hotline calls, and the trauma and harm to that that they cause, supports more accurate reporting and aligns and clarity. This is alignment and clarity and not weakening protections. Public safety includes protecting children from real harm, reducing systems overload so hotlines can focus on serious cases, ensuring investigations are used when truly warranted.

When nearly 90% of the reports are unsubstantiated, that signals a systems issue, not a child safety issue. 1566 allows to focus protections, better allocation of investigative resources and stronger upstream prevention. This is about equity and integrity. Black and indigenous families disproportionately experience investigations, not because harm is higher, but because reporting thresholds are inconsistent and overly broad.

1566 promotes fairness, reduces racial disproportionality, protects children from unnecessary systems trauma, maintains reporting for serious harm and imminent risk, and keeps children safe. Child safety must remain strong, but it also must be precise. When nearly 90% of reports are unsubstantiated, we must ask whether our definitions are protecting children or are causing them harm their families and communities.

AB 1566 strengthens child protections by ensuring that severe neglect truly reflects serious harm when allowing families to access support before unnecessary systems intrusions. Thank you.

Thank you both very much. Next we'll take the me-toos in support of the bill. Come on down.

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

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

Aubrey Rodriguez with ACLU Cal Action and proud support.

Sorry, it took me a minute. I'm Joanne Scheer, Felony Murder Elimination Project, in support of this bill. Thank you.

Wonderful. Thank you all very much. Next we'll go to opposition witnesses or witness. Wonderful. You'll have five minutes as soon, as you begin speaking.

Morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Ryan Sherman with a number of school resource officer associations, including K12 School Police Chiefs Association in strong opposition to this bill. We've got a number of concerns. First off, it seems like we're conflating two different issues.

One is reports to go to CPS for via hotline and versus mandated reporters such as those at schools, who are required to report to law enforcement when they suspect children being abused or injured. And that I think is one of the key distinctions that hasn't been made so far about this bill.

The bill states that mandated reporting for all mandated reporting willfully causes or permits serious illness or injury to a child, but not injury or illness to a child. In fact, it removes the language that's of the current severe neglect based on the actual or potential harm suffered by children.

It also removes unjustifiable physical pain as a basis for mandated reporting. It removes infliction of unjustifiable mental suffering as a basis for mandated reporting. Willfully causing illness to a child would no longer be a basis for mandated reporting.

No mandated reporting either for permitting imminent risk of serious injury, illness, or death of a child and eliminates Penal Code Reference 1165.3, which defines the willful harming or injury of a child. It eliminates that entire cross reference. So, that would no longer serve as a definition for these offenses against children.

So, for that and all the other reasons that we stated in our letter and on behalf of the other law enforcement associations we've listed, we remain strongly opposed and ask bill be held. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Are there other me-toos hoping to be heard in opposition?

Hi, David Bolog representing Mom for Liberty. Because we could not find clarity on the understanding of the language of the legislation, we didn't know what position to take. But after hearing what we're hearing today, we're hoping that we can support it. But as of now, we're taking a position of caution. Thank you.

All right, thank you. Is there anyone else hoping to be heard on the bill? Okay, we'll turn it back to the committee. Are there questions or comments? Assemblymember Lackey?

Yeah, certainly. I have some very, very severe reservations about this particular approach. I understand that unsubstantiated findings cause unfortunate outcomes, and I am sensitive to that. But I'm also more sensitive to the other aspect. Underreporting or failure to report has caused numerous deaths in my district of young children, in this system. I have Gabriel Fernandez in 2013.

A lot of people have heard this story and how unfortunate how he was tortured and murdered. And Anthony Avalos deserves to be mentioned as well in 2018, same thing. Noah Quatro, 2019, died under suspicious circumstances in Palmdale, also abusive circumstances that were not reported properly but well known. Angel Flores in 2023, also in Palmdale.

Jackson Manson, six month old baby: parents charged with his death as well, and his body's never been recovered. These are all circumstances where people saw things but did not act because they were afraid. Because who really knows the reason why they did not act. But see something, say nothing is the wrong approach in my mind.

I mean, unfortunate outcomes and compared to death of a child, that's not much of a choice. And I think that's the choice we have here, that we have a tendency to minimize what appears to be abuse, should be reported, and acted upon and investigated. And failure to do so may lead to these kinds of outcomes.

And no one wants that. I'm not saying that you're insensitive to that, but I'm saying that that is really a likely outcome when I've had so many since I've been in office: five in my district alone, that's so unacceptable. And I've been trying to remedy this with, with approaches. And you know what stops it every time?

A legitimate concern that unfair allegations will be acted upon. I haven't figured it out yet, but I haven't given up on this thing. But I certainly do believe that this is a dangerous approach. And so, therefore I can't support it.

Thank you very much. I know this has been one of your passions and concerns in your time in the legislature. I think what's important is to understand what we're doing here though, and that is that it does not change reporting at all. There are many opportunities - now remember, severe...severe neglect is not the lowest level in which you still have to report. General neglect: you still have to report.

And so if you're a mandated reporter and you see bruises, if a child is complaining of any type of things that may be harmful, by law, you still have to report. What has to happen though, what we're talking about here is that once it's been called what type of assessment is being done, and the assessment that's being done is done through the CDM and the CDM goes through all the basic things based upon current research and evidence based practices, that once again, all counties are already doing.

And once that is done, then it determines which category it then fits under. So, this is really a definition of what you're seeing, not whether you should report or not. And I think that's the importance that we are trying to get at.

This merely aligns the definition, the legal definition, with what counties are already training their employees to be able to do when an allegation is called.

Thank you. Mr. Lackey, you still have the floor. Anything else?

Yes, if I could just have our witness here respond to that explanation.

Yes, thank you. Through the Chair? I think again, our concern is changing the definition of severe neglect. It's not changing the definition of severe neglect for just these county administrative reporting services requirements. It's changing it in the code section that applies to everybody under the child abuse reporting statute. So, that's our main concern.

If the Assemblymember was interested in changing some definition as far as how counties report and record information, that wouldn't be our issue. But if we are not being able to provide assistance and help to children that are being abused because the standard is being lowered, in our view, that remains a big concern for us.

But again -

Sorry, Assemblymember Jackson, I'm sure you'll have a chance to respond, but we do need to allow it for questions from the committee. I'll go next. Assemblymember Jackson, would you like to offer a response?

Again, by law, a report still has to be made. That's the whole point. And then once a report is made, the people who are trained and how to identify these things then make their assessment according to the assessment tool that all counties already follow.

Thank you. Assemblymember Ramos. Were you wanting to speak on this?

Just real quick. And I just want to thank the author for your passion in addressing these issues. Two questions, one at the county level. It came out of a report at the county level. Would the county board of supervisors be the first step in administering stronger regulations or going towards this definition itself?

What's happening is number one, I mean all counties have to follow the law, so they will still have to follow law. But the good thing is that this law is already in conjunction to what all the counties are already doing. And so this aligns law with best practices and training that's already occurring.

So could the county board of supervisors also implement this at the county level or no, it has to come from the state?

I'm not sure.

I can speak to that. No: so it's not at the county board of supervisors level. It would be at the state level. The SDM is the tool that all child welfare implement as a best practice at the current moment. And therefore, this is this clarification happens at that level.

So, it does not affect the reporter. The reporter can - any reporter can report all they need to report at any time. That doesn't change. This helps that intake worker at the county, the one receiving that phone call, be able to then align where and how that family should be supported.

This is not saying to any mandated reporter that they should not report that they should change their level of supporting. This is a definition alignment that's going to help serve the family better so that they're not not necessarily receiving a severe neglect claim when it is just neglect.

Because, unfortunately, severe neglect has been used as a catch all.

Well, thank you for that. And then to the witness, can you elaborate a little bit more on how changing this definition could lead to exposure of individuals in a more severe area?

Yes. Thank you, Assemblymember. Well, as I mentioned, AB 1566 removes reporting of severe neglect based on the actual or potential harm suffered by children. It removes infliction of unjustifiable physical pain as a basis of mandated reporting. Now this isn't for just county reporting recording purposes or for administrative records that they are, you know, working on.

This is about reporting to law enforcement, is our view. We believe that this is changing the definition of severe neglect for what is required to be reported to law enforcement and it's lowering that standard.

And that's again our concern that all these changes that are spelled out in the bill, those - there's going to be or we're very concerned that there's going to be harm to children as a result of this and it will go unreported to law enforcement.

Now, maybe CPS at the county level or some other agency at the county level will have some other reports and if they want to change their definitions on how they handle these cases. But this is, we're concerned about the reporting to law enforcement part.

We're not concerned about how CPS is doing their job or sharing their information or kind of triaging all of the issues that they have to deal with because there's many and they're overworked and understaffed and yeah, they definitely need some help.

But changing these definitions in the penal code, again, is a great concern to us because we get the reports. Yes, other people are to be receive reports as well, but law enforcement is supposed to be reported to when these situations occur. And by changing these definitions, it lowers the threshold for that.

Thank you, Mr. Ramos. Are there other questions or - yes Assemblymember Nguyen.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I...completely understand disproportionate reporting that has happened in communities; I struggle with in my district, there has been cases after cases of young children who have been severely abused and to the extent of where, you know, they died, they passed away and that I struggle with whether or not this extra layer, not knowing how much time it puts in between the reporting process that it might be too late for this kiddo or this family.

And so I'm with Mr. Lackey where I think there's something that needs to be done. And I don't know if it's the right approach in putting this extra layer because for me, at the end of the day it's about these kids. And when we change the reporting process, I feel like it sometimes confuses people.

I think about the COVID times when these kids, sometimes use the opportunity to go to school to escape the environment that they are at home. And that was an opportunity for a teacher to learn and hear about and see whether or not this child is being abused at home or not.

And that I heard many stories, I think many of us have, during COVID times where these kids were at home and they were abused over and over again. And to some extent, you know, it went to the worst of it.

And so this is really difficult for me because I understand the issue, but I also am fearful that this will lead to more cases of children who are going to be severely abused, and we miss that opportunity. And one child is one child too many for me.

One child is just one child too man. To hear about children being cut up into pieces and put in suitcases, you know, I'm sorry for the visual image, but those are real stories that happen, you know, and so I worry about that.

And I'm not sure that either one of you can kind of help me understand this a little bit more. The opposition is saying that the reporting process is the mandating process part of it. And then you're saying it's not about mandate, because the mandate is still there. You have to report it.

But then there's this extra layer, and how soon can the county move to make sure that that extra layer is quick enough to determine whether or not this child really is being severely neglected, neglected, abuse, or whatnot. So I'm wondering if you can answer, respond to any of that? Either one, the opposition or...Mr. Jackson.

Yeah, thank you for that. I mean, obviously this is a sensitive topic, and what usually happens is that we see a problem, meaning, remember, under the current practice, families are being hurt by the current practice. So, we need to understand what's happening here. And the preponderance of the harm is happening to Black and Native American families.

And so the question becomes, what are the best practices to be able to handle neglect and abuse? And with all the research that's been done, right, those who spend every day in child abuse, such as the child abuse center, have taken the time out to say, what are the best practices to both do two things.

Number one: how do we make sure that we protect children? Number two: how do we also protect families who are currently being harmed while we're trying to protect children, too? Which means it is a very surgical thing that has to happen.

I have called personally, professionally, I have called CPS because of issues of abuse, to the point where they were no longer able to go home that same night. And the first people we called were CPS. When they made their assessment, that same day, by the way, they deemed it appropriate to call law enforcement to engage.

Law enforcement engaged: we were able to stay with the child the entire time and provide them with an opportunity to stay in the community and still go to school the same day. Because consistency and predictability is still important.

So to say that when a call is being made that this child is going to go back home to be abused again is just not true. It's not the practice. And I think the problem is, is that we're - we hear the stories. And I hear the stories too.

Matter of fact, the trial of Gabriel Fernandez, on Netflix, is the thing that haunts me every day as I talk of work on the social safety net, both as when I was Chair of Human Services and on the budget side. Right. And so I study these things. I'm actually professionally trained on these things.

And so I think the idea is, is that first recognizing, right now, families are being hurt by the current system and we have found a way to still provide safety for those families, less traumatic circumstances for those families, while still ensuring that when someone is suspecting that a child is in danger, that that child is being dealt, is being protected.

Right. And so I think it's just important as we go through - that's why the details are so important, because there's so much emotion involved in this, which is also, I get it: I'm emotional when I'm thinking about this too.

But it's important to make sure that the law is also is congruent with how people are being trained right now. Because if it's not, then more mistakes are being made. Right? And so in essence, this helps keep everybody more safe, including those 90 something percent of families, who are not being found substantiated in terms of their claims.

So I feel like there's different things being said here. I feel like maybe I'm not understanding: walk me through what would happen in this situation. I call in a child who I think is being abused. Am I now calling 911? Am I calling CPS? Am I calling, and let's just assume I know nothing and I see a child being abused or I've seen bruises on this kid, I call 911 and I report it. What happens next?

So in that case, if you did call 911, then law enforcement would come out because that is what they do and they do respond. And at that time it looks different across the state. But it could look like law enforcement handling it, whichever.

If it's a physical abuse, as you're mentioning, then they're going to do their job to ensure that that person, the parents, are most likely arrested and they're still going to cross report to child welfare. There is cross reporting to child welfare.

I think what is, what I'm hearing from all of this as well, is there's a difference between severe neglect and physical abuse and sexual abuse and emotional abuse. All of those are still reasons to call in. Nothing is changing in any of those definitions.

We are not at all saying that by changing severe neglect, and yes, it does address some of that language around physical abuse. It does not change the fact that you as a reporter, if you call child welfare, you 100% see it and do it and make that call and you say you see bruises.

I saw a person harm a child. That is not going to change. We're talking about changing the understanding of what severe neglect truly is and what neglect is. And that is they're not catch-all's. They should not be what you use, if you cannot find some other reason to kind of protect a child.

It just should be very clear what you're calling in for.

But how would you, how would you educate the public about this? So, you know, you would need...you would, I guess, so if I call it in, is there going to be a series of question, do you see bruises? Are they red? Are they blue? Are they, is that what it is?

And then if I say, "Well, I saw the mom slap the head across their face," and you see it as well, that's not abuse and you don't send anybody or?

No, that doesn't happen.

I don't understand. At what point do you not come out or send somebody out there?

And if it's something that I'm seeing right now, how do I know that it's not worse at home? I'm just seeing something right now. How am I supposed to answer the question, you know, in, in real time now when I'm not seeing if it's worse at home?

So the - you're right, and that burden for you is never going to be yours. And that's not how it happens where the public is always going to be told that if they see something, say something, make that call. That is current law right now. That is what mandated reporters do.

What this piece of neglect, severe neglect, is to really determine from the child welfare side. And yes, we do understand, as we do understand the piece that it does change penal code for others. But there's not a expectation that there's not a call to law enforcement. There's not expectations that there's not a call to child welfare.

The expectation is to continue to do that because that is the law. It's the other side of that family, and how you're serving that family is the determination of child welfare. So, when child welfare is the intake on the other line.

So, as you as the mandated reporter, when you call into child welfare, that's child welfare making that determination. But I do understand that that for law enforcement, for teachers, for anyone else who's making that call, they're still gonna make the call. It does not change that.

It's aligning definitions on the back end to ensure that that family is served as appropriately as they should be. Because physical neglect is still going to be or physical abuse is still a reason to call in. Sexual abuse is still a reason to call in. Emotional abuse is still a reason to call in.

Harm is still a reason to call in. It does not change that.

So, we would call it in, and then you would send experts in to determine how severely?

So, let me clarify that. I am not child welfare. So, I'm the Child Abuse Prevention Center. We're a nonprofit. I do come in with professional. I was a child welfare social worker right here in Sacramento County. I also grew up in the foster care system.

So, there's multiple levels of this experience and this conversation coming to you all today. Child welfare has their process and their determination from the agency itself, County Child Welfare, and there is a whole process.

And by no means does this bill say to not call, to not report on either side, either to law enforcement or to child welfare.

Okay. I mean, you're saying it's changing the reporting, the mandated reporting process?

Yes. Well, by changing the definition.

But she's saying it doesn't matter. You can call it in. If you see harm, you can call it in.

You can always. You can always call it in. I think there's a distinction that's not being made between the public seeing a kid being abused and calling it in and a mandated reporter who is a certain, you know, employment or position that the person has. And they are required, like teachers in schools, are mandated reporters.

They are required to report if they have a reasonable suspicion of abuse of a child. This changes the definition of what severe neglect is that requires mandated reporting. So, this lowers the standard for what is to be reported as severe neglect. Now, that's obviously a concern, and it's for mandated.

This whole thing is for mandated reporters, not just for CPS. If you, as a mandated reporter sees something and you don't call CPS, you don't call child welfare, you're required to call law enforcement. That's mandated reporting law.

It's not calling somebody else and letting somebody else decide whether, you know, an investigation should occur and then they may or may not notify law enforcement.

Sure. Okay. Thank you. You know, Mr. Chair, I don't know if you can chime in and help out here because I'm hearing two different things. Yeah, I'm not sure if everybody else is hearing two different things, but I'm hearing two different things.

I'm happy to weigh in at the end, but I know Mr. Lackey would like to make a comment and I'm happy to facilitate anyone else, but I fully intend to explain my recommendation.

Okay. I think where there's a lot of confusion as the focus here is really on the definition of severe neglect; that is really what we're talking about here. And I will tell you about that every one of the tragedies, excuse me, that I, that I spoken - I spoke to, there were reports.

It's not the reporting independently that's the problem. It's the finding. It's the finding and how to follow up on that report. And what this does is it softens the finding because you're softening the definition of severe neglect. And that means the follow up, which is the problem of this whole abusive circumstance. It isn't just the reporting.

Every one of those, as I told you, every one of those deaths had reportings -

- of problems. It's the finding. It's the finding. And the follow up on the finding is where I found the disconnect. And it's really hard to fix. And what I'm trying to tell you is, in my opinion, the way I understand this bill, it softens that finding. And that is super dangerous. Super dangerous.

Correct, yeah.

Because we're relying upon a judgment that could result in the death of this child. And there have been mistakes and it only takes a few mistakes to result in severe tragedy. And so that is why I'm objecting. I just kind of wanted to clarify that because I think I might have misled people the way I express myself.

And I want to clarify that the findings is the focus and that is the problem, by the way. And in my opinion, this bill softens that finding and that is too risky.

Yeah. Are you posing a question, Mr. Lackey?

I'm done.

Got it. Mr. Jackson will have a chance to respond in his close. Are there any other questions or comments from committee members? Okay. Mr. Alanis?

I had some questions about this 90% unfounded. Who's done the study on that?

That is Casey Family Programs.

And who are they?

They are a organization that works with California and many other national states to reform and ensure that there's change and support to child welfare systems and other systems. That's not their complete mission, but that's ultimately their role.

And where are they based out of?

They are based out - they're nationwide, so I think their home is Washington state.

And are they the only ones that have these findings?

No. This is the same information you'll find in any given county across California. So, the Department of Social Services also has this data and it's almost mirror, almost identical.

Okay, and out of the 90%, what is the definition of unfounded? Is it for the original call that the - the original cause of the call? Is that what's unfounded?

Essentially, yes: it's all based off of the call that came in and not any of the extra circumstance that came into the investigation. So, it's unfounded based off of the call that came into either child welfare or however it came through.

But if you're asking, Assemblymember, is it based upon the original purpose of the call and was the assessment correct, unsubstantiated also means that there is no further action that needs to be taken. Meaning, they found - 90% of the calls have found that there was no need for the call in the first place.

So, I can attest that I've been to many numerous calls where I've had CPS come out on calls that I've gone as a patrol deputy or as a school resource officer going to those calls as well.

And maybe the underlying reason wasn't founded, but there were other things that were founded that we can give the families help in. I know you guys mentioned that families are being hurt, that this is something inherently that happens. It's unfortunate when somebody has somebody who's killed, their family's going to be hurt.

It's unfortunate when somebody's in a car accident, their family's going to be hurt. Even those that weren't involved in the accident, because they're all going to be involved with it. Same thing with this neglect. They're all going to get hurt. It's just inherently how it goes. And it's unfortunate, but that happens.

And so, I've been to calls where maybe the kid appeared to be abused, but we ended up finding out that maybe he was playing really hard with the kids and he got bruised that way.

But while there maybe they - they also talk to the kids and talk to the parents about some other things that they can help them out with, programs to help them benefit, maybe get some food on the table and stuff like that. So I don't consider that 100% unfounded, maybe just rediverted in a way.

But I still see families getting help that way. And sometimes it's tip of the iceberg. I may have seen some little bruises that led to other things that I find out for kids that maybe that haven't even gone to school yet to be able to be able to be reported on, that we're getting abused.

So, the system for me works right now. It's unfortunate, yes, that some families get hurt on it, but that's just the nature of the beast. But if it's like when we used to teach DARE, if you, everybody remembers that drug program that we had, right. Many ways to say no and stuff like that.

People used to argue that DARE didn't help everybody, that people still got arrested and yeah, they did. They made poor choices or maybe they were in bad situations where they did. But you did help a few, and that's what I want to do.

So yeah, 90% may be unfounded, but for those 10% that we did, we saved their lives, maybe even saved the lives of the other 90%. So that's how I feel about that. But the other thing that I'm a little confused about is we're talking about this, does this, how about answer this: Does this change the law on severe neglect? Yes or no?

Yes.

Because earlier I was getting told it wasn't. This was just a matter of how things were getting reported and how the intake system went. I have concerns on who this intake person is. If this intake person is deciding on where things are going to go.

Have they been out in the field? Do they actually see it? I don't believe it. Until actually somebody saw it, they can actually say where it goes. So I'm glad you answered that because I was a little confused too with did it address the definition or not?

And I have the same concerns that both of my colleagues have here to my left about this.

I think there is maybe a way that we were talking about, as my colleague across the way talked about with maybe at the local level, but as far as changing the definition as the opposition has brought up, it is going to be very dangerous and cause some issues. And I can't support this yet.

But I would like to hear more on how this is going to maybe help.

Thank you. I think the problem is, no, it won't make things more dangerous. The current practice is what was already occurring. And so, no, it's not going to make it more dangerous. As a matter of fact, for the vast majority, overwhelming majority of the people in which CPS is called on, it makes them safer.

And so again, I think that at the end of the day, and again, this is not subjective, by the way, because remember, when someone is called and responds, they have to follow the SDM tool to take out subjectivity to ensure that they are making the best decision possible given the research and best practices of those who are trained in how to do this correctly, to ensure that people are being safe.

And so, you know, there so to say, and I reject the notion that we just have to accept that people are going to be hurt. I don't think so. Because the professionals who are actually trained in this are saying there's another way to do this, to even make less people be hurt. Now, is it a perfect system?

I think it's impossible to do that. But to accept that black and Native American children is just the way it is, it's not okay. And we know that there's a way to do it better. Counties are already implementing a better way.

We're just ensuring the law is, is in corant to what counties already know is the best way to do so.

Thank you. Any other questions or comments from the Committee? Okay, Mr. Jackson, you have a chance to close.

I think this has been a great discussion and it should be. I, I welcome, I welcome even more questions because this is a serious subject. But at the end of the day, what I've noticed is that because people, this is an uncomfortable subject that we refer to. Let's just keep things the way they are,

but not taking effect. The overwhelming majority of people who are coming into this, coming in contact with this system that are being hurt and that is not okay. Now the question is, is can we do a better job in ensuring that blessed people are heard in the process that we're being, that people are being trained appropriately.

Last year we ensured that we actually have more consistent statewide training for mandated reporters to get at that, to make sure that people are being trained, to make sure that people are responding and following up appropriately and all those things that's in the works right now. And that's something we got done last year through the budget process.

And so all we're saying is that we know there's a better way. Those who are experts in this tell their tells us is the better. A better way. Our own child where Child Welfare Council and is already telling us that there's a better way. And so at some point we.

We can't ignore the facts and we have to go where the facts lead us. I respectfully ask for an Aye vote.

Thank you, Mr. Jackson. Colleagues, I am recommending an Aye, and I'd like to explain why. So one of the things I've been. It's been a pet peeve of mine as chair of this Committee is that so much of what I hear from the advocates is emotionally driven. And that has a place. It does.

But people can be misinformed. People can have other motivations for what they present or don't present. The data, the facts, they don't lie. They are what they are. I'd like to respond to the vice chair's comment. The data actually comes from the California Child Welfare Indicators Project. You'll find this on page five of your analysis.

It's a collaboration between California Department of Social Services and UC Berkeley, two institutions that I think are pretty right on. Data from 2024 shows that only 11.1% of the reports abuse were substantiated. By the way, that is far too many.

And I would like to think that we can all agree in this room that if there's any common ground, nobody wants to see children abused. We want it to be reported and we want it to be acted upon. And let's not question each other's motivations.

With that said, when nearly 90% of reports are unsubstantiated, you have a system that is ineffective, it is inefficient, it might work for the 11.1%. I agree with you with that. But we can do better than a 90% unsubstantiated rate. And I want to know one other thing.

Now, I. I regret that the opposition letter came in late, so we weren't able to address it in the Committee analysis. I do think that should it move forward, there's an opportunity and there should be conversation here. In fact, the staff attorney who worked on the analysis did note some discrepancies, some Potential Inc Inconsistencies in language.

And I think there is room there for you two to work together to remedy that in future versions of the bill. But I want to be extraordinarily clear because as we walk out of this room, again, as I said, people can frame things how they want, and they will. I've seen it in my time here.

But I want to be extraordinarily clear because to suggest otherwise is dangerous. This bill does not change the mandated reporter requirements. I want to be extraordinarily clear. Under California law, you do not need proof of child abuse or neglect. You need a reasonable suspicion. You do not have to see it.

If you have any indication that would constitute a reasonable suspicion, not just of severe neglect, but of a child having inadequate food, clothing, shelter, inadequate supervision, lack of necessary medical care, caregiver absence or incapacity, any and all of these things. You have a duty to report that. And to suggest otherwise is dangerous because that is the law.

And this does not change the law. What this does do is change a definition. But I will also note it does not change all of the definitions. Under CanRA, I would refer everyone to Section 11165.3 of the CanRAH. By CanRA, I mean the Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act.

It does not change the definition as it relates to willfully causing or permitting any child to suffer unjustifiable physical pain or mental suffering. All of this is still codified in law. Law. Now, I think Assemblymember Jackson is trying to use data to solve a problem.

I don't know that the bill's there yet, but I think it's an important conversation that has an opportunity, deserves an opportunity to continue. I encourage the opposition to continue working with Assemblymember Jackson's office. And I'll just close with this. I don't know everything, and I'm not always right. I'm not.

And I can respect, sir, that you have a difference of opinion. You believe that this change could lead to, it sounds like less reporting or less proper treatment of these reports or can somehow be negative to children. And I understand that and I respect that.

All I can offer the California community is my years and my training and my experience as a practicing attorney who has, by the way, prosecuted child abuse cases. And I will also note that I am joined by five really incredible talented attorneys on Committee staff.

And we've all looked at it, and, sir, we just have a different view. We do not believe it changes reporting requirements. We do not believe it jeopardizes the safety of children. And for that reason, colleagues, I ask you to join me in voting Aye on this bill.

[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.

I see Mr. Bryan has been patiently waiting. We are going to be starting, Mr. Bryan, if I'm not mistaken, with item two, Assembly Bill 1537. This is entitled Peace Officers Section Secondary Employment. Mr. Bryan, you'll have five minutes to address the Committee, as will your witnesses in support.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. While my witnesses are coming up, it's always good to be back. And the Committee—served on this Committee for several years, I think actually longer than any Democrat currently serving on the Committee. And always grateful to be back.

Today, Secretary for the Department of Homeland Security, again, referred to Renee Goode and Alex Brady and Keith Porter as domestic terrorists.

That is our Federal Government that has marched through the neighborhoods and the streets of our communities unjustly and illegally violating our own laws and constitutions, rights, and due process, searching for both undocumented community members and American citizens.

Their haphazard and dangerous tactics have led to multiple deaths of both undocumented persons in this country, nearly three dozen who were detained, and at least three American citizens this year.

It's why we struggle, as states and local jurisdictions, deciding what role we should or should not play in collaborating with an agency that has no control over its own membership—an agency that is actively violating its own laws and rules and the laws of our states and jurisdictions.

That's why here in California, police departments do not collaborate with ICE and many of our cities are sanctuary cities.

But there's a dangerous loophole in state law currently, and that is that there are no explicit policies in the more than 55 police departments that we identified that have a single policy that prohibits secondary employment with the Department of Homeland Security. Moonlighting. It's important that we close this loophole because there is tremendous fear in California.

There's fear that the law enforcement officers, the cops who protect and serve during the day, are masked up, terrorizing and kidnapping at night. There's also important disclosures that have not—that don't currently exist about how frequent this practice is happening, where and if it is happening.

This Bill seeks to both address that disclosure problem and close the loophole entirely. It's been supported by multiple jurisdictions across California, including a motion in San Francisco and motions in Los Angeles County. It has the support of thousands of community members who have written in to my office.

With me to testify today are Hector Pereira with the Inland Coalition for Immigrant Justice and Willie Lubka with Buen Vecino.

Good morning, Chair Schultz and Committee Members. My name is Hector Pereira, here on behalf of the Inland Coalition for Immigrant Justice, leading immigrant rights organization in the Inland Empire. We are a coalition of a little bit over 40 organizations in both San Bernardino and Riverside County. Collectively, we manage the rapid response hotline for our region.

And it's really through this hotline that we have a pulse on the terror that our communities are experiencing since they've become battlegrounds for the violent raids carried out by mass federal agents. Our region has been heavily impacted.

Since April last year, we've documented and responded to over 500 confirmed cases of immigration enforcement, almost all resulting in at least one person being detained. This chaos has significantly eroded trust in our local law enforcement. We hear it all the time for our—among our community members.

And the lack of transparency and accountability has left those same community members completely vulnerable. They see the ads on TV of ICE recruiting local law enforcement to join them in their lawlessness and brutality, and they cannot differentiate between those that are seeking to protect them and those that are seeking to harm them.

This is why we are proud to co sponsor this Bill. Our local law enforcement and the Legislature need to send a very clear message, that they will not be partners to this Administration and their violence and in their brutality. No one who finds this violence appealing in any way should be trusted to protect our local communities.

And that's why I, along with the hundreds of community members that are under daily attack, respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair Schultz and Committee Members. My name is Willie Lubka. I serve as Executive Director of Buen Vecino, a community-based nonprofit founded in 2016 and headquartered in Ventura County. Our name, Buen Vecino, means good neighbor. Our vision is to cultivate a world where all people live as good neighbors, where human rights are guaranteed for all.

We are in strong support of AB 1537. The Central Coast has been devastated by the Trump regime's mass deportation campaign. I was present at the immigration raid at the Glasshouse Farms facility outside of Camarillo on July 10th, where 361 community members with local families were taken and one man died.

Agents from at least five federal agencies participated, including immigrant cust—Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Homeland Security Investigations, Customs and Border Protection, the U.S. Marshals Service, and there were probably even more agencies there. The raid was a military occupation featuring masked armed agents in camouflage armored vehicles with the deployment of chemical munitions and rubber bullets and tasers.

I was tear gassed three times while peacefully observing alongside family members of glass house workers and concerned community members. Brutality, gratuitous excessive force, and total lack of accountability are the standard practices that we are experiencing.

Federal agents roving our neighborhoods on a daily basis, acting as if their purpose is to deliberately impose brute force and cruelty and to demonstrate impunity as they carry out racial profiling, needless violence, and terrorize our communities.

There's nothing in state law currently that prevents our local and state law enforcement from participating in these serious abuses through a side job with ICE or one of the many other DHS agencies that are terrorizing our cities and countryside. AB 1537 addresses this loophole and provides urgently needed transparency and sets a common-sense statewide policy.

We urge you to vote aye on this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you for the presentation and both of you for your testimony. Next, we'll take the me toos. Come on down. Name, organization, and position, please.

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

Danica Rodarmel, on behalf of Western Center on Law and Poverty, in strong support.

Nicole James, on behalf of Local 148, Los Angeles Public Defender's Office, in support. Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee. I'm Santosh Siram representing Chinese for Affirmative Action, in support.

Good morning. Chair and Members. JP Hannah, on behalf of the California Nurses Association, in strong support.

Eric Paredes with the California Faculty Association, in support.

...with the California Chapter of the Council on American Islamic Relations, in support.

Jay Vasquez, on behalf of Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice, in strong support. Thank you.

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

Good morning. Twi Do with the Southeast Asia Resource Action Center. We're co-sponsors in strong support. Thank you.

Sally Ching with the Alliance for Boys and Men of Color, in support.

Clifton Wilson, on behalf of the City and County of San Francisco Board of Supervisors, in support. Thank you.

Shivani Nishara on behalf of Initiate Justice, in strong support.

Amelia Rogers, on behalf of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, in strong support. Also registering strong support for California's United for Responsible Budget, CURB.

Sarah Lee, Immigrant Legal Resource Center, in support.

Julie Mello, Felony Murder Elimination Project, in strong support.

Joanne Shear, Felony Murder Elimination Project, in strong support.

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

Good morning, Chair and Members. Manuel Pazaraguin with California American Policy Center, proud co-sponsors of AB 1537 and...California Coalition Members, in strong support.

Colin Ford with Fresh Lifelines for Youth, in strong support.

Arianna Roy, on behalf of the following organizations in strong support: Change Parallel Project, Smart Justice California, Glide Foundation Alliance San Diego, California Coalition for Women Prisoners, San Diego Immigrant Rights Consortium, South Bay People Power, Encourage California.

Leslie Ortega, on behalf of the San Francisco Public Defender's Office as co-sponsors and on behalf of the following organizations in support: New Light Wellness, Black Alliance for Just Immigration, Empowering Marginalized Asian Communities, Kumai Girls in Action, 67 Suenos, La Defensa Health and Partnership, and Chispa. Thank you.

Morning. Salvador Salmiento with the National Day Labor Organizing Network and our more than 20-day labor worker centers across the state of California. We are co-sponsors and also strong supporters. Thank you.

Jim Lindberg, Friends Committee on Legislation of California, in strong support. Thanks.

John Rodney, on behalf of the Immigrant Defense Project, a co-sponsor and in strong support.

Natalie Smith, on the behalf of Legal Services for Prisoners with Children and All of Us or None, in strong support.

Israel Salazarvilla with the California Alliance for Youth and Community Justice, over 50 community-based organizations in 24 counties, in strong support.

Hi, I'm Leilani and I'm with Fresh Lifelines for Youth, on behalf of Fresh Lifelines for Youth, in strong support.

Hi, I'm Julian Herrera. I am in strong support of AB 1537.

All right, thank you all very much for your testimony. I know it's a little warm in the room, everyone. We've asked them to turn it down. We're not trying to sweat anyone out of here. Mr. Bryan, glad you brought a lot of friends today. Good hearing from everyone. We'll keep it going.

Next, we'll hear from our two opposition witnesses. Come on down. We have chairs right here. When you begin speaking, you have a total of five minutes to address the Public Safety Committee.

Ready? All right. Good morning, Chair and Members of the Public Safety Committee. My name is Brian Marvel. I'm the President of PORAC. We represent 87,000 public safety officers in California.

I first want to take first note is the Assembly Member had stated that the cops are working during the day and then at night masking up and terrorizing our communities. You show me one cop that is working the streets today that is working for ICE, it's not going to find it. You're not going to find it.

So, I take offense to that remark. I've served eight years in the military, and I've done 27 years with the San Diego Police Department. I've never done that. I follow the rules of the state of California and most of the officers, actually all the officers in California, do the same.

But I'm here to strongly oppose AB 1537 because this Bill doesn't just target immigration enforcement, it slams the door on vital public safety partnerships and puts California at risk. The U.S. Coast Guard is a frontline protector of our coasts right here in California. They handle search and rescue, drug interdiction, and yes, migrant interdiction at sea.

The Coast Guard operates under the DHS, although most people believe it falls under the Department of Defense. This bill's blanket ban on any secondary employment or volunteering with DHS would block experienced peace officers from serving in the Coast Guard. That's not protection, that's self-sabotage. And it doesn't stop there.

The same overreach hits Fema, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, the Countering of Weapons of Mass Destruction Office, to name a few. These aren't immigration outfits. They're essential homeland security partners. Why would the state want to cut off expertise and resources from the very agencies that help Californians?

This Bill will now force officers to choose their career as a public safety servant or gain experience and knowledge that help all of us. In addition, this Bill restricts personal freedom over policy disagreements and exposes private off duty work to CPRA in a time of doxing and threats.

CPRA was designed for government transparency and accountability, not to invade government employees' private financial arrangement or reveal personal details. Departments already require officers to submit secondary employment requests and obtain explicit approval to work in the—to prevent conflicts is the goal to provide bad actors with information to target officers, their families, and secondary employers.

Worst of all, what we're seeing out of the Legislature is the Bill continues to move California to a pre-9/11 security posture under the guise of protecting our immigrant community, fragmenting homeland security, isolating local expertise from federal partners, and weakening our collective defenses against real threats. Committee Members, we need cooperation, not less.

We have some major events coming to California. We've got the Super Bowl coming back, we've got World Cup, we got the LA Olympics. And we're going to continue to silo ourselves off from federal partners that provide invaluable resource for our local law enforcement to protect our communities.

I'm asking you to reject AB 5037. Protect California, protect our officers, and protect our partnerships.

Chair and Members, Jonathan Feldman with the California Police Chiefs Association. To build on the concerns by PORAC's President, it doesn't just prohibit any officer from secondary employment with DHS, it's any entity that assists with immigration enforcement. And the courts have long established definitions of what assist means. Cooperate, support, facilitate.

In City of Chicago v. Sessions, the courts treated assistance as including the sharing of information, same as in Malley v. Briggs. Together, you take those definitions, anyone that shares information with any federal entity that's targeting immigration enforcement would fall under this definition. This is not a new debate that we've had in this body.

This was core to the negotiations that the California Police Chiefs led on the California Values Act. It's core to the negotiations we led on asset forfeiture reform. Assisting with federal agencies is an incredibly broad term that has very, very serious consequences.

And in this case, it's not just prohibiting officers from partnering with Department of Homeland Security, but all Department of Defense branches of the military who constantly are sharing information with DHS. This means all of our reservists for the Marines, the Air Force, the National Guard, both state and federal, would be prohibited.

You'd fall under the definition of dishonesty if you continue employing with those groups. In addition, some of the broad terms in the Bill that have to do with casual contract based or other secondary employment complicates our Joint Federal Task Force. What if they're funded by the feds? What if they're working overtime and it's all federal dollars?

There's no knowledge requirement. There's no nexus to any type of what the officer knew, should have known. Doesn't matter what the primary mission is, if it's incidental coordination or not. All that falls under the requirements of this Bill. All those operations would be prohibited.

And then, there's no, I mean, talk about practically enforcing this Bill and the requirements on the officer themselves, how are they supposed to know this also applies to any contractor that has any business with any of these federal entities? Is the officer supposed to go through and identify every single business that has a contract with DHS?

Are they supposed to look to find out, is there any information that's been shared? Yes. Last point. They have to report any job offer that they also get to their employer, otherwise they will be decertified, which is the highest type of punishment any officer can receive from the state.

So, for all those reasons, we respectfully ask for a no vote.

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

Mr. Chair and Members, Cory Salzillo on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association, for the reasons stated, in opposition. Thank you.

David Bullock, representing SFV, as in Valor, Alliance, in opposition, and also as a union member. I stand in support of my brothers that are in law enforcement and unions. Thank you. In opposition.

Mr. Chair and Members, Matthew Sieverling on behalf of the California Peace Officers Association. I've also been asked to communicate the opposition to the California State Law Enforcement Association and the Paternal Order of Police. Thank you.

Chair, Members, Ryan Sherman, California Narcotic Officers Association and the other law enforcement associations listed in our opposition letter. In opposed. Thank you.

Anyone else hoping to be heard on the Bill? Okay, we'll turn it back to the Committee. Mr. Lackey, and then Ms. Nguyen.

First of all, excuse me, first of all, I'd like to align myself with the opposition remarks by the two folks that are up here. You know, we all understand that there's a high degree of controversy on this immigration enforcement. And that's not a debate here. What is, what is debate is whether this is a meaningful, meaningful remedy to the problem.

And I would say to you, let's look and see what the other separation has done, where we have said that there's no longer cooperation between our local law enforcement and our federal law enforcement. We see the tactics now where people—where these immigration people are going into neighborhoods because they can't cooperate with the people at the jails.

That is part of our problem. It's putting the officers at risk and the people in the neighborhood's at risk. This is not the right step. This is not fair. It's not meaningful. It's way too broad, and it doesn't focus on the real remedy. The real remedy is addressing the immigration enforcement tactics and what is going on.

This is a backdoor that misses the point and will make things worse, not better. So, I clearly will not be supporting it.

Thank you, Mr. Lackey. Ms. Nguyen.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. It is very clear to me, and it is no surprise that most of us here in California believe that ICE is terrorizing our streets and our communities and breaking families apart. I 100,000% agree with that. We've seen the videos. We've seen what's happening in our communities.

I've seen it locally here in my city as well, too. My hesitation is how broad the language is and that Department of Homeland Security—it isn't just ICE and Border Patrol. We're talking FEMA, we're talking Coast Guard, cybersecurity, and infrastructure protection and other roles that aren't directly tied to immigration enforcement.

I'm not sure if that's the intent that you're trying to do. I wholeheartedly agree that we need to ensure that we control the whole immigration and ICE and what they're doing to our communities.

But I also want to make sure that any disclosures that is a part of this Bill is narrowly tailored to the purpose of the Bill. And we're talking about immigration enforcement. And the language, I hope, would clearly reflect that. I want to support this Bill.

I really do, because I completely understand and agree with the intent of the Bill. But I would feel more comfortable if the Bill were tightened and focused specifically more on ICE and Border Patrol. So, for now, I have to stay off.

Okay, thank you, Assemblymember Nguyen. Are there other comments or questions from Committee Members? Mr. Ramos.

Thank you so much. And certainly, we do stand with you in opposing the Federal Government and their tactics towards our communities and the immigration policies that they do. There is no—there is no way you could justify ICE agents going into schools and taking children and those things.

But to paint a picture against all law enforcement in the state of California, I think we're missing some of the issues that are going on. I think we had bills here last year that have been deemed unconstitutional.

I think there's some that start to move in a direction that give false hope to a community that somehow we're going to be able to shed some of these things moving forward. I think the issue of federal agents and them being hired through the Federal government is something that's dealt with at the federal level.

I have looked into our area and I didn't find any of our agencies participating in this type of thing. We do know that it is a problem out there at the federal level in immigration, and we do stand wholeheartedly against those tactics.

But what we can't do is stand here and paintbrush local law enforcement to the same, the same picture, as they're out there defending our streets, our businesses, and our people. When federal agents abuse them, who do we call? We call our local law enforcement officers. And again, looking at this Bill, a couple questions come up. Constitutionality.

Does it even have the merit to move forward and to be enforced? And again, our local law enforcement in our district, we did check with them. They do have policies. They do look at these things as far as being able to get secondary jobs.

But what I did find during that time was a lot of our law enforcement officers overworked, working overtime, trying to make sure that they're doing the best for our community. We know that this is an emotional issue. And again, I will say I do not agree with the federal tactics going into areas and pulling people out.

But I also do not agree that we should paintbrush local law enforcement in the state of California in the same brush as federal agents. I think there is some common ground to be made.

I think it's time that we start to come together and start to look at those issues moving forward, instead of continuing to look at issues that continue to bring division in our area.

For these reasons, I will be laying—I'll be voting no on this Bill because I believe constitutionality and some of these things are things that still need to be looked at and worked on.

Thank you, Mr. Ramos. Mr. Gonzalez.

I want to thank the author for bringing this forward. I've said this from the dais many times before, and I'll say it again.

I represent Central Los Angeles, where our district has been targeted every single day since June 6th, simply because they are brown, simply because they are walking to work, simply because they are going to school, simply because they are just living in ICE enforcement agencies who take the bonuses, who take the consequences.

I was not here for the beginning of this conversation, so I do apologize for that. But I do want to echo the fact that local law enforcement are not the ones to be penalized and pointed the finger to because they are not cooperating with ICE agencies.

So, I'm good at separating that because I have seen in my own community when folks do call 911 about a kidnapping it's specific to doing crowd control and making sure that these ICE agents are not kidnapping everyday individuals.

Now, of course, we get into a clash where we don't necessarily see that happen as and I have defended on record local law enforcement for saying that they are not participating in this and I will continue to stand by that.

But I am going to push forward and say I am supporting this Bill and I want to thank the Member for bringing this forward because we have to do something here in California.

We have to showcase the fact that this Federal Administration does not have the power and the authority to kidnap our individuals without any sort of a penalty or process that hinders their ability from kidnapping our individuals, especially those who are just simply contributing to the fact that making California the fourth largest economy in the world and possibly now even the third.

So, look, again, reemphasizing the fact that we're not penalizing our local law enforcement. I represent Holland Back Police Station. I represent Rampart Police Station. I represent the Olympic Police Station. I represent the Detention Center. I represent the Sheriff's Department. My district in downtown Los Angeles is key and centralized to this.

I think this is just reinforcing the fact that if you take the, this job, and you make that decision to work for ICE and you get up every day and you follow the orders of one man rather than the agency, then you have to suffer those consequences of that.

And I want to thank the author again for shedding light on this. I have a very similar Bill that I am working with law enforcement on to make sure that we legally get this across the board.

But we've got to do everything that we can to push back against the federal Administration who is utilizing California as its political playground and taking advantage of our, of our people. Thank you to the author.

Thank you, Mr. Gonzalez. Mr. Harabedian.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to the author. Thank you to the witnesses in support and opposition. Appreciate the handshake before the opposition testified. I think the author very much respects law enforcement and there's a good relationship here and I don't think this Bill is going to get in the way of that.

I want to follow up on a question from or a statement by the opposition witness from PORAC, and you mentioned at the start of your testimony something to the effect of you don't know of any law enforcement officers, police officers who, who work for ICE.

Now, I don't know if that's what you meant or if you meant to say that none of them work for ICE in a illegal way. I just, I'm curious, how many local police officers, to your knowledge, work for the Department of Homeland Security and more specifically for ICE in a part time or contract basis?

You're going to talk about Department of Homeland Security. I know a ton of Coast Guard members that are that. But if you're talking specifically about Immigration Custom Enforcement, ICE, I know none. And actually, the analysis done for this Committee states that there is no known cases.

So, what you're doing is you're punishing the local law enforcement for federal. And it's not the case. I don't think you could be a cop and work for ICE. They're two separate investigative bodies. I just don't know how it would work.

Yeah, I would say under the California Values Act, it's very clear that officers cannot engage in immigration enforcement operations already. So, you've already been precluded from doing it. And again, reiterate that this is not just Department of Homeland Security. This is any entity that assists with.

And that is all of our federal agencies that routinely share information, all at the Department of Defense. Mr. Ramos, you don't have any officers that work for ICE, but you do have plenty that work for the military. Our reservists.

There's over 300 in LAPD alone that are military reserve officers that would have to give up that office holding if this were to go through.

Got it. So, assuming that the author and you work together to make this maybe a little bit more surgical, I'm not sure that's gonna happen to pinpoint ICE, how would this be negatively affecting your membership? And how would this be somehow infringing on their livelihood if none of them actually work for ICE?

Well, the way the Bill is currently written

Right, no, no. But the assumption is that.

If it's strictly geared towards ICE, I wouldn't see the issue there. The one concern that I do have is the CPRA. So, all peace officers in the state of California now will be required to expose all their secondary employment via CPRA request.

Are we the only profession that that happens to, so, I think that's a problem.